[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[James Polley]

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

> 2009/7/9 Paul Wayper <paulway at mabula.net>:
> > 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 at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>