Which distro for the enterprise now?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Neighbors" <derek@gnue.org>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Cc: <thomas.cameron@camerontech.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Which distro for the enterprise now?


> 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?

I guess in my experience, the dollar value is low enough that the cost is
really negligible.

> >> 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.

Did they pour money into management and packaging tools to make the distro
easier to use? Absolutely.

> 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.

So we can at least agree that they are not bad guys?

> 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 don't know if I agree with you that they are trying to become more
proprietary and charge for licenses as some nefarious plan to lock customers
in. They are trying to make money for doing a whole lot of really hard
work.

> >> 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?

Um, because I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest that
because Windows is cheaper that it is better. What I got from the thread
was that he wanted *nix performance but was concerned about the price.
Don't think that I am silly enough to believe that cheaper == better. If
that were true, then Big Macs would be considered gourmet. Haven't seen
anyone with that belief.

> >> 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.

And your support contract for Debian consists of...? You're not really
paying for the software. You're paying for professional support. There
isn't a Debian "company" which can offer it, and if there were I guarantee
they'd charge for it. They'd have to. Volunteerism is great, and I hold
the Debian project in the absolute highest regard, but it doesn't lend
itself to Enterprise computing with SLAs.

> >> 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.

OMG, so you are paying for Debian support! Some cad is actually CHARGING to
support the distro! That FIEND! How can you bring yourself to spend money
on support! Seriously, you've just proven my point... You are always going
to need support for your OS, whether NetWare, Windows, *nix or MacOS.
Everyone knows this. But Red Hat is catching Hell because they've
formalized it. I just don't get it.

> >> 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, one
> > could even say carried the Linux community in North America for years.
>
> You could say that, but that is a bit of stretch.

It may be a stretch. I just know how many Usenet posts I read that say "I
am running Linux 9.0..." There is a huge swath of the populace who, rightly
or wrongly, see Red Hat as "Linux."

> > They have added more value and credibility to Linux than anyone else.
>
> I disagree. I think IBM has added the most credibility.

I won't argue that, they've helped tremendously.

> > 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.

*I* don't think that they are infringing on any freedoms, but I can sort of
see where people who just hate software licenses could think that they are.
Is that what you mean? I'm not being a smart-ass, I really don't understand
what you mean.

> > 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.

College ain't free no matter how much tax you pay (unless you have a very
gifted kid who gets a full ride).

> 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)

Huh?!?! I think RH has a solid biz model and I certainly don't think that
charging for their work qualifies them as not having scruples.

> > 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.

I don't think that shareholders make a company scary. IBM has shareholders,
yet they are pumping literally billions into F/OSS. Shareholders generally
keep a company on the straight and narrow. Just because there have been a
lot of high-visibility companies who have blown up doesn't mean that most or
even many companies are crooked. Being publicly traded != a bad thing.

> 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.

I like Debian, and I highly respect and admire the project members. But if
I'm in an "oh crap!" situation, I want something other than a mailing list
for support.

> My Two Cents,

Heck, mine might not even be worth that! :-)

TC