How can RedHat charge so much for their advanced server when they're under open source?

[FreshPrince]

I'm confused

btw, anyone running one of these in their enterprise? How's it working out for ya?

- FP

 

[Soybomb]

Why are you confused? They made a product and sell it, that is allowed, read the GPL (and other good ones like the BSD License, etc).

 

[Zenmervolt]

Plus, IIRC, most of the cost is for support. You'll notice that all downloaded versions of RedHat are non-supported.

ZV

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I'm confused

btw, anyone running one of these in their enterprise? How's it working out for ya?

- FP

Just because they sell it doesn't mean it doesn't come with source code.

 

[FreshPrince]

So they're selling the "support" of their product, not the product itself? Rather expensive support for a free product?

 

[her209]

Yes, you can distribute the code.

 

[wnied]

Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
So they're selling the "support" of their product, not the product itself? Rather expensive support for a free product?

Not really, commerial product support is expensive and they still usually fall under competitors costs.

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

- FP

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

- FP

RedHat neither makes, nor sells, Staroffice. And you have no idea what "open source" is about if you find it disgusting that they're trying to run a profitable company based on it.

 

[Soybomb]

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

The software is still open source, but its not free. I don't get the problem here. No they aren't trying to be the next microsoft, they're trying to stay in business. If you think microsoft is so bad how you think it be a bad thing for a linux company to actually make a go of things and not go belly up, but instead present a nice looking product that speaks well for the OS. I love linux/*bsd but you've gotta realize that money doesn't just show up in your bank accounts. I wish more companies were making excellent enterprise level linux solutions. Nothing turns management off to your open source solution more than it being a hogde-podge of parts that you've cobbled together. Out of the box functionality and support is very important in some environments.

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

The software is still open source, but its not free. I don't get the problem here. No they aren't trying to be the next microsoft, they're trying to stay in business. If you think microsoft is so bad how you think it be a bad thing for a linux company to actually make a go of things and not go belly up, but instead present a nice looking product that speaks well for the OS. I love linux/*bsd but you've gotta realize that money doesn't just show up in your bank accounts. I wish more companies were making excellent enterprise level linux solutions. Nothing turns management off to your open source solution more than it being a hogde-podge of parts that you've cobbled together. Out of the box functionality and support is very important in some environments.

I totally get that, I would want a nice packaged server product as well as great service.

 

[FoBoT]

they pick a price

MS picks a price for thier server OS

what is the confusing part?

BTW RH is my favorite linux distro, but i haven't bought a copy since '97 , version 4. something i think

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

- FP

RedHat neither makes, nor sells, Staroffice. And you have no idea what "open source" is about if you find it disgusting that they're trying to run a profitable company based on it.

where in my response did I say staroffice was made by redhat?! I was merely responding to wnied's comments about making redhat more compatible to other software apps. please "read" next time

 

[Derango]

Red Hat has given back so much to the linux community in the form of patches, security updates, etc, to existing code. A lot of the kernel developers are red hat employees. Not to mention the publicity RH gave linux. Red Hat helped to make linux noticable in the corporate world.

As far as I'm concerned, Red Hat can charge whatever they like for their distro.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

- FP

RedHat neither makes, nor sells, Staroffice. And you have no idea what "open source" is about if you find it disgusting that they're trying to run a profitable company based on it.

where in my response did I say staroffice was made by redhat?! I was merely responding to wnied's comments about making redhat more compatible to other software apps. please "read" next time

I did read - you said "they" referring to redhat. You continued to say "they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office" and "they're already charging for star office".

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

True, companies like to buy "boxed" products with support. However I find it disgusting that RedHat is making money off a product created by "open source" ideals. Are they trying to be the next "Microsoft"? And yes, they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office. Wait, maybe not, they're already charging for star office.

- FP

RedHat neither makes, nor sells, Staroffice. And you have no idea what "open source" is about if you find it disgusting that they're trying to run a profitable company based on it.

where in my response did I say staroffice was made by redhat?! I was merely responding to wnied's comments about making redhat more compatible to other software apps. please "read" next time

I did read - you said "they" referring to redhat. You continued to say "they would make more money if they start to provide support for apps like Star Office" and "they're already charging for star office".

You're right, I shouldn't use the two theys, I need to go back to grammar school

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Derango
Red Hat has given back so much to the linux community in the form of patches, security updates, etc, to existing code. A lot of the kernel developers are red hat employees. Not to mention the publicity RH gave linux. Red Hat helped to make linux noticable in the corporate world.

As far as I'm concerned, Red Hat can charge whatever they like for their distro.

Yep. Also, unlike with MS, people can choose how much pre-packaging and support they want to pay for, anywhere from free / do-it-yourself to somewhat expensive but pre-assembled and supported. When was the last time MS offered you a legal free OS download, outside of for student use (paid for by your university)?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: wnied
Because suckers like big corporations like things neat and tidy, in its proper packaging.


Truth be told, they really could save themselves a sh1tpot full of cash if they'd just implement their own software developement teams to use the source code as a base to produce custom made applications that were compatible with any software out there. Simply hire a dozen or so unemployed programmers and give them some much needed work to design and implement custom made systems that interact with current software. In the long run corporations would end up saving billions.

But to my knowledge they'd prefer the preproduced pretty boxes of software that they have to accomodate.
~wnied~

Why on earth would you do such a thing? The cost to implement these facilities would cost FAR more than they would ever save in the long run. Do you think running a development shop is cheap? Why reinvent the wheel?

I think your idea needs more explanation, as it just doesn't make sense...

[edit]spelling[/edit]

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Derango
Red Hat has given back so much to the linux community in the form of patches, security updates, etc, to existing code. A lot of the kernel developers are red hat employees. Not to mention the publicity RH gave linux. Red Hat helped to make linux noticable in the corporate world.

As far as I'm concerned, Red Hat can charge whatever they like for their distro.

Yep. Also, unlike with MS, people can choose how much pre-packaging and support they want to pay for, anywhere from free / do-it-yourself to somewhat expensive but pre-assembled and supported. When was the last time MS offered you a legal free OS download, outside of for student use (paid for by your university)?

wait a minute, are you saying RedHat is providing free download to their advanced server product? If so, where?! please provide a link, I would love to try it out.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Derango
Red Hat has given back so much to the linux community in the form of patches, security updates, etc, to existing code. A lot of the kernel developers are red hat employees. Not to mention the publicity RH gave linux. Red Hat helped to make linux noticable in the corporate world.

As far as I'm concerned, Red Hat can charge whatever they like for their distro.

Yep. Also, unlike with MS, people can choose how much pre-packaging and support they want to pay for, anywhere from free / do-it-yourself to somewhat expensive but pre-assembled and supported. When was the last time MS offered you a legal free OS download, outside of for student use (paid for by your university)?

wait a minute, are you saying RedHat is providing free download to their advanced server product? If so, where?! please provide a link, I would love to try it out.

No, he's saying that they offer a free OS, not that they offer everything they make for free. Why should they give away thier product for free?

 

[Skel]

Because the box is pretty...

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Derango
Red Hat has given back so much to the linux community in the form of patches, security updates, etc, to existing code. A lot of the kernel developers are red hat employees. Not to mention the publicity RH gave linux. Red Hat helped to make linux noticable in the corporate world.

As far as I'm concerned, Red Hat can charge whatever they like for their distro.

Yep. Also, unlike with MS, people can choose how much pre-packaging and support they want to pay for, anywhere from free / do-it-yourself to somewhat expensive but pre-assembled and supported. When was the last time MS offered you a legal free OS download, outside of for student use (paid for by your university)?

wait a minute, are you saying RedHat is providing free download to their advanced server product? If so, where?! please provide a link, I would love to try it out.

No, he's saying that they offer a free OS, not that they offer everything they make for free. Why should they give away thier product for free?

Because its catalyst for success was based on free software? I believe that's his argument; however, I agree w/ you...

Debian for me, thanks.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Yep. Also, unlike with MS, people can choose how much pre-packaging and support they want to pay for, anywhere from free / do-it-yourself to somewhat expensive but pre-assembled and supported. When was the last time MS offered you a legal free OS download, outside of for student use (paid for by your university)?

wait a minute, are you saying RedHat is providing free download to their advanced server product? If so, where?! please provide a link, I would love to try it out.

No, I'm saying the base OS is free, and most (all?) of the other components in the non-free packages are open source / free so you can find, compile and install them yourself if you don''t want to pay Red Hat to do the work for you.

 

[arcain]

Because its catalyst for success was based on free software? I believe that's his argument; however, I agree w/ you...

Hrmm.. and is that wrong necessarily? If the original developers did not want others making money off of their work they could have chosen a more restrictive license.

(Not that I am arguing with you.. you just had a good quotable summary of his argument)