Linux Google OS coming..

[Lana Brindley]

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

> 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.

You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something with
their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it, though.

I have CDs if you want a copy. Failing that, call them up and ask for one.


> > 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.


No. No they don't. They limit what they will support. Not what you can run
your hardware on.

Put it this way ...

When you install Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you can run that software wherever
you want, you can rebundle, repackage, pull the branding out and stick your
own in, use it on multiple machines, etc.

When you install RHEL you can do all those things too. There is no
restriction to where you can run that software.

When you have trouble with Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you google, you come to a
LUG, or you use a paid-for service.

When you have trouble with RHEL, you can do any of those things, OR you can
call the RH tech support line. It's what you get on the end of that
particular phonecall that might be limited.


>
> 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.


It's not restricting what users can do, it's restricting what they offer for
the support money you pay. Just like any other paid-for technical support.


>
>
> 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".


I see a big difference here. And I think you're mixing up the ideas of "will
run on" and "will be supported". Whether it's bad or not is a matter of
personal opinion.

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

[steve jenkin-2]

Chris Smart wrote on 9/7/09 12:47 PM:

> 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.

CentOS and friends.
exactly this, but all copyrighted material, like images, removed.

Others may know more detail.
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[steve jenkin-2]

Ric de France wrote on 9/7/09 11:06 AM:

>> ... 'corporations are inherently evil' thing is
>> misunderstanding the whole thing.

> Seen "The Corporation" doco? http://www.thecorporation.com/
>
> According to the video's research, to be incorporated was a good thing.

There are a few fundamental structures that have led to the world as we
know it:

 - The "Rule of Law" & public policing. aka The Westminster system.
 - efficient communications & transport (post, phone, roads, ...)
 - Pacoli & 'double-entry' book-keeping
 - Corporations.
 - (please name others)

Incorporation and 'the corporate veil' shifted risk from proprietor to
lender.
Shareholder assets are protected if the company fails.

This is necessary for public companies & sharemarkets.
If they didn't exist, we'd still be in a world of "robber barons".

> 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!

Enron, World Com, Vivendi, Tyco, Arthur Andersen's and even Bernie
Madoff - all were rogue, all were breaking the law, all (CEO & Senior
Mgrs) did this intentionally.

Like the people running them, most companies, most of the time are just
getting by. It's not that often corporations are intentionally "evil".

But when a large company is led by sociopaths and criminals, the impact
is huge. That said, "nice guys finish last" generally applies. You get
better sales by being aggressive competitors...


There is a completely different type of "evilness" - things that might
offend your morals, but are legal:

- like tobacco (kills people when used correctly)
- 'price gouging' by monopolists or market giants
   (Telstra, Microsoft, ...)
- 'inflated prices' by big Pharma, exploiting live-saving drugs...
- Add your own...


The political system is how Laws are changed.
Moral outrage is its fuel for change.
Democracies allow its expression and change, however grudgingly.


Free, Open & Libre Software are one aspect of a social revolution.
But even within our ranks, individuals hold their own unique beliefs and
their are many competing ideological views.

Where do we draw the line on this discussion??
It's open-ended and in the end goes to individual morals & ideology.

A better question is:
 How do we have fruitful discussions on areas we don't have consensus??

>
> ;-)
>
> ...Ric
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Ric de France]

Chris,

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

> > 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.
>

RedHat (and this is not a plug for their services) is a very approachable
company - especially since I had dealings with them in Melbourne a few years
ago. They are more than happy to allow potential clients to sign up to their
website, download a trial edition of their OS, and have a 30 day limited
support trial.

Anyone taking one of their courses usually leaves with the latest copy of
their OS, as well as a copy of the Fedora OS. The RHEL OS only has limited
support for 30 days as well. You could start by looking at
http://rhn.redhat.com

If you have any problem, contact me off list and I will put you in contact
with a few guys I know that still work in RedHat. I'm sure they'll assist
where possible.

...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

[Lana Brindley]

2009/7/9 Ric de France <rdefrance@...>

> Chris,
>
> 2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> RedHat (and this is not a plug for their services) is a very approachable
> company - especially since I had dealings with them in Melbourne a few
> years
> ago. They are more than happy to allow potential clients to sign up to
> their
> website, download a trial edition of their OS, and have a 30 day limited
> support trial.
>
> Anyone taking one of their courses usually leaves with the latest copy of
> their OS, as well as a copy of the Fedora OS. The RHEL OS only has limited
> support for 30 days as well. You could start by looking at
> http://rhn.redhat.com
>
> If you have any problem, contact me off list and I will put you in contact
> with a few guys I know that still work in RedHat. I'm sure they'll assist
> where possible.

Or, if you feel so inclined, you can contact me. I'm not a guy, but I do
work for Red Hat ;)

L

>
>
> ...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
>

--
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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something with
> their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
> stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it, though.

Yeah, but you said I can "download and install RHEL on a machine" and
then call them for support. But I can't do that unless I first
purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux support license, right?

I know they have a 30 day trial, but that's different to being able to
install RHEL and then paying for support if an when needed down the
track.

In short, you cannot install RHEL without paying for support. Or am I wrong?

So your statement about installing RHEL on any machine you like with
any specifications, appears to be incorrect.

And so if you have more than 2 CPU sockets in a system you have to pay
for more support, even though you might not ever use it.

>> Right, so Red Hat limits what hardware you can run your software on,
>> just like Microsoft.
>
> No. No they don't. They limit what they will support. Not what you can run
> your hardware on.

Well... they still do, because if I am running RHEL on a system with 3
CPUs I get no support. Only until I pay them more money will they
support that system in its entirety. So actually they do control/limit
what I can run RHEL on, because if my current support doesn't cover it
then it's as good as not running at all. They just do it in a
different way to Microsoft.

Sure I can install RHEL on anything, but then it's not RHEL because it
voids my support.

> Put it this way ...
> When you install Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you can run that software wherever
> you want, you can rebundle, repackage, pull the branding out and stick your
> own in, use it on multiple machines, etc.
> When you install RHEL you can do all those things too. There is no
> restriction to where you can run that software.

But there is. For example, I cannot repackage my kernel on RHEL
without breaking my support.

I think there is a difference between what you consider to be RHEL and
the sourcecode. They are two different things. RHEL is the commercial
product and you certainly cannot do what you want with that.

Or you can, but Red Hat takes your money and gives you no support.

Microsoft says, "Pay us more money or we'll just disable that extra
12GB RAM you just put in."

Red Hat says, "Pay us more money or we'll won't support you at all."

That's restricting what people can and can't do with their software,
the two companies just do it in two different ways.

> When you have trouble with Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you google, you come to a
> LUG, or you use a paid-for service.
> When you have trouble with RHEL, you can do any of those things, OR you can
> call the RH tech support line. It's what you get on the end of that
> particular phonecall that might be limited.

Yeah, so if you call Red Hat and you haven't paid for a 3 CPU socket
system then you get nothing. Therefore they are limiting how you can
run their software.

> It's not restricting what users can do, it's restricting what they offer for
> the support money you pay. Just like any other paid-for technical support.
>

But they are restricting what users can do, because users cannot get
support on their installed system.

>
> I see a big difference here. And I think you're mixing up the ideas of "will
> run on" and "will be supported". Whether it's bad or not is a matter of
> personal opinion.

I get what you're saying. Red Hat doesn't stop the system from booting
if you change the specs, but your support is dead. They aren't
literally stopping what you can run Red Hat EL on, but they are
because of their support system.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>
> Or, if you feel so inclined, you can contact me. I'm not a guy, but I do
> work for Red Hat ;)
>

Pretty sure "guy" is a unisex term these days ;-)

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

[Lana Brindley]

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

> 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> >
> > Or, if you feel so inclined, you can contact me. I'm not a guy, but I do
> > work for Red Hat ;)
> >
>
> Pretty sure "guy" is a unisex term these days ;-)
>
> -c
>

That's debatable ;)
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

[lloy0076-2]

Damn,

I'll roll my own enterprise Linux and provide support on anything for
nothing (because I'd be forcing you to buy my support if you so much as
charged me for it - of course you can install the product yourself but I
won't support you).

Anyone want shares in my company - I think I can make money by
supporting everything for nothing?

DSL

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Smart <mail@...>
To: Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>
Cc: CLUG List <linux@...>
Subject: Re: [clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:33:24 +1000


2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something with
> their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
> stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it, though.

Yeah, but you said I can "download and install RHEL on a machine" and
then call them for support. But I can't do that unless I first
purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux support license, right?

I know they have a 30 day trial, but that's different to being able to
install RHEL and then paying for support if an when needed down the
track.

In short, you cannot install RHEL without paying for support. Or am I wrong?

So your statement about installing RHEL on any machine you like with
any specifications, appears to be incorrect.

And so if you have more than 2 CPU sockets in a system you have to pay
for more support, even though you might not ever use it.

>> Right, so Red Hat limits what hardware you can run your software on,
>> just like Microsoft.
>
> No. No they don't. They limit what they will support. Not what you can run
> your hardware on.

Well... they still do, because if I am running RHEL on a system with 3
CPUs I get no support. Only until I pay them more money will they
support that system in its entirety. So actually they do control/limit
what I can run RHEL on, because if my current support doesn't cover it
then it's as good as not running at all. They just do it in a
different way to Microsoft.

Sure I can install RHEL on anything, but then it's not RHEL because it
voids my support.

> Put it this way ...
> When you install Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you can run that software wherever
> you want, you can rebundle, repackage, pull the branding out and stick your
> own in, use it on multiple machines, etc.
> When you install RHEL you can do all those things too. There is no
> restriction to where you can run that software.

But there is. For example, I cannot repackage my kernel on RHEL
without breaking my support.

I think there is a difference between what you consider to be RHEL and
the sourcecode. They are two different things. RHEL is the commercial
product and you certainly cannot do what you want with that.

Or you can, but Red Hat takes your money and gives you no support.

Microsoft says, "Pay us more money or we'll just disable that extra
12GB RAM you just put in."

Red Hat says, "Pay us more money or we'll won't support you at all."

That's restricting what people can and can't do with their software,
the two companies just do it in two different ways.

> When you have trouble with Fedora/Ubuntu/$DISTRO you google, you come to a
> LUG, or you use a paid-for service.
> When you have trouble with RHEL, you can do any of those things, OR you can
> call the RH tech support line. It's what you get on the end of that
> particular phonecall that might be limited.

Yeah, so if you call Red Hat and you haven't paid for a 3 CPU socket
system then you get nothing. Therefore they are limiting how you can
run their software.

> It's not restricting what users can do, it's restricting what they offer for
> the support money you pay. Just like any other paid-for technical support.
>

But they are restricting what users can do, because users cannot get
support on their installed system.

>
> I see a big difference here. And I think you're mixing up the ideas of "will
> run on" and "will be supported". Whether it's bad or not is a matter of
> personal opinion.

I get what you're saying. Red Hat doesn't stop the system from booting
if you change the specs, but your support is dead. They aren't
literally stopping what you can run Red Hat EL on, but they are
because of their support system.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076@...>:
> Anyone want shares in my company - I think I can make money by supporting
> everything for nothing?
>

We're not arguing about the business model.
I'm just saying that Red Hat _does_ restrict how you can run their software.

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

[Lana Brindley]

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

> 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> > You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something with
> > their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
> > stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it,
> though.
>
> Yeah, but you said I can "download and install RHEL on a machine" and
> then call them for support. But I can't do that unless I first
> purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux support license, right?


Wrong. You can run an RH system on any system you want, for as long as you
want. You can then call them up and - for a price - get support.

I run RHEL5 on my personal home server (non-work related) without a support
contract, and am not breaking any laws. I have access to all features, and I
have not paid a single red (ha ha) cent for it. I maintain it myself, and if
I run into problems I do the same thing as I do for my other machines - I
google, I ask CLUG, I phone a friend. If I wanted RH tech support, I can
ring a certain 1800 number, give them my credit card number, and get
support.

>
> >
> > I see a big difference here. And I think you're mixing up the ideas of
> "will
> > run on" and "will be supported". Whether it's bad or not is a matter of
> > personal opinion.
>
> I get what you're saying. Red Hat doesn't stop the system from booting
> if you change the specs, but your support is dead. They aren't
> literally stopping what you can run Red Hat EL on, but they are
> because of their support system.
>

How?

I'm still completely failing to get your point.

Yes, I work for Red Hat. I don't work in sales, and I don't really care what
OS you run (or what support package you have). What I do know is that very
rarely will you call RH support and have someone make you run through a
complete hardware spec before they decide to help you. I do have a problem
with FUD being spread about Red Hat support. The RH support guys I've met
(and I've met a few) are all amazingly smart people, who are very committed
to open source. Most of them are also very active in the community, and big
contributors to Linux in their spare time, as well as their work hours. They
would probably also be extraordinarily upset that others in the community
perceive RH to be 'crippling' the product in the search for more funds. If
that were the case, RH would be haemorrhaging staff.

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

[Nathan O'Sullivan-5]

Lana Brindley wrote:

> 2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>
>
>  
>> 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>>    
>>> You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something with
>>> their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
>>> stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it,
>>>      
>> though.
>>
>> Yeah, but you said I can "download and install RHEL on a machine" and
>> then call them for support. But I can't do that unless I first
>> purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux support license, right?
>>    
>
>
> Wrong. You can run an RH system on any system you want, for as long as you
> want. You can then call them up and - for a price - get support.
>
> I run RHEL5 on my personal home server (non-work related) without a support
> contract, and am not breaking any laws. I have access to all features, and I
> have not paid a single red (ha ha) cent for it. I maintain it myself, and if
> I run into problems I do the same thing as I do for my other machines - I
> google, I ask CLUG, I phone a friend. If I wanted RH tech support, I can
> ring a certain 1800 number, give them my credit card number, and get
> support.
>
>  

Assuming you can actually get a copy, which as far I know you can't.
There's certainly nowhere obvious on redhat's site to download it from.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:

>
> Wrong. You can run an RH system on any system you want, for as long as you
> want. You can then call them up and - for a price - get support.
> I run RHEL5 on my personal home server (non-work related) without a support
> contract, and am not breaking any laws. I have access to all features, and I
> have not paid a single red (ha ha) cent for it. I maintain it myself, and if
> I run into problems I do the same thing as I do for my other machines - I
> google, I ask CLUG, I phone a friend. If I wanted RH tech support, I can
> ring a certain 1800 number, give them my credit card number, and get
> support.

OK, that's pretty good. So where can I download it from?

>
> How?
> I'm still completely failing to get your point.

I'm obviously not making a very good point :-)

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

[James Polley-2]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>wrote:

> 2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>
>
> > 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> > > You will get sued by any company if you try to distribute something
> with
> > > their branding and without their blessing. There is absolutely nothing
> > > stopping you downloading the source and doing what you want with it,
> > though.
>

You can even run it through something as simple as "s/Red Hat/Unbreakable",
redistribute it, and charge for support.

Well, not quite, you have to change a few other things as well - logos and
so on.

Try doing that with Windows.

>
> >
> > Yeah, but you said I can "download and install RHEL on a machine" and
> > then call them for support. But I can't do that unless I first
> > purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux support license, right?
>
>
> Wrong. You can run an RH system on any system you want, for as long as you
> want. You can then call them up and - for a price - get support.
>
> I run RHEL5 on my personal home server (non-work related) without a support
> contract, and am not breaking any laws. I have access to all features, and
> I
> have not paid a single red (ha ha) cent for it. I maintain it myself, and
> if
> I run into problems I do the same thing as I do for my other machines - I
> google, I ask CLUG, I phone a friend. If I wanted RH tech support, I can
> ring a certain 1800 number, give them my credit card number, and get
> support.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I see a big difference here. And I think you're mixing up the ideas of
> > "will
> > > run on" and "will be supported". Whether it's bad or not is a matter of
> > > personal opinion.
> >
> > I get what you're saying. Red Hat doesn't stop the system from booting
> > if you change the specs, but your support is dead. They aren't
> > literally stopping what you can run Red Hat EL on, but they are
> > because of their support system.
> >

Bullshit.

Even if you're in the position where you've determined that you have a
business need for paid support, the fact that Red Hat charge $x for
one configuration and $y for another configuration doesn't limit you.
There are plenty of other companies who will happily take your money
in exchange for a support contract.
I have no idea who any of them are (never having been in this position), but
I'm sure there are some out there who are cheaper than Red Hat.

But - there's no need to find yourself in that position. You have access to
the source, you have the right to do whatever you want with it - if support
is so critical to your business, it might end up cheaper to hire some of
your own experts - and no matter what your need, anything from simple
configuration of Kickstart (does RHEL still use that?) right through to
specialized kernel tuning and modification can be done by your hired staff.

With Windows, you have only once choice of vendor - you do get a choice of
middleman, but ultimately all your money is going back to Microsoft If they
impose through the EULA a limit on 32Gb of RAM, there's no (legal) way for
you to get around that - except for going back to Microsoft (or one of their
blessed middlemen) and paying as much extra money as they ask for.

If you choose Red Hat, you have a choice: either you decided that you *must*
have support, and it *must* be from Red Hat, and so you limit your system to
what they'll support - or you decide that it's more important that you have
the extra RAM, and seek support elsewhere.

>
>
> How?
>
> I'm still completely failing to get your point.
>
> Yes, I work for Red Hat. I don't work in sales, and I don't really care
> what
> OS you run (or what support package you have). What I do know is that very
> rarely will you call RH support and have someone make you run through a
> complete hardware spec before they decide to help you. I do have a problem
> with FUD being spread about Red Hat support. The RH support guys I've met
> (and I've met a few) are all amazingly smart people, who are very committed
> to open source. Most of them are also very active in the community, and big
> contributors to Linux in their spare time, as well as their work hours.
> They
> would probably also be extraordinarily upset that others in the community
> perceive RH to be 'crippling' the product in the search for more funds. If
> that were the case, RH would be haemorrhaging staff.
>
> 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
>

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>:
>
> OK, that's pretty good. So where can I download it from?

According to this Red Hat document:
"http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-1199"

You can download the ISO images from the Red Hat Network.
"https://rhn.redhat.com/rhn/sales/LoginInfo.do"

In order to log into the Red Hat Network, you need to first have
purchased support and have a valid subscription:
"Red Hat logins are associated with valid, active subscriptions either
at purchase time or during the activation of a subscription number."

At least that's my understanding.
If you can indeed download Red Hat Enterprise Linux for free and use
it however you want, then I'm dead wrong and am ready to apologise.

Looking forward to seeing that free download link!

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

[Wally-2]

RH is a bad example for comparison.

Try Holden instead.

Don't buy a Barina and expect it to be able to tow a large caravan one
year later because your requirements have changed.

Microsoft offer a scaled solution. If you need a server and you are a
small company you can buy std version for X dollars that will run on
the hardware that you would be expected to have.

If you are a mega company you can buy the enterprise version for 10x X
dollars that allows you to run your 64G 8way sql server.

If you are a business that is running systems that NEED that sort of
hardware you can afford to pay Microsoft for the enterprise version.
(or you need to seriously look at your business model)

If you don't want to pay, don't, no one is forcing you to buy MS. You
accept their business structure when you buy from their menu.

For memory I believe HP-UX and Sun also sell software based on hardware
limits?


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

[Hal Ashburner-2]

Chris Smart wrote:
> If you can indeed download Red Hat Enterprise Linux for free and use
> it however you want, then I'm dead wrong and am ready to apologise.
>
> Looking forward to seeing that free download link!
>  
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
I'd go with that apology, myself. ;)
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>>
>> OK, that's pretty good. So where can I download it from?
>
> Source is here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/

OK, but I don't want the source.

> If you want ISOs, then just grab CentOS. It's RHEL without the branding, and
> AFAIK their updates only lag behind RH's by a few days to a week. (I did

OK, but so that we're on the same page, I want RHEL, that is a copy of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux the commercial product. I don't want CentOS.
I want RHEL. That's what we're talking about.

You said that I can download and install RHEL on any machine I want
and do support myself without paying Red Hat a cent (unless I want
support down the track on my installed systems).

So can I download the ISO images of RHEL?

> Or, you can ask me for a boxed copy (since I have a few, and I'm happy to
> share).

OK, that would be great, but I'd like to hear about about the above too :-)

> Or, you can give them a call. They won't bite, I promise!

OK, I did. Here's the transcript:

Me: "Can I download a copy of RHEL 5 free from the Internet, or do I
have to pay a subscription?"
Her: "We offer a 30 day free evaluation of our platforms. But only for
30 days. After then you won't get any updates or support. After that
you have to pay a support subscription for one year."

Me: "Is the licence based on per machine?"
Her: "Yes, one subscription per server."

Me: "Can we copy the software and install on multiple machines?"
Her: "You can, but you won't be able to get any updates until you
purchase a subscription for those machines."

Me: "So, essentially we can't run RHEL without a subscription?"
Her: "If you actually run RHEL you have to have a valid subscription
period. The machines will not die, but you will be in breach of using
the agreement of the service. You will stop getting updates after this
time, no security bug fixes and stuff, but once you renew the
subscription, it will open again."

Me: "What about if I upgrade a server from 2 CPUs to 4 CPUs what happens?"
Her: "We have two different subscriptions, one for up to 2 CPUs and
advanced support for unlimited CPUs and clusters. If you upgrade 3
months later you can just upgrade your subscription and pay the
difference. If not, the updates will still work, but you won't have
access to the advanced subscription we provide and if you call for
support you won't get support."


So I'm still waiting to see how I can download a copy of RHEL and run
it for free on any machine I want.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Hal Ashburner <hal.ashburner@...>:
> http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
> I'd go with that apology, myself. ;)

I know that there are other distros out there build from the source,
but we're talking about Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Whitebox Linux is not RHEL.
CentOS is not RHEL.
Fedora is not RHEL.
Anything else that's not RHEL is not RHEL.

I have been told that I can download and install RHEL on as many
machines as I like for free.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
> Isn't that exactly what I said?

No, you said I can download RHEL and install it on any machines I
wanted and do support myself.

But they are saying that I cannot download RHEL without a subscription
(I guess I could get a 30 day trial), further, if I do not pay for a
subscription then I do not get any updates.

She also said that if you run RHEL without a subscription then you're
in violation of the service agreement.

How do you get updates on your RHEL machines?

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