[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[Nathan O'Sullivan]

James Polley wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Chris Smart <mail at christophersmart.com>wrote:
>
>   
>> 2009/7/9 David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam.com.au>:
>>     
>>> 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