[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[James Polley]

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

> 2009/7/9 Chris Smart <mail at christophersmart.com>
>
> > 2009/7/9 Lana Brindley <lanabrindley at gmail.com>:
> > > 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 at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>