Linux Google OS coming..

[lloy0076-2]

So, you want RHEL with updates for no cost?

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 16:01:27 +1000


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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076@...>:
>
> So, you want RHEL with updates for no cost?

Precisely. I was told that I could install RHEL on any computer I
wanted to for free and that if I wanted support some time down the
track that I could get it then.

But the original argument was simply that Red Hat restricts how you
can run their Enterprise Linux software, that is to say you cannot run
it without a subscription and one that matches your hardware.

As I said before, if RHEL is free for anyone to download and run on
any of there machines for ever and a day without ever having to pay
anything, then I'll take back what I said. So far that doesn't appear
to be the case.

Anyway, I fear this discussion has probably run its course..

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

[James Polley-2]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Chris Smart <mail@...>wrote:

> 2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076@...>:
> >
> > So, you want RHEL with updates for no cost?
>
> Precisely. I was told that I could install RHEL on any computer I
> wanted to for free and that if I wanted support some time down the
> track that I could get it then.
>
> But the original argument was simply that Red Hat restricts how you
> can run their Enterprise Linux software, that is to say you cannot run
> it without a subscription and one that matches your hardware.
>
> As I said before, if RHEL is free for anyone to download and run on
> any of there machines for ever and a day without ever having to pay
> anything, then I'll take back what I said. So far that doesn't appear
> to be the case.
>
> Anyway, I fear this discussion has probably run its course..

You seem to be confusing the ability to have access to pre-compiled
updates with the ability to run the software on your server.

Until you can distinguish between those two things, this discussion
isn't going to be able to move.

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

[Lana Brindley]

(Who took the "reply to all" button out of gmail?)
2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>

>
>
> 2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail@...>
>
>> 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>> >>
>> >> How do you get updates on your RHEL machines?
>> >
>> > The same way I update my other Linux machines.
>>
>> So you're getting updates from Red Hat for your Enterprise Linux
>> systems without paying a subscription for the server you run it on?
>>
>> -c
>>
>
> You're forgetting what is upstream from Red Hat.
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>

--
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

[Wally-2]

I fear this is where the translation was lost.

As I understand it so far :

Microsoft charge you (based on your hardware) for software  ..then
offer free updates.

RH offer free software then charge you (based on your hardware) for updates.

Wally

(contemplating if running up a RHEL box for fun wuld be worth the effort)

Quoting Chris Smart <mail@...>:

> 2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076@...>:
>>
>> So, you want RHEL with updates for no cost?
>
> Precisely. I was told that I could install RHEL on any computer I
> wanted to for free and that if I wanted support some time down the
> track that I could get it then.
>
> But the original argument was simply that Red Hat restricts how you
> can run their Enterprise Linux software, that is to say you cannot run
> it without a subscription and one that matches your hardware.
>
> As I said before, if RHEL is free for anyone to download and run on
> any of there machines for ever and a day without ever having to pay
> anything, then I'll take back what I said. So far that doesn't appear
> to be the case.
>
> Anyway, I fear this discussion has probably run its course..
>
> -c
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux@...
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>

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

[Nathan O'Sullivan-5]

James Polley wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Chris Smart <mail@...>wrote:
>
>  
>> 2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076@...>:
>>    
>>> So, you want RHEL with updates for no cost?
>>>      
>> Precisely. I was told that I could install RHEL on any computer I
>> wanted to for free and that if I wanted support some time down the
>> track that I could get it then.
>>
>> But the original argument was simply that Red Hat restricts how you
>> can run their Enterprise Linux software, that is to say you cannot run
>> it without a subscription and one that matches your hardware.
>>
>> As I said before, if RHEL is free for anyone to download and run on
>> any of there machines for ever and a day without ever having to pay
>> anything, then I'll take back what I said. So far that doesn't appear
>> to be the case.
>>
>> Anyway, I fear this discussion has probably run its course..
>>    
>
>
> You seem to be confusing the ability to have access to pre-compiled
> updates with the ability to run the software on your server.
>
> Until you can distinguish between those two things, this discussion
> isn't going to be able to move.
>  

IMHO that's splitting hairs; if you can't get updates (and I presume
this includes security fixes?) you may be able to technically boot it,
but I certainly wouldn't want to actively use it.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9  <wally@...>:
> I fear this is where the translation was lost.
>
> As I understand it so far :
>
> Microsoft charge you (based on your hardware) for software  ..then offer
> free updates.
>
> RH offer free software then charge you (based on your hardware) for updates.
>

All the other stuff aside, my original argument was simply that Red
Hat restricts how you can run their commercial RHEL software. I wasn't
debating their support service or business model at all.

And they do restrict you, because you a) need a subscription, and b)
it has to match your hardware. And if you don't then you're in
violation of their agreement and you can't get updates.

That's all.

Running CentOS is not running RHEL. Doing updates yourself is not running RHEL.

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

[Lana Brindley]

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

> 2009/7/9  <wally@...>:
> > I fear this is where the translation was lost.
> >
> > As I understand it so far :
> >
> > Microsoft charge you (based on your hardware) for software  ..then offer
> > free updates.
> >
> > RH offer free software then charge you (based on your hardware) for
> updates.
> >
>
> All the other stuff aside, my original argument was simply that Red
> Hat restricts how you can run their commercial RHEL software. I wasn't
> debating their support service or business model at all.
>
> And they do restrict you, because you a) need a subscription, and b)
> it has to match your hardware. And if you don't then you're in
> violation of their agreement and you can't get updates.
>
> That's all.
>
> Running CentOS is not running RHEL. Doing updates yourself is not running
> RHEL.
>

I'm sorry. What?

OK. So clearly, I'm not really running Fedora, either. Since I update that
myself.

I also run an MS box ... is that really MS, since I don't let MS push their
updates out to my machine?

And as for my RHEL boxes, well, I guess they're not RHEL either, because I
don't use RH support.

It does make me wonder how I get *any* work done!

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley@...>:
>
> I'm sorry. What?

By "doing updates yourself" I meant downloading and compiling the
updates from source and installing those, rather than installing from
the distros update service.

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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 James Polley <clug@...>:
>You seem to be confusing the ability to have access to pre-compiled updates with the ability to run the software on your server.
> Until you can distinguish between those two things, this discussion isn't going to be able to move.
>

Yeah, the pre-compiled updates from Red Hat is what I consider part of
"running RHEL".
To do that, you need a subscription.

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

On Thursday 09 July 2009 16:30:15 Chris Smart wrote:
> Running CentOS is not running RHEL. Doing updates yourself is not running
> RHEL.
OK Chris, you win.

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

[Paul Wayper]

On 09/07/09 16:30, Chris Smart wrote:

> 2009/7/9<wally@...>:
>> I fear this is where the translation was lost.
>>
>> As I understand it so far :
>>
>> Microsoft charge you (based on your hardware) for software  ..then offer
>> free updates.
>>
>> RH offer free software then charge you (based on your hardware) for updates.
>>
>
> All the other stuff aside, my original argument was simply that Red
> Hat restricts how you can run their commercial RHEL software. I wasn't
> debating their support service or business model at all.
>
> And they do restrict you, because you a) need a subscription, and b)
> it has to match your hardware. And if you don't then you're in
> violation of their agreement and you can't get updates.

And?

Sorry, but I think somewhere along the line you got the idea that you can
download a copy of RHEL, branding and all, for free and get updates to it for
free.  That just isn't true.  So arguing that since that isn't the case you
must be right is kind of circular.

The real point that this whole thing started from, as far as I can see, is the
whole question of what's "evil".  Is it right for an operating system to be
locked to run on certain hardware even though it's capable of running on more,
or less, or different.  And sure, that's annoying.  But it's also what we deal
with every day.  You can go via the toll road and pay more, or go via the long
way and pay less.  You can eat out and pay more or do your own cooking and pay
less.  I don't think that it should be particularly surprising that companies
have arbitrary charges for number of CPUs per OS.

It's obviously not really a question of whether the OS is up to it.  It's just
an arbitrary pricing point that they've introduced to differentiate their
customers.  You can read "Red Hat" or "Microsoft" through the above as you
will, it changes nothing.

You'll also find that none of that goes against the GPL, either.

Hope this helps,

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

[Al MailingList]

> 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.
>

To summarise... as long as the issue is occuring on a cpu < n, and in
within the first nGB of RAM, you should be fine. Alternatively, if you
are running a quad core box, and only have paid support for a dual
core, the support person only says every second word.

<ducks>

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

[Sam Couter-2]

Jason Stokes <glasper9@...> wrote:
>
> And how on earth did it come to the evaluation that Youtube was worth /six billion dollars/.

They paid six billion dollars worth of inflated stock for a company with
an inflated value of six billion dollars. I think it probably all
cancels out.
--
Sam Couter         |  mailto:sam@...
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C


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

[Alex Satrapa-5]

On 09/07/2009, at 12:47 , Chris Smart wrote:

> 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.

> 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 can't believe how many people fed this troll.

10/10, Chris :)



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

[Chris Smart-6]

2009/7/9 Paul Wayper <paulway@...>:
> And?
>
> Sorry, but I think somewhere along the line you got the idea that you can
> download a copy of RHEL, branding and all, for free and get updates to it
> for free.  That just isn't true.  So arguing that since that isn't the case
> you must be right is kind of circular.

I don't really want to kick start this dying thread again, but just to
re-iterate my point, _this_ thread has nothing to do with the evil
argument. It also has nothing to do with Red Hat's business model or
support contracts.

I was merely making a single, one line comment that Red Hat also
restricts how you run RHEL. Albeit in a different way to Microsoft,
but they do restrict you. See the rest of the thread for a most
confusing discussion on the topic :-)

And yes, somewhere along the line I did get the idea that I could
download a copy of RHEL, branding and all for free and get updates to
it for free. I got that idea because Lana said so at the start:

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

Half of the thread was me trying to find out whether that's actually
true, which it's not.

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

[James Polley-2]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Chris Smart <mail@...>wrote:

> 2009/7/9 Paul Wayper <paulway@...>:
> > And?
> >
> > Sorry, but I think somewhere along the line you got the idea that you can
> > download a copy of RHEL, branding and all, for free and get updates to it
> > for free.  That just isn't true.  So arguing that since that isn't the
> case
> > you must be right is kind of circular.
>
> I don't really want to kick start this dying thread again, but just to
> re-iterate my point, _this_ thread has nothing to do with the evil
> argument. It also has nothing to do with Red Hat's business model or
> support contracts.
>
> I was merely making a single, one line comment that Red Hat also
> restricts how you run RHEL. Albeit in a different way to Microsoft,
> but they do restrict you. See the rest of the thread for a most
> confusing discussion on the topic :-)
>
> And yes, somewhere along the line I did get the idea that I could
> download a copy of RHEL, branding and all for free and get updates to
> it for free. I got that idea because Lana said so at the start:
>
> "Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a free operating system - there's no
> restriction on what hardware you can run it on... 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."
>
> Half of the thread was me trying to find out whether that's actually
> true, which it's not.

It's not true iff you define "run" as "be able to get pre-compiled updates".
Only one person uses this definition - you.

Under any sensible definition of "run", lana was correct.


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

[Ric de France]

Chris,

2009/7/10 Chris Smart <mail@...>

> And yes, somewhere along the line I did get the idea that I could
> download a copy of RHEL, branding and all for free and get updates to
> it for free. I got that idea because Lana said so at the start:
>
> "Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a free operating system - there's no
> restriction on what hardware you can run it on... 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."
>
> Half of the thread was me trying to find out whether that's actually
> true, which it's not.
>

This is not meant to offend... but I think may have answered queries a whole
lot sooner:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Red+Hat+Enterprise+Linux+30-Day+Evaluation%22

...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

[Jacinta Richardson-2]

Chris Smart wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Only in limited circumstances.  For a lot of the population, in a lot of
circumstances it still means male.  Some examples:

        Some guys were kicking a ball around. Unisex?
        I was approached by a guy asking for money. Unisex?
        The guy then threw something at the window. Unisex?
        The guys and I are having drinks after work. Unisex? (Maybe)

        Hey, guys, let's go to the pub! Probably unisex.

All the best,

        J


--
   ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._          |  Jacinta Richardson         |
    `6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)  |  Perl Training Australia    |
    (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-'   |      [phone]        |
  _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'           | contact@... |
 (il),-''  (li),'  ((!.-'             |   www.perltraining.com.au   |
--
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

[Brendan Jurd]

2009/7/10 Jacinta Richardson <jarich@...>:
> Chris Smart wrote:
>> Pretty sure "guy" is a unisex term these days ;-)
>
> Only in limited circumstances.  For a lot of the population, in a lot of
> circumstances it still means male.

Maybe.  But have you got a better alternative?

"People"?  Too formal.
"Peeps"?  Retarded.
"Folks"?  Old fashioned.
"Friends, Romans, Countrymen"?  Oops, male.
"Dude"?  Often too informal and more male than "guy".

My point is that when you're trying to use gender-neutral language,
your options are limited.  It's very frustrating.  In today's
environment of gender equality, it's natural to want to talk in a way
that doesn't discriminate between male and female.  Especially as
doing otherwise can get you into serious trouble.  But the language
just isn't set up for that.  We have to make do with what we have.
I'm in favour of just treating "guy" as neutral, and hoping that usage
takes further hold.

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