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

[primorec <geda.mail@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.centos.org/


On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:50:50 +0000, Evan Lavelle
<anti.spam1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [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
> 
>