[NTLUG:Discuss] Redhat Offerings -- the Red Hat bashing tour is back!

[Bryan J. Smith]

Kevin Hulse wrote:  
> Option A:  When a Linux gets critical mass of 
>            marketshare, the distributor jacks
>            up the price 100% or more.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was created for those who wanted it.
Independent Software Vendors (ISV) _expect_ application binary
interface (ABI) compatibility of 5 years.  _No_ Linux distribution
offered that until RHEL, and many considered this a major issue with
Linux versus commercial UNIX and Windows.

As much as I advocate the commercial models of companies like Progeny
and TheKompany, where you get source code with your software (even
if it is non-free), the traditional software model is still very much
binary.  So what Red Hat has done is, "Okay, you want 5+ years of
ABI?  You're going to pay for your commercial model."

SuSE does the same, damn thing, but I don't hear everyone screaming.

In fact, once Red Hat created RHEL, people started wondering what
the deal was now with Red Hat Linux (RHL).  And that's why Fedora
was created.

All the meanwhile, sales and licenses of RHEL, Red Hat Professional
Workstation (RHPW) and the Red Hat Desktop (RHD) go to fund more and
more people working on GPL.

How many _commercial_ distributors employ so many people working not
just on Linux software, but *GPL* software?!?!?!  No one comes close
to Red Hat -- *NO*ONE*!

But people just like to call Red Hat the "Microsoft of Linux."
No, I can think of several other commercial Linux vendors that do
it far, far better!

> Option B: When a Linux gets critical mass of 
>           marketshare, the distributor 
>           discontinues the product.

You still don't get it do you?

Fedora *IS* RHL and more!

Here's the deal:  

1.  The Red Hat _paid_ RHL team basically asked their _own_ company to 
create the Fedora Project.  They wanted to be "free" of some of the
restrictions.

2.  Red Hat _continues_ to pay the _same_, former RHL team members
to work on Fedora.  The Fedora "steering committee" consists of
the _same_ people as Red Hat Linux did!  But now non-Red Hat
employees can join and have as much control too!  All based on the
Apache Foundation model (being that the Debian Democracy model has
had some well-publicized management issues).

3.  Red Hat _pays_ for all the network infrastructure and build
systems in Fedora.  This _includes_ packages for "Extras,"
"Alternatives" and "Legacy."  In other words, not only do we have
RHL in Fedora "Core," but we have Red Hat _distributing_ other
people's work on their network, build with their systems in
Fedora "Extras," "Alternatives" and "Legacy."

This is what people _like_ about community-based Debian.  Red Hat
is the first commercial developer to offer it too, at _their_
expense!

4.  Red Hat has started to address the "non-free" issue by allowing
3rd parties to tie into the Fedora distribution via Fedora "Third
Party."  Red Hat doe snot 

5.  Fedora "Legacy" is churning out updates for RHL7 some 3 _years_
after its release.  And guess who is behind _much_ of it?  Yeah,
those same people who used to work on RHL -- but are still paid
by Red Hat, only under the name of Fedora.

Regarding #1, I personally love how everyone "bitched" about Red
Hat's focus with RHL.  So now that we have Fedora, what are they
doing?  Bitching that Red Hat "dumped it" on the "community."
Ugh!  The RHL team _asked_ to be "freed" of the chains!

Regarding #2, Red Hat has basically opened their (still!)
_commercially_ _funded_ project to management by _external_
people.  How many _commercial_ companies do this?

Regarding #3, Red Hat is now paying _more_ to fund Fedora than
they did RHL.  Red Hat _knows_ it's in their interest to do so.
And people who used to release software for RHL now have not
only an _official_ avenue to do so, but can take advantage of
Red Hat's network and build system's support, as well as key
management on the packages themselves.

Regarding #4, and this is my favorite, people "bitch" about
RHL not including all sorts of stuff.  This is because of
licensing issues.  Fedora "Third Party" _frees_ them of this!
But it's all tied in.

In fact, in case you didn't catch it, Red Hat's idea of keeping
"non-free" completely _separate_ has now caught on with the
Debian distribution too!  They are no longer going to allow
anything that does not comply with the DFSG to be in Debian
repositories, and 3rd parties will need to do it themselves.

Regarding #5, Red Hat is basicaly _still_ turning out *FREE*
updates some 2-3 years _after_ RHL/Fedora release.  No other
commercial vendor offers that for free.  Even SuSE limits its
products to only 2 years.

With the creation of RHEL, all of the issues with "control"
over the "commercial bread'n butter" distro.  So the RHL team
was able to easily convince management to "give up" the non-
sense on RHL, and open it up to the community -- all while
_still_ taking Red Hat $$$ to do it.  Right now it looks like
Fedora is starting to work out _better_ than I expected!

-- Bryan

P.S.  SuSE is another great study.  Now that Novell owns them,
SuSE has gone from spewing out non-GPL software to GPL'ing
just about everything it has!  Why?  Because things like
YaST are no longer the "bread'n butter," as Novell offers so
much more commercial value add.  So SuSE is now becoming a
GPL-focused company, just like Red Hat.  A win-win!

Any other commercial distro that is not GPL-focused seems to
be fading out.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith at ieee.org