I remember the last time i tried to learn how to use Red hat it was free. Do we really need to pay for it now? also, what version of linux would you recommend for VMware server?
Whoa since when is Red Hat not free?
- Thread starter AznMaverick
- Start date
Redhat is Free. It's just costs money.
If you want you can get all the source code for it you want. You can even compile it and use it. It's all GPL or other open source software. http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS/
But Redhat only provides binaries under installable media if you purchase a support contract with them. A support contract lasts a year and depending on what price level you choose various different support options.
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/allProducts.html
If you want to use Redhat without paying for it then CentOS is a very close clone. They take the Redhat source code, strip out all the trademarks and then compile their own version of the Redhat.
http://www.centos.org/
Most people, however, that are interested in Redhat stuff and want to play around with it tend to choose Fedora. Fedora is the community and development branch of Redhat and has the technologies that will eventually appear in upcoming Redhat Enterprise Linux. It's sort of like a desktop/server/developer preview type setup. That way you get a up to date system and you can try out stuff before it reaches Redhat.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
In Vmware server administration guide they have a list of officially supported distributions
http://www.vmware.com/support/pubs/server_pubs.html
Mostly specific versions of Redhat, Ubuntu, Mandrake, and Suse. So take your pick from those if you want to be certain. But people run it on Debian, Slackware, and Fedora without any issues. Vmware is a very linux-savy corporation and their software works well on most modern Linux distributions.
A couple of guys here at work are very happy with centos. I plan on running it eventually for some testing/educational purposes.
Even Linux cannot be free just as there is no free beer. So far it has been free because of Microsoft's "influence" -- same is true for OpenOffice. Once Linux becomes part of main stream computation, you will get only community versions for free (but that will be good enough for many of us). I am in fact fine with that. How can I expect only software to be free, as long as nothing else is free in the world? If everything is free then who will work for whom? Socialism and communism has not been proven to be a success, anyways. I hope the main stream Linux will at least maintain the freedom - all I want is when I buy Linux I should be free to do whatever I want to do with that, including making changes, reverse engineering or trying to understand the way in which it works. Sometime back I bought Xandros Linux 3.0 and the sticker specifically said that you are entitled to install that in one machine - at least it is not locked to one specific hardware combination, so that I can upgrade my machine as I wish.
When I talked about free software to my collegue he said.. "Yeah that is right, you get up in the morning and start writing free software and when you are hungry go to the neighbor's door".Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Its still free (as in beer). Look at the first link Drag posted. Still Free and free.
I do not understand the economics behind free software, I guess. Once you are sure that learning computers won't fetch you food, who will even take computer science as their major? Eventually no one will be there to write free software for you.
Originally posted by: hasu
When I talked about free software to my collegue he said.. "Yeah that is right, you get up in the morning and start writing free software and when you are hungry go to the neighbor's door".Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Its still free (as in beer). Look at the first link Drag posted. Still Free and free.
I do not understand the economics behind free software, I guess. Once you are sure that learning computers won't fetch you food, who will even take computer science as their major? Eventually no one will be there to write free software for you.
Yeah, you're right. Because there is no money in free software, development will stop.
In fact, Free and Open Source Software is a recent invention. It hasn't really been around for decades now... Just ask those BSD guys or Maddog Hall. They'll tell you.
FOSS will not die. It's the love of the code, it's the need for something better, it's the desire to have something good that drives it. Not tons of cash. It would be nice if there was an FOSS friendly company or two out there so that FOSS developers could have jobs, but until then Linus Torvalds will have to continue begging or stealing.
EDIT: fixed links.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I get free beer at the bar I frequent occasionally. I guess you could argue that the cost was me having to talk to the people that own and work at the bar or the gas and time it took to get there but that seems pretty extreme.
That's about as far from the truth as you can get. Linux was released for free originally because Linus couldn't afford Minix or a "real UNIX" system, MS wasn't invovled in the equation at all until people started talking about LotD.
That's not true either. RedHat, Novell, Canonical, etc all release their commercial versions for free as well. RH goes the extra step of not putting the ISOs up for public download to encourage you to buy them but all of the software is GPL'd and they do host the SRPMs for free so you can download it and build it yourself (i.e. CentOS) if you really want. Each company may have special deals with other companies like Adobe for flash distribution but nothing's stopping you from downloading that separately.
Air is free, where I live my water is free and as I said I've gotten free beer on occasion. =)
There are none that I'm aware of. Most people who write free software do so just because they enjoy it. It's just like any other hobby to them but they also get the satisfaction of knowing that thousands of people around the world are using their software. Companies like Redhat, Novell, IBM, Canonical, etc are making money from support which is orthogonal to the software to the software they're supporting and the license it came to them under.
Most free software developers started working on it because they enjoy it and not because it would make them money. There's no denying that a number of them got hired to do the same thing by some large corporations but it's impossible to even guess at the percentage of free software developers out there that get paid for their work. And then there's likely some that work on projects that they're not paid to work on even if they have such a job.
When I talked about free software to my collegue he said.. "Yeah that is right, you get up in the morning and start writing free software and when you are hungry go to the neighbor's door".Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Its still free (as in beer). Look at the first link Drag posted. Still Free and free.
I do not understand the economics behind free software, I guess. Once you are sure that learning computers won't fetch you food, who will even take computer science as their major? Eventually no one will be there to write free software for you.[/quote]
Yeah, you're right. Because there is no money in free software, development will stop.
In fact, Free and Open Source Software is a recent invention. It hasn't really been around for decades now... Just ask those BSD guys or Maddog Hall. They'll tell you.
FOSS will not die. It's the love of the code, it's the need for something better, it's the desire to have something good that drives it. Not tons of cash. It would be nice if there was an FOSS friendly company or two out there so that FOSS developers could have jobs, but until then Linus Torvalds will have to continue begging or stealing. [/quote]
Let me make it clear. I am not against free and open source software. I like it so much that Linux (right now it is SimplyMEPIS 6.5) is the OS in my machine at home. I have tried various other free (and specifically open source) software in the last couple of months and I must admit that I am totally impressed. I like it so much that I don't want it to go away. What I do not understand is the economics behind it.
Success of BSD, I was told, was because of their more conventional and development friendly License. For example Mac OS X is based off of that (if my understanding is right) and they must be supporting it, I guess. Most of the university CS departments are supporting open source because they get students (as of now) and they are able to generate revenue from that.
I am not arguing that all Linux companies should charge an arm and a leg for their distribution or shoot for 85% profit margins - which is wrong and certainly impede development of the human race. At the same time nothing wrong in aiming for a decent profit on par with other industries. That may in fact be necessary to sustain development. In the real world scenario, how to achieve that in open source is beyond my comprehension.
Here are the economics broken down:
- User has a need.
- User cannot find a piece of software to fill that need.
- User creates the software to fill that need.
- User thinks other people may have the same issue and puts the software out there, along with the source so others can customize it.
There's the economics.
I don't think Apple supports BSD much. Mostly they mooch.
But that's ok, that's what its all about.Look at OpenSSH. It's under a Free license (mostly BSD and ISC based). It's developed by the OpenBSD guys. Almost every OS (all major OSes except one, and almost all linux distributions, and plenty of embedded devices) includes it or offers it as an option (SunSSH in the case of Solaris, but it's a Sun branded OpenSSH).
How much money have these companies given to the OpenSSH developers?
Has this lack of monetary support killed OpenSSH?
Some companies have given money in support of OpenSSH, but in the long run it isn't much and development would continue without it (although probably at a slower pace).
There is a need and people skilled enough to fill it. The money is/would be nice, but it isn't necessary.
Sell support. Sell value added stuff. It's being done successfully by more companies than I can count even if I used your toes.
Is it that simple? I am working on finishing my basement now, and I need a truck to haul some sheet-rock. Should I start building one or is there any other free truck project out there started by some one else before me?Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Here are the economics broken down:
There's the economics.
- User has a need.
- User cannot find a piece of software to fill that need.
- User creates the software to fill that need.
- User thinks other people may have the same issue and puts the software out there, along with the source so others can customize it.
You mean it already at a slower pace? Now unless some one supports it (possibly some one who generates revenue out of it) how long will it survive?
As long as you don't get free food and free medical care, you will need money.
What do you mean by value added stuff?
Originally posted by: hasu
Is it that simple? I am working on finishing my basement now, and I need a truck to haul some sheet-rock. Should I start building one or is there any other free truck project out there started by some one else before me?Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Here are the economics broken down:
There's the economics.
- User has a need.
- User cannot find a piece of software to fill that need.
- User creates the software to fill that need.
- User thinks other people may have the same issue and puts the software out there, along with the source so others can customize it.
Apples and Oranges. The tools for building software are plentiful and cheap (gcc and friends are free). The tools for building a truck from scratch are not. Think virtual, not physical.
It's survived ~8 years on the little funding they do get/have gotten. It survived for a while before that as ssh (the precursor to OpenSSH).
Look at sourcefire. They built a company around snort, an open source and free network intrusion detection system. They then added non-free/non-open source software on top of snort (while snort remains free and open source), sometimes with hardware under neath it and sell that. Along with support. The closed stuff is not necessary to the survival of snort, there are plenty of open source and free alternatives, but its nice.
If the fact the author of snort started the company bothers you, look at stillsecure or applied watch.
I guess we will start seeing this model (proprietary binary built on top of open source -- like OS X) more in the future. But the newer GPL revisions may not be compatible with that and eventually those companies will go for open source products based on BSD style license, which certainly is more "customer" and "user" friendly.
Thinking of it more, I feel that when we say the Free and Open Source Software is supported by public communities, we mean employees of other companies and not necessarily individuals sitting at home and working for free. That make more sense.
Edit: Thanks to AznMaverick for starting this discussion.
FOSS is supported by lots of people. Some get paid to do it. Some don't. Some aren't even in "the industry" and are sitting at home working for free.
EDIT: What part of the GPLv3 aren't compatible with using open source products in proprietary products?
I read somewhere that even Linus Torvalds agreed that GPLv3 is better than GPLv2 (or something of that sort). Is it not true that in GPLv3, if you want your application use any of the GPLv3 library (even dynamically loading) your application should be released under GPLv3?Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
A lot of people disagree with RMS, which is why the Linux kernel will be using gplv2.
Originally posted by: hasu
I read somewhere that even Linus Torvalds agreed that GPLv3 is better than GPLv2 (or something of that sort). Is it not true that in GPLv3, if you want your application use any of the GPLv3 library (even dynamically loading) your application should be released under GPLv3?Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
A lot of people disagree with RMS, which is why the Linux kernel will be using gplv2.
Linus said that the last draft (at the time at least) was better than the previous one he had publicly said was horrible.
With the GPL (v2 at least), if the library is GPL, then the application linking against it is GPL, I think. The LGPL allows for proprietary systems to link against it without becoming GPLed.
One thing you have to understand is that software is not like physical objects. It's just ideas, abstracted math. It only functions by being copied. You copy it from the cdrom to the harddrive. The software is copied from the harddrive to memory. Memory is copied to cache. Cache is copied to registers to be used to drive transistors and modify input data.
It's as if you created a Truck. But the truck is not a physical item. It can be broken up into bits and copied.
It's as if you invented a replicator, like on star treck. A replicator that can replicate a replicator.
It's different then what people are about. The best possible economic system currently aviable is capitalism. Capitalism is successfull because it can, if left to be natural and as long as nobody becomes to powerfull, allocate resources most effectively to people that are the most effective producers of goods and services. It's based on the concept that money and credit represents limited resources and commodities and by allocating that money through natural selection to the most effective producers then you get the most efficient system. Metals, food, manpower, manufacturing capacity, oil, electricity, intellegence, etc etc are all limited resources all of them cost money.
So intellegence and manpower is limited, so it costs money to _make_ software.
However software itself is so cheap to replicate that it is essentially free. Effectively the cost of making one Linux kernel is the same cost of making 10,000,000,000 copies of that linux kernel.
It's as if one baker can make a loaf of bread and that single loaf of bread can be used to feed everybody in the world, as long as they have a effective internet connection. That is how software works.
And not only that, if you have _open_source_ software you can use that source to make new programs. And not only that it makes new programs much more flexible and much more customizable.
Take for instance this concept:
Unix originally started as effectively open source. Developers working for AT&T developed it in order to play video games and after a while it turned into something usefull, but AT&T was not allowed to sell computers due to it's anti-trust. So they let other people use the source code. Out of this is why the Internet is a Unix system, it's why TCP/IP is a Unix concept.
One of the results of these breakthroughs is various little bits of convential wisdom.
One of the things that people say is that Linux/Unix is a 90% solution. This makes it better then software that tries to be a 100% solution. This is because the last 10% is so difficult and so complex that all your going to manage to do if you attempted to fill in the blanks would be to make a huge, buggy, and extremely hackish program that isn't going to be 100% anyways. It'll just do 95% and be extremely buggy and difficult to work with. Or something like that.
So you have in the Enterprise people competeting with closed source 'shrinkwapped' software versus Open source software.
The open source software says: We will do _most_ of what you want, and it's free for you to customize.
The closed source software says: We will do all of what you want and we cost money.
The closed source software is rigid and so they have to try to prepare the software for all eventualities. It is not possible for them to do this, of course, so they not only create massively complex software they also put severe restrictions on what sort of environment is going to be supported.
The open source software in comparision isn't going to everything, it's not claiming to do everything. But modified, it CAN do everything _you_ need.
So instead of getting shrink wrapped software and then forcing their business to adapt to the software. They can get the open source software and then adapt the software to their business.
Which do suppose is more effective approach?
This is why worse is better. This is why Unix is around and the history books are littered with the remains of competing propriatory software. Also since Unix went all propriatory, this is why Linux is killing it.
But you may say: not everybody can afford to customize open source software, not everybody is programmers.
And that is absolutely right.
Manpower and intellegence is limited. So this is were you make money with Free software. You make money by supporting it and customizing it. People call it software as a service, but it's more like just charging for servicing software. Open source/Free software is not only cheap for the customers, it's much cheaper to develop also.
It takes a fraction of the time and money to produce Free software that is comparable to closed source offerings.
This is how Redhat works. They pay kernel hackers. They hack on GCC. They hack on almost every aspect of the operating system. Improving it and making it more competitive. They work on clustering file systems. They have the source code for everything. They go all the way up the 'software stack'. Linux, GNU, Apache, MySQL, Jboss. They are familar with all of it. And they are familar with the development tools.
So it goes like this:
Software is infinately copiable.
Having the source code makes the software more effective, more flexible, and adaptable.
Not everybody knows how to customize and support open source software.
So you provide support for the software and you charge for it. That is how you make your money.
You stay making money by making sure to do a better job then other people. You are justifying your existance and your costs by making sure that your customers are saving money by paying you.
Capitalism and Free software at work.
It'll work in the long run also because software is never finished. Version releases are but a illusion created out of nessicity. They are mearly a development snapshot that is given more attention and care then your normal nightly cvs snapshot.
LoL, funny to see a topic gradually fade off the original topic as I scroll down... I use fedora core 6 for my webserver, and fedora core 5 is what we are using at ASU in the *nux classes.
I use fedora core 6 for my webserver, and fedora core 5 is what we are using at ASU in the *nux classes.I don't think the discussion was totally out of line with OP's post. All the available alternatives to Redhat has been covered in drag's first message. Drag even gave links to VMWare list of distributions. There is nothing more to add except everybody can say "Yeah I agree with that try Fedora or Centos". Discussion, I think, was about the first part of the question "last time i tried to learn how to use Red hat it was free. Do we really need to pay for it now?". If OP thinks that I hijacked his thread I apologize to him because I started the debate on the economics of the free software.Originally posted by: Aknosis
LoL, funny to see a topic gradually fade off the original topic as I scroll down...
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
It seems to me that the GPL is more customer friendly since it requires that the person who gives you the software also give you the source if you ask for it but BSD licenses have no such requirements so it's perfectly legal for someone (like say Apple) to take some code, recompile it and sell it without giving back the source to anyone.
Actually the main reason it will stay is because it's pretty much impossible to get every single copyright holder's permission to change the license that their code is under.
That makes about as much sense as running Win95 these days.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter