Thomas Cameron said:
>> Their new licensing is
>> of course now making us reconsider that choice.
>
> Why on Earth would it do that?

He is a "customer", it is well within in his right and certainly part of
his fiduciary duty to research alternatives.  I will harp again why
selling on "source code" and "price" is a lousy methodology.  It is clear
that price is a factor for this individual.  You can like it or not.  He
feels (and is correct) that he can get similar (or possibly better)
product at similar or reduced price point.  Why should he NOT be
considering that?

>> Now I'm all for putting money back into Linux
>> (especially when it's the companies, and not
>> mine!  :)
>
> OK, lemme see if I understand.  RH has been GIVING away a product for
> years which they have poured millions of development dollars into, and
> now they have the audacity to charge about a 10th of what M$ charges,
> you're opposed to paying them?  I just don't get it.  RH has done more
> for the F/OSS community in North America than anyone else, period.  But
> folks are getting their panties in a wad because they are trying to do
> exactly what the F/OSS financial model suggests - make money by
> providing service for F/OSS.  They are providing service in packaging
> and support.  Why is this so damned objectionable?

Wait a minute.  Have they been giving a product away?  Yes, but remember
90% or more of that product was GIVEN to them.  Did they pour money into
marketing the their product (which largerly was the work of others)?  Yes.
 In fact, hell yes.

Have they done a lot for the F/OSS community?  Certainly.  For sometime
they were still assigning a lot of code changes to the Free Software
Foundation.  I am not sure I agree they have done more for F/OSS than
anyone else, though they have made a huge contribution.

Making money via services.  This is a fine model.  I don't think people
have a problem with that.  The problem for many lies in that Red Hat
became a public company.  This changed the game for them.  That means they
are at the mercy of their shareholders.  Who may or may not care about the
F/OSS community.  In an attempt to drive their value up they are starting
to look towards toeing the proprietary game as much as the community will
allow them w/o rebellion.

They have created a community project and a professional product.  I
believe though I could be wrong, that you will see the professional
product start adding more and more features that are Red Hat only.  That
is they are under a non friendly license that helps tie the user to the
Red Hat distribution.  Much the way SuSE has done with YaST and other
tools.  They will attempt the  "soft" lock-in method.

I am undecided about their licensing scheme.  I don't see why they tie
"support" to a license.  Seems to me this is a way to "hard" lockin
support of their product.  If I could get a customer to install Red Hat
Advanced Server at no cost.  Then offer to support them.  Then Red Hat
looses out on the support $$.  If they instead make Red Hat Advanced
Server have a license that requires money but includes the support.  Yes
you can argue they are selling "support".  I would argue they are "locking
you in" to their support.  Subtle difference perhaps, but I do believe it
to be real.

>> I'm not looking for Linux for free
>> (beer).
>
> So why not pay for all the work that RH has done with RHEL?  Even if you
> don't negotiate a better price, using RHEL is still a fraction the cost
> of Windows.

Well Windows is a fraction of the cost of Unix.  Why not use Windows?  The
logic is flawed.  If he can find something better or as good for a
fraction of Red Hat, why should he use Red Hat?

>> But my company wants to control costs,
>> and I can't really suggest going forward with
>> RHEL servers at $800+/yr a pop and rolling out
>> RHEL WS desktops at $150+/yr subscriptions.
>
> Why on Earth not?  That's cheap compared to Windows!

Because compared to the $0 it costs for Debian, it's criminal.

>> What
>> are other admins doing?
>
> Using RHEL, SUSE, or taking their chances with other distros which have
> no commercial support.

I use Debian.  In the case of Debian we found more than one company
willing to support it.  Which was great, because we know if we are not
happy with their support we can move on to someone that will value us.

>> I have my own opinions
>> on what I like for my own desktop, and I don't
>> need hot-headed religious babble.  But I would
>> very much like some reasoned discussion on the
>> options for business Linux!  Thanks very much for
>> your comments.
>
> I am not a zealot.  I am a fan of fair play.  RH has supported, once
> could even say carried the Linux community in North America for years.

You could say that, but that is a bit of stretch.

> They have added more value and credibility to Linux than anyone else.

I disagree.  I think IBM has added the most credibility.

> Why is it so terrible that they want to make money at it?  I use and

If they make money at the expense of the users freedom, it may not be
terrible.  However, the user doesn't have to like it.

> champion Linux all the time, but I have to make my house payment and pay
> for my daughter's school.  Does this make me a bad person?  If not, why
> is Red Hat suddenly cast as the bad guy because they are trying to make
> it easier for their employees to make their house payments and pay for
> their kids' school?

Last time I checked their tax dollars should be paying for their kids
school, but public vs private education is a different debate for a
different list.  So we should tolerate Enron, MCI and other corporations
because their employees have mouths to feed?  Before you blow up.. I am
not saying Red Hat == Enron. If one works for a company without scruples
or without a solid business model, they really should be looking for
employment elsewhere. (imho)

> RH makes a good distro.  They are a good company, and a great member of
> our community.  Why is it so tough to return that support?

Okay after all that.  I do like Red Hat the company.  Though they do scare
me a bit because of thier shareholders.  They have a good track record
with the community and there is some value in that.  Certainly they bring
value to the table.

However, I think anyone looking at making a move like this should do the
research for themselves.  I personally think Debian is a better bet, but
it is highly conditional on a number of factors.  It would be wrong to
make any major business decision with out all the facts from all the
players.

My Two Cents,

Derek