Linux Google OS coming..

[Chris Smart-6]

"http://blog.christophersmart.com/2009/07/08/google-os-running-linux-coming-this-year/"

-c
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Jason Stokes-2]

Exciting stuff -- especially if Google can figure out how to make money from this one.  Sometimes I think that Google is the last of the dot-coms, reinventing everything under the sun based purely on how cool it is without any coherent business plan.  Like, what was the point of the Chrome browser when Google is already the major sponsor of the Mozilla foundation, effectively making Google compete for market share with itself?  And how on earth did it come to the evaluation that Youtube was worth /six billion dollars/.  And so on.

It's not like Google doesn't produce useful stuff.  Just used google docs for a project and it turned out to be surprisingly useful.  But we didn't give them any money for it.  I'd love to work on Google OS.  Just pessimistic about its chances.  Remember BeOS?



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Ric de France]

Jason...

2009/7/8 Jason Stokes <glasper9@...>

>
> Exciting stuff -- especially if Google can figure out how to make money
> from this one.  Sometimes I think that Google is the last of the dot-coms,
> reinventing everything under the sun based purely on how cool it is without
> any coherent business plan.  Like, what was the point of the Chrome browser
> when Google is already the major sponsor of the Mozilla foundation,
> effectively making Google compete for market share with itself?  And how on
> earth did it come to the evaluation that Youtube was worth /six billion
> dollars/.  And so on.
>
> It's not like Google doesn't produce useful stuff.  Just used google docs
> for a project and it turned out to be surprisingly useful.  But we didn't
> give them any money for it.  I'd love to work on Google OS.  Just
> pessimistic about its chances.  Remember BeOS?
>

Here's a possibility for the monetisation thoughts...

People pay to advertise on Google's site. From that, you and I eventually
pay for Google - regardless if we even notice the advertising or not.

For example, if a soft drink maker advertises on Google, and people click on
the "Sponsored Links", then Google charges the soft drink maker. The soft
drink maker then passes on those charges by increasing their units to the
retailer, who then passes on those costs to you and I - the consumer. So
when you buy your drink for $2, maybe $0.03 of the cost of that drink goes
to Google - even if the consumer has a computer or not. Lots of clicks, lots
of can sold, lots of money passing hands...

Once google has the money, they can allocate it to other departments.

...Ric
--
Ric de France
Ph: [phone] (international) or 0412945554 (Australia)
==> Do you, uh... Gentoo? Gentoooo-hooo!! <==
==> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml <==
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Jason Stokes-2]

Hi Ric,

Ric de France <rdefrance@...> wrote:



> Here's a possibility for the monetisation thoughts...

> People pay to advertise on Google's site. From that, you and I eventually
> pay for Google - regardless if we even notice the advertising or not.

Sure, and that's apparently 97 percent of Google's revenue -- those little
sponsored  links that I never click on (and neither does anyone I know.)  I think
it works great for their search engine.   But I think Google OS will have to
stand on its own two feet as a product in its own right.

So is Google OS going to be, ultimately, /adware?/.  Unintrusive adware,
but adware nonetheless?  Or are they going for the preload market on
cheap netbooks?  If so, Microsoft is on to that market -- their discount
XP licensing has really killed Linux preloads on that platform.  

That's probably their best hope -- but if so, the Google component of the
OS probably won't be open source, as such.  Perhaps dual licensed...

I will wait with anticipation, anyway.  Luckily, Google seems to have rivers
of cash to subsidize things -- including, I just remembered, the Tesla
sports car line -- or otherwise, I wouldn't rate their chances.

Cheers,
Jason



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Roppola, Antti - BRS-2]

Jason wrote:

> So is Google OS going to be, ultimately, /adware?/.  Unintrusive
adware, but adware nonetheless?  

Perhaps not in the traditional sense.

It's certainly moving to a Yellow Pages model. If you are a business,
being in the Yellow Pages is a serious consideration.

Yellow Pages just keeping printing and sending me these huge phone books
for free. It's interesting that far from scuppering the street map
market, the inclusion of UBD street directories merely spawned a
separate mini Yellow Pages for your car.

Antti


------
IMPORTANT - This message has been issued by The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain sensitive and/or legally privileged material. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on.

Any reproduction, publication, communication, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of the information contained in this e-mail by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. The taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. If you have received this e-mail as part of a valid mailing list and no longer want to receive a message such as this one advise the sender by return e-mail accordingly. Only e-mail correspondence which includes this footer, has been authorised by DAFF

------

--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Hal Ashburner-2]

Microsoft have used their muscle to move in on the netbook market. This
puts microsoft between google apps and the machine where they can cause
trouble to google. (security updates that break ie compatibility with
apps? You can think of other ways they'll do this).
So Google are trying to fight back, make the computer really cheap, no
microsoft, and pay google for the apps or have them adware supported
depending on your preference and the scale of what you require.
All sounds fine and will continue to sound fine as long as they aren't
massively successful.
If they are, how this turns out is unclear, it may continue to be fine.
Or do they use their market share to start jacking up prices, squeezing
competitors, etc (remember when microsoft software was cheap and nasty
instead of just nasty?) or not? Nobody can say, any organisation in
google's position will tell you:
"no no no we're different us." Just like Microsoft did when talking IBM.
Just like apple did when talking microsoft (and forgot very quickly when
they got dominance in personal mp3 players & surrounding
infrastructure.) Oh dear, probably just started a flame war by using an
example.

Also worth mentioning as a google apps user that having all of your data
indexed by google might not be a great thing. Unexpected stuff happens.
Systems of government fall, countries get invaded, let's hope it never
happens here but it might. You're not just trusting google as they are
now, but as they might be in the future controlled by someone or
something you hate. "Don't be Evil" is a fine ideal and I agree with it,
but it's a philosophical discussion for google employees, not something
that offers a consumer any real protection at all.


As you can see from my email address I quite like google but let's all
keep our eyes open.
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Ian Bardsley-2]

Chris Smart wrote:
> "http://blog.christophersmart.com/2009/07/08/google-os-running-linux-coming-this-year/"
>
> -c
>  
I see this as the Kaizan principle in action.

Q. How do you eat an Elephant?

A. One small piece at a time!

Microsoft is the Elephant.  If Google can take just 10% of MS desktop
market,  there's a pretty big buck to be made.

Maybe this will motivate Notebook manufacturers  to offer their product
without pre-packaged Windows.   We can but hope.

Have fun

Ian Bardsley
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[steve jenkin-2]

Hal Ashburner wrote on 9/7/09 2:47 AM:

> Also worth mentioning as a google apps user that having all of your data
> indexed by google might not be a great thing.

> Unexpected stuff happens.
> Systems of government fall, countries get invaded, let's hope it never
> happens here but it might.

> You're not just trusting google as they are
> now, but as they might be in the future controlled by someone or
> something you hate.

> "Don't be Evil" is a fine ideal and I agree with it,
> but it's a philosophical discussion for google employees, not something
> that offers a consumer any real protection at all.


Hal,

Good points and mistrust/scepticism deservedly built from history.

Microsoft was never about anything *but* making money and dominating the
market. Their address says it all: One Microsoft Way.

Google started from a very different place and has at least espoused
some high ideals. You rightly point out that gives no consumer
protection and especially isn't future proof. (Adolf Hitler's reign was
just one year longer than John Howard's. The Berlin Wall came down
within 8 months of Tiananmen Square and 'Solidarity' was in power in
Poland just a year later. Yes, national politics can 'turn on a dime')

You didn't raise how search engines, Google included, bow to political
pressure and 'adapt' their searches in different countries. Like behind
The Great Firewall of China...

Google is too good to *not* use, but what happens if this all turns out
to be a giant "bait and switch". If in 10 or 20 years they pull a
Microsoft & price gouge, what do we all do??
Hope there's alternatives & competitors then, we can't do anything now...

On monetising an O/S: they are playing at a lot of levels.
It costs them very little to develop & release software compared to
their infrastructure costs. If they stymie Microsoft, that's a bonus.

For $1-5M/year they can run an interesting branding & marketing
experiment. It might lead to a paid product, it might not. That's been
one of the big learning of The Internet - it's really hard to pick
winners and harder to pick 'enabling technologies' and spin-offs...

If their O/S increases Brand Awareness of 'google', does that increase
"Intangibles" and make it worthwhile? Fairfax Media lists $8B of assets,
$6B of which are "intangibles" - Goodwill and value of Mastheads...

BTW, an increase in asset value is considered 'income'. It wouldn't take
much for a "free" O/S to actual contribute nicely to profits without any
cash flow. Accounting weirdness, but good for stockholders :-(

cheers
steve

--
Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
0412 786 915 ([phone])
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

sjenkin@... http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Alex Satrapa-5]

On 08/07/2009, at 17:23 , steve jenkin wrote:

> Google is too good to *not* use ...

I've been getting by quite nicely with iWorks (Pages, Numbers,  
Keynote) and Bing.com for the last little while.

Saying Google is "too good to not use" is like saying, "crack is too  
good not to take..."  Sure, once you start using it you just can't  
leave it alone. Best bet is to not start using.

Alex




--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Paul Wayper]

On 08/07/09 17:37, Alex Satrapa wrote:

> On 08/07/2009, at 17:23 , steve jenkin wrote:
>
>> Google is too good to *not* use ...
>
> I've been getting by quite nicely with iWorks (Pages, Numbers, Keynote)
> and Bing.com for the last little while.
>
> Saying Google is "too good to not use" is like saying, "crack is too
> good not to take..." Sure, once you start using it you just can't leave
> it alone. Best bet is to not start using.

Both these approaches ('too good not to use', 'do not get hooked') are the
sorts of arguments applied to people don't know any better, or don't think of
the consequences.  We also need to talk about the other 90% of us who don't
impulse-buy whatever's advertised on a search page.

The purpose of Google OS seems fairly clear to me.  Make the web experience
both blindingly fast and amazingly secure, and people will want to do
everything via the web, which is where Google dominates the advertising space.

The thing that Google struggles constantly with is the speed of various
browsers - IE's Javascript performance is lame, and it controls 40% of the
browser market according to
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [1].  They also have to
deal with various incompatibilities in rendering, and all the methods for
working around these problems make pages larger and add to the delays and
bandwidth.  Making an OS optimised for one task - browsing - with a really
fast Javascript interpreter makes a lot of sense for Google.

And the other thing that drives people away from using the web is security
fears.  Malware, spyware, and worms all threaten your privacy and make
browsing inherently risky - having an OS that has absolutely minimal exposure
makes a lot of sense.  There's still the risk of where your data is stored -
man in the middle attacks, phishing, and the inherent 'where's that cloud
again?' problem - that isn't solved this way, but fundamentally these risks
are reduced when Google can lock down the control of both browser and OS.

The big question is: will they allow other apps?  Will you be able to run
Firefox on GoogleOS?  If not, why not?  If so, then where do they stop?  At
what point does it cease to be a customised Linux distro and start being a
single application that happens to have its own OS to support it?  Will it be
just a bootable image you can write to a USB stick or CD, or will you have to
install it to a hard disk?  All of this depends on exactly how much Google
want to work with the outside world.

Judging by Android, Wave, Code, Maps, and a bunch of other cool stuff that
Google do, I don't think we have a huge amount to fear.  Yes, they have a
corporate agenda.  But I think we'd know by now if they were going to suddenly
decide to gouge everyone for advertising bucks and make their next trillion.
When I look at Google's size and diversity and their manifest involvement in
the world and FOSS, I think it's increasingly unlikely that they'll do
something really ludicrous just to earn a buck - they're already doing that
just fine with their existing policies.

In short: healthy scepticism is a good thing, but let's not go inventing
conspiracy theories about evil empires just because we've been burned by them
in the past...

Have fun,

Paul

[1] Why did I not hear the FOSS or Mozilla worlds explode with joy in February
2009, when Firefox became officially more used than IE (at least, according to
that page)?
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Jason Stokes-2]

The standard edition of Windows Server 2008 is arbitrarily limited to 32 GB of memory.  If you need more, you have to upgrade to to the enterprise edition.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001283.html

Reminds me of the Windows XP firewall, which is arbitrarily limited to blocking incoming ports, not outgoing ones.  Not that blocking outgoing ports is all that useful, but simply blocking port 25 by unauthorized programs by default would have caused bot-spammers a serious headache.  Or the endless editions of Office, where if you want all the features, you have to pay an outrageous price.

Whatever you can say about Google, it's hard to imagine them selling a deliberately crippled product like this, if only because they are the up-and-coming competition and they couldn't get away with it.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Jason Stokes-2]

> Judging by Android, Wave, Code, Maps, and a bunch of other cool

> stuff that Google do, I don't think we have a huge amount to fear.  
> Yes, they have a corporate agenda.  But I think we'd know by now
> if they were going to suddenly decide to gouge everyone for advertising
> bucks and make their next trillion.

Google is a corporation.  I expect it to do whatever maximizes its profits,
corporate culture notwithstanding.

Google is much less secure than I think people realize.  It has played
fast and loose with copyright issues.  By buying Youtube, it has inherited
a potentially incredibly huge copyright liability case and its google
books service, despite some agreements, is also a massive exposure
(I've read the guts of entire books for free on its "book preview" service.)
 Its pockets are not infinite and it has spent zilions on products like
Chrome, gmail and google docs that have given it next to no
return at all.  As the last of the dot-coms, there will be a crunch
time where it all has to pay, and at that point, expect a serious
time of reckoning.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Paul Wayper]

On 08/07/09 20:38, Jason Stokes wrote:
> Google is a corporation.  I expect it to do whatever maximizes its profits,
> corporate culture notwithstanding.

Humans are evil.  I expect you to try and murder me as soon as look at me, no
matter how nice you've said you'll be in the past.

Really, this kind of 'corporations are inherently evil' thing is
misunderstanding the whole thing.  Corporations are only as good or as bad as
their leaders.  In the 1920s corporations looked after their employees - in
Japan they still do.  I see corporations as a manifestation of the saying "in
order for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good people to do nothing"
- i.e. only by the thoughtful effort of everyone at Google, especially upper
management, does it uphold its 'do no evil' motto.

> Google is much less secure than I think people realize.  It has played
> fast and loose with copyright issues.  By buying Youtube, it has inherited
> a potentially incredibly huge copyright liability case and its google
> books service, despite some agreements, is also a massive exposure
> (I've read the guts of entire books for free on its "book preview" service.)
>   Its pockets are not infinite and it has spent zillions on products like
> Chrome, gmail and google docs that have given it next to no
> return at all.  As the last of the dot-coms, there will be a crunch
> time where it all has to pay, and at that point, expect a serious
> time of reckoning.

Well, I for one would love to see some of those alleged submarine patents on
the Theora codec come out and try their hand at suing Google for putting
Theora in Chrome.  Because you can bet dollars to cents that it will be on for
all players and the result will not be go well for the patent holder, just as
the SCO affair finally went down by trying to take on Novell and IBM.

I think what's happening here is that we're seeing the real proof of the law
system - that what can you do is what you can get away with.  When you're a
very large company that can afford good lawyers, you tend to move the law
around you.  Put simply, no-one's going to sue Google for previewing books and
hosting videos because no-one can construct a case so water-tight that Google
can't get out of it.

And, ultimately, what everyone knows is that even though the book preview
service is showing people copyrighted pages, it increases book sales (look,
for example, at Baen's increasing sales by offering its first editions of
series online for free - even sales of those books offered for free on its
website are up!)  Videos on YouTube increase exposure of TV shows, music
tracks, ads and movies.  The media corporations are at last vaguely realising
that generating buzz is more important than wringing every last drop from an
industry they no longer control.  The authors union tried to sue Google for
the book preview thing, as I recall, and they ended up looking like grasping
morons versus a company that just wanted to put information in front of people.

Anyway, I for one welcome our new Google overlords... :-)

Have fun,

Paul
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Mike Carden]

> When I look at Google's size and diversity and their manifest
> involvement in the world and FOSS, I think it's increasingly unlikely that
> they'll do something really ludicrous just to earn a buck - they're already
> doing that just fine with their existing policies.


I know a handful of Googlers personally and several more by proxy.
They can no more be tarred by the same brush than you and I, but on
the whole they are people who at least understand FOSS quite well.

Google is a business and needs to earn money. If I worked for Google I
would be trying to make that sustainable. I think that their many
employees are doing that and more than a few are doing so with a free
software ethos.

--
MC
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Boyd Wilding]

This is not new, and it is not news either - 2003 had the same (or very
similar) limitations. If you read the doco (or the textbooks) beforehand you
wouldn't be surprised about this.

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Jason Stokes <glasper9@...> wrote:

>
> The standard edition of Windows Server 2008 is arbitrarily limited to 32 GB
> of memory.  If you need more, you have to upgrade to to the enterprise
> edition.
>
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001283.html
>
> Reminds me of the Windows XP firewall, which is arbitrarily limited to
> blocking incoming ports, not outgoing ones.  Not that blocking outgoing
> ports is all that useful, but simply blocking port 25 by unauthorized
> programs by default would have caused bot-spammers a serious headache.  Or
> the endless editions of Office, where if you want all the features, you have
> to pay an outrageous price.
>
> Whatever you can say about Google, it's hard to imagine them selling a
> deliberately crippled product like this, if only because they are the
> up-and-coming competition and they couldn't get away with it.
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
> Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux@...
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>

--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Boyd <boydwilding@...>:
> This is not new, and it is not news either - 2003 had the same (or very
> similar) limitations. If you read the doco (or the textbooks) beforehand you
> wouldn't be surprised about this.
>

But you're missing the point of the whole article, which is revealed
at the bottom.

Nevertheless, I think Red Hat also does this sort of thing. Get the
low end server edition you can only run it on a system with 2 CPUs and
8 GB RAM. Buy a higher support license and you get support for 8 CPUs
and 32GB RAM.. or something like that.

-c
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Lana Brindley]

2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>

> 2009/7/9 Boyd <boydwilding@...>:
> > This is not new, and it is not news either - 2003 had the same (or very
> > similar) limitations. If you read the doco (or the textbooks) beforehand
> you
> > wouldn't be surprised about this.
> >
>
> But you're missing the point of the whole article, which is revealed
> at the bottom.
>
> Nevertheless, I think Red Hat also does this sort of thing. Get the
> low end server edition you can only run it on a system with 2 CPUs and
> 8 GB RAM. Buy a higher support license and you get support for 8 CPUs
> and 32GB RAM.. or something like that.
>

Sorry, Chris, but you've got that a bit mixed up.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a free operating system - there's no restriction
on what hardware you can run it on.

That said, you only get the support you pay for.

So, I can download and install RHEL on a machine with 16 CPUs and 64GB of
RAM, and use it to my heart's content. When I call up the RH Support number,
they will provide support for up to n CPUs and nGB of RAM, depending on the
support level I have.

Support level information is here, in case you're interested:
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/purchasing_guide.html

L


--
Cheers! Lana

The artist doesn't have time to listen to the critics. The ones who want to
be writers read the reviews, the ones who want to write don't have the time
to read reviews.
 - William Faulkner

-----------------------------------------------
http://lanabrindley.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------

Please avoid sending me Word, Powerpoint or Windows Media attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more
information.

------------------------------------------------
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Ric de France]

Paul,

2009/7/8 Paul Wayper <paulway@...>

> Humans are evil.  I expect you to try and murder me as soon as look at me,
> no matter how nice you've said you'll be in the past.
>
> Really, this kind of 'corporations are inherently evil' thing is
> misunderstanding the whole thing.  Corporations are only as good or as bad
> as their leaders.  In the 1920s corporations looked after their employees -
> in Japan they still do.  I see corporations as a manifestation of the saying
> "in order for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good people to do
> nothing" - i.e. only by the thoughtful effort of everyone at Google,
> especially upper management, does it uphold its 'do no evil' motto.
>

Seen "The Corporation" doco? http://www.thecorporation.com/

According to the video's research, to be incorporated was a good thing. It
allowed for a pooling of people's resources to achieve a good, whether it be
for a community or a subset of the community. It only all turned bad once
corporate lawyers got involved, and made "making a profit" the number 1
agenda item.

I agree with you on the point you've raised. Just because Google is a
corporation, doesn't mean it has to be a bad one. Let's just hope that they
know that too!

;-)

...Ric
--
Ric de France
Ph: [phone] (international) or 0412945554 (Australia)
==> Do you, uh... Gentoo? Gentoooo-hooo!! <==
==> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml <==
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Roppola, Antti - BRS-2]

This is an ongoing conundrum for software firms that has been made
harder by virtualisation and multi-core. It was easier a few years ago,
just license by CPUs or power units. RAM is just another way of
approximating how much computing you are doing and charging you
proportionally.

While they could sell software at a flat rate, they don't really want
you to buy one copy and stick it on a server so none of your friends
need to buy a copy. While they want to make software affordable to
ordinary folk, they also want a slice of the Dot Com bonanza their
products (at least in part) enabled.

Cheers,

Antti


------
IMPORTANT - This message has been issued by The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain sensitive and/or legally privileged material. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on.

Any reproduction, publication, communication, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of the information contained in this e-mail by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. The taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. If you have received this e-mail as part of a valid mailing list and no longer want to receive a message such as this one advise the sender by return e-mail accordingly. Only e-mail correspondence which includes this footer, has been authorised by DAFF

------

--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>
> Sorry, Chris, but you've got that a bit mixed up.

Thanks for the heads up :-)

>
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a free operating system - there's no restriction
> on what hardware you can run it on.
>
> That said, you only get the support you pay for.
>
> So, I can download and install RHEL on a machine with 16 CPUs and 64GB of
> RAM, and use it to my heart's content.

Cool, where can I download it? Because if I download the source and
compile it myself it's no longer RHEL and I'll get sued if I try to
call it that.

> When I call up the RH Support number,
> they will provide support for up to n CPUs and nGB of RAM, depending on the
> support level I have.

Right, so Red Hat limits what hardware you can run your software on,
just like Microsoft.

I know they will argue, it's about support, etc. But how does the
amount of RAM make any difference? Red Hat, IMO, is restricting what
users can do in order to make extra cash.

I'm not saying that's bad, but I don't think it's much different to
Microsoft's offerings except that there you pay a license fee for the
software and with Red Hat you pay a "support. fee".

-c
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux