On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 16:44, David Holden wrote: > On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 21:13, Brent Fox wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 15:21, David Holden wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't go so far to say redhat are doing wrong, you do what you > > > think you need to for you business. > > > > > > > > > However, you say that business and consumers have different needs but I > > > suspect a lot of businesses (at least small ones) have gone down the > > > redhat route not realising that you were going to either force them onto > > > a yearly upgrade cycle or have to pay >5 times(minimum) what they way > > > paying for updates for each machine so that they don't have to upgrade > > > each year. > > > > We realized that the original Advanced Server at $800 was too much for > > many small businesses to pay. That's why we just released the ES and WS > > products at much lower price points. Of course, there are going to be > > some small businesses that can't afford to pay even these lower prices. > > For them, they can still upgrade RHL yearly for free. I understand that > > they'd like for us to support a $40 product for five years, but it's > > just not economically feasible for us to do that. If they went down the > > "Red Hat route" assuming that we would do everything for free or almost > > free, then I think that was a mistaken assumption. > > > Agreed, but its the size of the gear shift, 60$ -> $349(minimum) again > thats nearly six times the price.
> I'd feel happier about this if there was a second intermediate level, > e.g. say $120 dollars for 2 years up2dates before being "forced" to > upgrade. > It depends on the role of the machine. If you're looking for a workstation kind of machine, you can get RHEL WS starting at $179. http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/ws/ For ES and AS, the price is higher. But yeah, I see what you mean. It is still a big jump. Cheers, Brent > > > > Based on the number of registered systems on Red Hat Network, we see > > that the vast majority of our current users are running 7.3 or 8.0. > > That means that most of our users have upgraded their machines in the > > last 12 months. I'm sure that there are plenty of 6.2 machines still > > kicking out there, but I think that the impact of the shortened errata > > policy is exaggerated somewhat. > > We upgraded recently just because we heard this was coming (and I can > vouch that upgrades aren't always smooth). I'm sure a lot of others have > done the same. > > > > > > > > Another thing I'd like to emphasize is that we aren't "forcing" anybody > > to do anything. If they want to stick with 8.0 for five years, that's > > fine. They can learn a bit about packaging and make their own or they > > can hire a third party company to do it for them. If you can hire > > somebody else to support RHL for less money than buying an Enterprise > > release from us, go for it. If this is the case, then we've got the > > pricing all wrong and the market will force us to change. > > I find this line somewhat weak. Of course redhat is not *forcing* > anybody to do anything my point was that you have changed your business > model (as is your right) but that change will make my attempts to sell > Linux to my bosses (and others, I'm a LUG member) more difficult that it > was, and of course your right the market will decide in the end. > > > Regards, > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Brent > -- > Dr. David Holden. (Systems Developer) > > Visit: Crystallography Journals Online <http://journals.iucr.org> > > Thanks in advance:- > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > See: <http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html> > > UK Privacy (R.I.P) : http://www.stand.org.uk/commentary.php3 > Public GPG key available on request. > > -- 99% of politicians give the rest a bad name -- > ------------------------------------------------- > > -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
