[NTLUG:Discuss] @#$%^&*! redhat up2date!!!!!

[Bob Byron]

I just don't understand this point of view.  What is wrong with Fedora?  
I am using it, it works
great.  It is everything that RH 10 Personal should be, end of story. 

With YUM underlying the up2date facility in Fedora, I am keeping as up 
to date as one can.

It is clear to me that RH made a *very wise* and *shrewd* move.  They 
took RH Personal and
gave it to the open source community.  Wow!!!  Isn't that what we all 
want?  The name change of RH
10 Personal to Fedora makes a lot of sense too.  The Fedora trademark is 
not the RedHat
trademark.  This means the Fedora trademark can go by a more lenient set 
of guidelines for
its use, and RH retains the more strict and, yes, valuable trademark in 
"RedHat".

RedHat is the commercial version with enterprise support.  Many 
corporations require
an OS that is supported by a company.  RedHat is made for them.  Fedora 
is the
open source version with community support.  I think it is great.

Bob

Paul Ingendorf wrote:

>I guess simple people need simple explanations.
>
>RedHat has taken something built by a community and maintained by that
>community.  They have branded it, marketed it, and now are selling updates
>to it.  Its not the updates that are costing them money Victor it is the
>branding and marketing.  This is what I find shady about what they are doing
>now.  Providing tools of little to no value above what is already out there
>and trying to use their position as a respected distro provider to pry
>additional dollars out of the pockets of both your average consumer and
>their power users as well so they can strengthen their market position
>further by spending more dollars or marketing and branding, not unlike what
>Microsoft has done in the past and is why you see the comparison.
>
>I guess the real point would be in were your moral turpitude lies.  Do you
>think it is right to package the work of others and sell it on the basis
>that you are providing a method for that installation and that is all your
>charging for above the cost of the media?  Then turn around and charge
>subscription services for access to the upgraded/patched packages that are
>included in the package you are providing?
>
>I find this whole area of what redhat has gotten themselves into very grey
>and somewhat nefarious.  I can't condemn them without seeing were they end
>up but I can't condone what they are doing either.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: discuss-bounces at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ntlug.org]On
>Behalf Of Victor Brilon
>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:29 AM
>To: NTLUG Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] @#$%^&*! redhat up2date!!!!!
>
>
><sarcasm>
>Yeah! How dare they charge you for a service that actually costs them
>money??? They should do all the work, pay their engineers and then pass
>the results to you for free.
></sarcasm>
>
>Get a grip. Running a service like that costs money -- plain and simple.
>This has nothing to do with a "the ole M$ shakedown". This is simply a
>business doing what they need to survive.
>
>If you honestly need up2date for critical reasons, go to:
>http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/
>RH Enterprise Linux (for a fee obviously) will continue to provide
>updates to the software.
>
>I am truly baffled as to why people feel like they're owed free services
>for an OS they (generally) never paid for in the first place.
>
>Victor
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>  
>