RHEL (was: Re: gEDA-user: More footprint stuff)

[Evan Lavelle <anti.spam1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Mozilla's given up on threading, so new subject]

Stuart Brorson wrote:
> > > Anyway, when a company wants to run a copy of RHEL, they are likely to
> > > also want the support & quality assurance that comes with the real
> > > McCoy; they are accordingly willing to pay.  And the advantage of
> > > GPL'ed software in this case is the openness, transparency, and
> > > (usually) stability of Linux.  Also, with Linux there is no vendor
> > > lock-in and mandatory upgrade treadmill.  Those qualitites are also
> > > worth paying for, if you are a serious company.
> >
> > That pretty much sums up RH's business model ;-)
>
>
> Indeed.   And I think it's a good model, too.  On one hand, you don't
> screw your customers for profit (like M$ does), and on the other hand,
> you have enough revenue that you can fund and support continued
> development of Linux. [1]

But RHEL costs ~$800 - $2500 *per year* for usable versions. If that's 
not "screwing your customers for profit", then I don't know what is. I 
have no problem with profit, but this model doesn't make sense. I would 
happily pay a few hundred $ for a stable professionally-supported and 
developed distribution, but I'm not paying it every year. M$ is much 
cheaper, and you can get updates indefinitely at no cost.

BTW, if anyone has a link to the stripped-out version, I'd appreciate 
it. I spent some time looking a couple of months ago and found nothing.

Evan