On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 06:28, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:25:15 -0600 > "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No, Benjamin has a point: another change (d) is that the free version > > will not be "branded" Red Hat, as I also mentioned earlier. This _could_ > > believably slow down adoption due to brand recognition, both in the case > > of newbies choosing the well-known Red Hat for their Linux, but also of > > people like Benjamin's boss (and mine, by the way) who choose or would > > choose RHEL after seeing RHL at work, but who will not see Fedora in the > > same light. > > I think the answers you gave to people later in the day suggest that this > isn't anything to worry too much about: >
I don't know I tend to agree with the original sentiment. In comparison to both linux distros and the competition from closed sources the RHE price tag seems a bit high and at the same time fedora might seem a bit too bleeding edge. You are going to have some big markets for linux in the small to medium size deployment areas running around and trying out other choices. This is bad. We use Suse at work here and the professional version is like about $70 bucks. The question will be is the extra $100+ worth it? Most firms are not going to look at the fedora choice seeing it as a bleeding edge desktop style distro. Not what they want on their web servers. Yes, the turn over in terms of boxed units is too high and there needs to be another choice. However, at the very least, there should be a entry level boxed RH product that is stable and can be seen from a corporate IT standpoint as a branded RedHat product to deploy on their dns, ftp, http and other basic servers that may not be seen as warranting a Enterprise price tag. Otherwise, RH is going to lose big market share to Suse on this front. IMHO and all that. -- Johnathan Bailes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
