Which distro for the enterprise now?

> > The other thing that bothers me a little is that after hearing for
> > years how 'freedom' wasn't about dollar cost or 'free as in beer' it's
> > disconcerting that so many open source advocates seem so upset simply
> > because Red Hat is now charging real money. I guess 'free' was about
> > price after all.
>
>
> Amen, brother! As I've said before, the thing that irks me the most is
that
> to me, most of the bitching seems to come from the mistaken belief that
you
> can't get RH for free (as in beer) any more. It amazes me that the vast
> majority of nay-sayers blast RH because they want to charge for their
work.
> Folks, we all do that every day (unless you're unemployed). After YEARS
of
> giving away their distro, RH comes up with a specialty distro with support
> that they want to charge for. Some people are just going ballistic. If
it
> wasn't so sad it would be funny.
>
> Thomas
>
I'm amazed RH was even able to go public with a business model like theirs.
That fact alone is a testament to the level of acceptance Linux has
achieved. I'm a little ambivalent about their motives. On the one hand it
seems clear they did a lot to make Linux what it is now. On the other, it
seems a little cynical to build a public company on the backs of so many
unpaid contributors. But I suppose business has always been about paying
employees less than what their work is really worth. Without that there is
no profit margin. What could be more profitable than paying them nothing?
And who is to say how much profit is "reasonable?" The common definition of
"rich" is, "anyone who has a lot more money than me." Thus my earlier
questions about the motives of FOSS contributors. I tend to accept one of
Ayn Rand's assertions: "In reality there are no contradictions. If you think
you see one, check your premises."
--Phil M.