[NTLUG:Discuss] Redhat Offerings -- the Red Hat bashingtourisback!

[Kermit Jones]

Alton Pouncey wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004, Kevin Hulse wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--- comcast <collindavis at comcast.net> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I used RH 7.2/7.2,
>>>and heck, RH 9... There
>>>was no "free tech support 800 number to call".  How
>>>is what they're doing
>>>with Fedora any different? 
>>>      
>>>
>>They're going out of their way to avoid being
>>directly associated with it in the minds of 
>>people who would care about branding.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>So, what I'm hearing from you is that your beef is that they changed the 
>name of the product from Red Hat Linux to Fedora EVENTHOUGH they are the 
>same thing for the most part and perhaps Fedora is even better (I really 
>don't know since I have not used Fedora).  Is the name change what's 
>really got your goat?
>
So if Fedora "EVENTHOUGH" is the same thing... why did they change the 
name at all?  I mean, why not keep the "Red Hat Personal" or "Red Hat 
Community" Linux.  Red Hat had a reason for the change.  Why is that so 
hard to understand?

Sun opened StarOffice as OpenOffice, but there is a clear link there.  
Some may know that a Fedora is a hat, and in fact the one the Red Hat 
logo uses, but the link is unclear.  HOWEVER, Sun gave OO.o its name 
because they still release StarOffice.  Red Hat released, gave a new 
name, and then discontinued Red Hat Little.  They only offer Red Hat Big 
now.  If a name is so insignificant, as you appear to claim, why not 
just keep Red Hat as the title?

Argue however you like.  Red Hat changed the name, and while that may 
not mean much to die hard fans, it speaks volumes in the politics of the 
business world and the OSS community, as well.  Someone mentioned 
earlier that the people complaining are the ones who don't pay.  I've 
paid for several copies of RH boxed to support them.  If I had paid 
several hundred dollars, maybe I would defend them a bit more. Who knows.

Don't misunderstand me.  Red Hat has done a lot to make Linux accepted 
in the Enterprise.  But now that they are the defacto standard, they 
have essentially removed their name from the personal linux side of the 
house.  Again, someone will argue that "fedora.redhat.com" and  
"user at redhat.com" are signs of connection.  Again, I state they changed 
the name FOR A REASON.  How long do you think it will be before they "mv 
fedora.redhat.com fedora.com/org"?  This is a first step.

They will stay connected, I'm sure, as it benefits them to do so, but 
they have also made a clear separation.  If that wasn't their intention, 
they would not have made the name change.

So when Collin gets upset over "just a name change" perhaps instead of 
accusing him of letting it "get his goat" you should ask yourself... if 
it IS only a name... why did Red Hat feel the need or desire to change 
from their own?  If anything, wouldn't they want their very own name on 
a OSS project?

So, I guess my real point is this... "What's in a name?"  - a heck of a lot.

Kermit

>  
>