[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[David Lloyd]

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 at christophersmart.com>
To: Lana Brindley <lanabrindley at gmail.com>
Cc: CLUG List <linux at lists.samba.org>
Subject: Re: [clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:33:24 +1000


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.

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