What really has my attention is the contract associated with Red Hat. The contract requires a user to buy on server package for each computer its on. Even though GNU/open source says it can be freely distributed, Red Hat is negating that. In many cases, one copy of the software might be used on several machines and never need support, other than up2dates occasionally, but here we are with per-machine "licenses" again. (Yes, I am aware it isn't a license but the effect is the same).
Buck -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Estabrooks Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:05:28 -0600 "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sean, in the corporate world you may be right, although even then, it > strikes me that to take market share away from Windows, they should be > cheaper. Given a two-year cycle of upgrades (not that common), it's $360 > > total which means it costs at least as much as Windows XP > Professional, if not more. Same goes for servers, where we upgrade > generally every three years: total cost of ES is $1,050 which was the > cost of Windows licenses I was trying to avoid by moving servers to > Red Hat. > Well, you get a better product for that money but you're right it's not exactly cheap. I think it's _fair_ but i agree it might be out of range for some situations. > However, that is not my primary point. What REALLY interests me is > this: I, and thousands upon thousands of people, pay Red Hat > $60/system/year for RHN service on RHL systems (either bought or > downloaded). Typically we pay this for N machines, where probably 1 < > N < 10. Together we are all a market which, in large part, simply > cannot or will not afford WS, ES, AS, or even Mini-X. IMHO, Red Hat > NEEDS to make sure that we are not forgotten or left out in the cold. > You know that RedHat is bound by economic realities. I'm sure if there is a way to provide the services you want and turn a profit they will find a way to provide them. What exactly is it that Fedora does _not_ provide that you are willing to pay RedHat $60.00/server/year to get? > Where, I ask, is RHEL-SS (SOHO Server)? Where is that $99/year price > for SS which could serve as the first step for adoption of RH in > corporate shops, or the only option for adoption of RH in very small > shops? I WANT MY SOHO SERVER!!! Ed mentioned that perhaps such an offering is on the horizon. I'm struggling to imagine how they will differentiate it from Fedora and Enterprise. > > Editor's Note: I have a lot of faith in Red Hat, and I will give them > every possible benefit of the doubt. I also recognize that the just > launched Fedora Core YESTERDAY, and that we have worked ourselves into > a lather in only 24 hours. So I will wait patiently for them to issue > lots of other announcements which I'm sure will make things clearer. > But today, at this point, so far, I do not see a product offering from > RH which I can be _sure_ meets my needs and price point. THIS is my > concern. Agreed. Regards, Sean -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
