Which distro for the enterprise now?

> >
> > 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 sec - they aren't giving anything away that isn't available in
> some form or another elsewhere.

Not exactly. RH does some pretty impressive work with management tools and
high-end stuff like clustering and HA. They also provide support for these
things which doesn't consist of e-mailing a list or posting to Usenet and
hoping someone answers.

> and just because Microsoft's model is to charge for software doesn't
> make it reasonable for everyone to feel as though they need to pony up
> money to use Linux. It isn't.

So you don't think a commercial distro packager should charge for their
work? I don't know about you, but I am a dyed in the wool capitalist. I do
a LOT of work with Linux, setting up, configuring and customizing. Do you
think I should not get paid to do that?

> Red Hat provides a reasonably well configured package of integrated open
> source software and the methodology to maintain it and through their
> Enterprise Linux, they charge for this. They feel that the demand for
> long term maintainability, single source responsibility is something
> that both corporate and individual users will value enough to pay for.
> I'm not in disagreement - and in fact, I have several clients that have
> 'purchased' the EL product on my recommendation. But I do feel that it's
> a good idea to examine the other choices that are available and to see
> if they can meet their needs.

I certainly agree with that - if you don't educate yourself about your
options, you run the serious chance of shooting yourself in the foot.

> ---
> >
> > > 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.
> ---
> whether it is a fraction of the cost of Windows or no cost at all is
> only part of the cost picture - far beyond the cost of acquisition, is
> the cost of setup and maintenance over time. Total lifetime cost is the
> real issue and I think that in this scenario (cost), that the RHEL
> products probably are a great value - time always tells.

Agreed. We've done TCO models at Bank of America and found that we will
save millions of dollars using Red Hat. I also agree that we will know
better when we are looking at the problem with hindsight.

> All of this focus on cost of course, neglects the other but certainly
> more important issue of what truly constitutes 'free software' - not
> free as in beer.

To be honest, we don't put as much importance on the Free (as in speech)
part of Linux. We're not in the software development business, so the fact
that we have access to source falls squarely in the "Nice" column, not the
"Must Have."

> >
> > > 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!
> >
> ---
> I think that someone else has already suggested that there are volume
> discounts and/or cheaper prices available to larger users either through
> Red Hat or resellers

That is my understanding.

> > > What
> > > are other admins doing?
> ---
> looking seriously at Debian

Heck, I have recommended Fedora to several of my private clients. It is
developed by the same dev team that makes RHEL. For small to medium
business it makes sense in many roles.

> >
> > Using RHEL, SUSE, or taking their chances with other distros which have
no
> > commercial support.
> >
> > > 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. They
have
> > added more value and credibility to Linux than anyone else. Why is it
so
> > terrible that they want to make money at it? I use and 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?
> >
> > 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?
> ----
> he asked for opinions and not a hot-headed religious babble - seems fair
> enough.

Didn't think I was being hot-headed or religious. Just saying that the
current vitriol that is being spewed at RH for doing what nearly all of us
do (making money from F/OSS) is off-base.

> Personally, I like the concept of Debian - that there is no corporate
> whim that the user(s) will ever be subjected to at all. Seems as though
> if there were a distro at the heart of the 'free software' ideology, it
> could only be debian. That being said, I am of course a coward and would
> not typically suggest debian to a company willing to pay for the
> 'convenience' of commercial support.

Fedora's model is very similar to that of Debian in that community
involvement is a big piece.

Thomas