Weekly Edition
Return to the Letters page
| |||||||||||||
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9
I have been running RedHat since 4.0 and used every version since then both
(Log in to post comments)
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 9, 2003 21:21 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] A few weak spots in your arguments:When you are talking about per-seat licenses, you are confusing Red Hat with Caldera (now SCO). I don't think Red Hat ever had per-seat licensing. If you accuse them, provide a link. I have never heard of Red Hat (or somebody on their behalf) doing "spot license audits". Again, a link would be nice. What is in Red Hat today will be in Mandrake and SuSE tomorrow. There are still reasons to use Red Hat. Sourse based distributions are more up-to-date, but Red Hat sometimes pushes new stuff they are working on. For example, source based distributions use 2.4 kernel without futex patches, so you'll have to apply them and also patch glibc if you want to program for POSIX threads today.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 9, 2003 22:44 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] > I don't think Red Hat ever had per-seat licensing. If you accuse them,> provide a link. I wanted to cut/paste from the EULA for RHEL but it was no longer up on their site. A week or so ago I did find the license (with a fair amount of digging) for RHEL Workstation and it had all the vile clauses one would expect in any closed product, including agreeing to spot audits, expressly forbiding transfering errata to a machine not under contract, etc. (How that last one passes muster with RMS is beyond me.) And yes, the base RedHat had per seat licensing in the days of yore, when they included MetroX, BRU and Red Baron. They always had a completely free version for download though.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 9, 2003 23:07 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Bah, another crawl through redhat.com turned up the EULA. They sure don't make it easy to find though since their search engine doesn't find it. The part about audits is at I, A, 4 and the part about the inability to share errata is at II, A, 2.2
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 10, 2003 0:19 UTC (Thu) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] While I agree that the audit clause is onerous and don't like it myself, I've got to wonder where in that license you read that you can't apply errata to any system under contract. The clause you reference regarding this says nothing about the errata itself, but only the Support Services which apply specifically to the Red Hat Network. This is an automated web based update system (that is more extensive than just launching the GUI and clicking next a bunch of times) but is possible to spoof (by moving system ids and other stuff around from system to system).THAT is what is prohibited and IMNSHO, is a perfectly acceptable limit. Your paying for the management of one system, you should only be able to get the automated updates for one system. Your free to grab the downloaded rpms (if you've chosen to not delete them once applied) and apply them to subsequent systems yourself manually, or with your own home grown update system (apt-get, yum, or current repositories, for example). If you don't believe this clause only applies to Support Services (and not the errata itself), reread the Appendix regarding licenses. It quite clearly says that nothing in the agreement supersedes your rights under any applicable license and even goes so far to say that collective work of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is covered under the GNU GPL.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 10, 2003 5:32 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] This is the key point-- Red Hat is putting licence limits on the service, not on the software (which it can't). Although it may well start to do the latter by making some key pieces of it proprietary... we've seen that before with other companies. I do agree that the cost is more than many folks will want to pay. Perhaps those who currently pay for Microsoft contracts won't balk at it, but those at universities and the like who realized that they could cheaply run many more computers than they ever considered before Linux will not suddenly be able to pay support at that level for all of them. Most things that fit that description do have somebody capable of putting in security patches, but who don't have the time to assemble and compile all patches themselves. Thus, mostly they just need a distro that keeps up with security patches and makes them available in a form similar to Red Hat's "updates" directory. If the the Enterprise version doesn't get shackled by a proprietary key component (such that the distro becomes a pain to get working without it), and if the updates are going to be available so a sysadmin can get them all in one place, then there's no reason one couldn't keep working with RedHat the way one does today. If this is not going to be the case for Enterprise Red Hat Linux unless you have a subscription, then the original letter's points are all completely valid: we're going to be stuck with x.0 RedHat distributions forever. (Speaking as a university type who ran and runs lots of Linux systems because they were affordable, and who used to buy one copy of RedHat x.2's, I learned my lesson and never installed RedHat x.0 of anything.) Fortunately, even if Mandrake and SUSE go this route, Debian won't. -Rob
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 14, 2003 0:41 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Exactly. You may apply the errata to any system UNDER CONTRACT. What I can't do is have one machine on support and fifty exact clones of it, even if just one is placing any burden on RedHat. I don't mind paying for a service, I object to paying out the wazoo for machines that never contact updates.redhat.com.I really object to paying as much to keep access to errata every year as a whole new WinXP (OEM) license would cost; actually less since libraries can get the educational rates from Microsoft. Better yet, I'd like to see RedHat supply me some marketing BS to feed the Board of Control justifing RHEL as a good use of the taxpayers money in a down economy, the state budget in crisis and the SLC Fund teat possibly drying up. Sounds like the marketing genius who told Microsoft last year that a recession was the perfect time to force Licensing 6.0 on their customers has moved over to RedHat.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 16, 2003 14:55 UTC (Wed) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] I still beg to differ about this. I don't see how people can read this contract and miss that you most certainly are allowed to apply the errata to machines under contract. You just aren't allowed to set up machines on the Red Hat Network and spoof Red Hat's servers to think they are all the same machine.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 16, 2003 16:42 UTC (Wed) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] > allowed to apply the errata to machines under contractOops. Should read: allowed to apply the errata to machines not under contract
Service != Software Posted Apr 19, 2003 18:55 UTC (Sat) by ucntcme (guest, #10755) [Link] "The Support Services purchased by Customer are intended for use only for the benefit of the Customer and only for the Installed Systems with subscriptions. Customer may not use one subscription for Support Services for more than one Installed System. Any unauthorized use of the Support Services will be deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement."*SERVICES*, not *Software*. That section (2.2, wich you noted), does *NOT* restrict you in any way from downloading the updates on your system-under-service-contract and then installing the updates on any number of separate machines. Hell, it doesn't even prevent you from posting them! It merely says that the service, as defined in the agreement can only be on machines that have *gasp* a contract associated with them. To use the oft-used car analagy, you are asking that your brand new Chevy's warranty service be applied to all your old ones. If my car is out of warranty, is it right to take it in under your service agreement? I don't think so, nor is it legal, AFAIK. I think before you continue with your ill-informed rant you should take the agreement to an attourney, preferably a contract attourney, and ask him/her what it says, since you are so clearly and grossly incorrect. Or is it as some say, and "just another RH rant" (JARHR). Now, if you can privde an exact quote that says you can not redistribute the software (other then that involving RH trademark's such as their logo and artwork) on your other machines, maybe you will aquire some credibility. But I'm not holding my breath -- I *have* taken it to an attourney. Wasn't hard to find the LA either, 3-4 clicks from any page ({Support & Docs -> License Agreement -> drop down box for your product and country -> the agreement). One last thing, at the top it states: It even states you can redistribute the binary updates you get for any software that has a license that allows that. In fact, that part is identical to RH9, or 8, 7.3, 6.1 or ... any of them. All it takes is some non-biased, and/or non-emotional reading.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 17, 2003 12:39 UTC (Thu) by jeremyhogan (guest, #10719) [Link] I wanted to answer some things here, since as the author points out, this is not the usual bandwagon slagging of RH.The limits this article speaks of are bound to services, not software in and of itself. Let's take an example later in the thread: "I should be able to pay for autmated updates and errata on one machine, if the next 50 are clones..." Yes and no. Certainly the value of RHN and RHEN really hits home on multiple machines, and if you don't care for that value don't use it, but the fact is, that n+x deployment is a fallacy. The more machines you run, identical or not, the greater the likeliehood of you seeing a bug or mis-behavior. The greater the intrinsic, expected and potential support and administration issues. And unless you are trying to say that will always occur on the same exact machine, every time, then you are not entitled to support or services from Red Hat to the affected machines unless they are accounted for. So somewhere between per seat regulations, and muddy site licensing is the answer. Or perhaps it's in the allocation and level of services and support. Maybe it's both. You have no idea how many people will blast an upstream kernel and call expecting quality support. No can do. It's not like we don't have hardcore kernel hackers, but would you call a certfied Chevy mechanic with a question about Fords? He understands the fundamentals of internal combustion, odds are he can help you in some capacity, and maybe even solve it, but the level of service he can guarantee is different. In our case, we may have even solved it with a patch in our own kernel, so calling for a second fix is not going to work. As for the claim we are somehow renegging on the developers, I don't see how. Regardless of the disposition of ISOs and binary errata, the source is available. You get what you pay for, like always, but you still get more than you are entitled to, as per the way RH has always done. There is also some mistaken impression as to "stable", and it's meaning. What that means is you can't count on binary, API, ABI compatibility. But the product has still been QA'd. There are people who are still going to feel alienated by this, as there are in every decision we make. That's the way it goes, but you have to acknowledge that the enterprise is conditioned around certain expectations, that we had to meet. There is also the hobbyist, enthusiast, contributor to consider. What's left, as the article points out, is a lot of the middle. Now's where the ugly talk of money comes in. It's painful to think about, but we have to make money somewhere. There are honest and legit users at all levels, but you and I and the whole community knows there are trust abusers, cheaters and flat out deadbeats, too. There are people with such a sense of entitlement, that they will download RH. For free. Then complain about some change, and threaten to go and not pay Mandrake. Are we walking away from education? From the SMB or SOHO user? By all means no, but we'd rather reprioritize and re-approach, rather than mishandle. We will lose some of these folks in the meantime, hopefully to other Linux vendors, rather than to Microsoft, but we will be addressing all the holes. Hopefully the faith that we have overcome shortcomings in the past, and the quality of the software (something this article almost sounded like was in question) will keep users, and win them back if they leave. Feedback and articles like this help us do that.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 9, 2003 21:39 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Since it is now obvious that RedHat wants people like me to go away they shouldn't be offended by any of the above. Their Enterprise offerings are aimed, as the name implies, at the Enterprise customer who wants Service Level Agreements and doesn't mind paying through the nose to get one. On the small server and desktop RHEL is a non-starter.You may want to contact them and present your case, since you have real numbers to back your claim. I doubt that they want you to go away. I think what they really want is to make as much money as possible, and if they hear from enough sane people that their current product and service lineup is out of whack they may make some adjustments to avoid losing customers.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 10, 2003 5:35 UTC (Thu) by deatrich (subscriber, #25) [Link] It is worth noting that the Source RPM errata for the enterprise versions are freely downloadable from mirrors, even if the binary RPMs aren't. So I can't quite see what you mean by the lack of code. I mention it because I hear so many wildly differing versions of 'where red hat is going' these days.Also, one shouldn't get too hung up on the version numerology. In my mind Red Hat 9 is pretty much like what I would call 8.1 The next version, presumably RH 10, if it does not have the new kernel, might seem very much like an 8.2, or 8.1 with some new things. Once the new kernel comes out, then we are definitely looking at a .0. So one needs to look at each new version and make a few value judgements. Of course I could be completely wrong. But 9 looks an awful lot like 8.1 to me. Where will all of this go? There is potentially lots of bleeding edge stuff for desktops; but not a whole lot for server software. People running servers tend not to like that sort of thing. So the questions that remain to be answered are: Will one of the bi-yearly versions of the RHL desktop be stable enough for people like me to deploy once a year in the future? Will RHL servers in the future be significantly affected by desktop instabilities so that one asks the question "is this a useful platform for server deployment"? It may turn out that some people will lose all interest in RHL as a server platform. That is the main question I am looking at, and I will watch carefully what happens during the next year. And when I say 'people like me' I mean those of us who run 30-100 desktops and a handful of servers. (I am in an academic enviroment). We are often people who buy redhat preinstalled systems from companies like Dell. We usually have an overflowing carton of red hat boxed sets and a pile of unused 'entitlements of support' and/or registration cards (sorry, I have never seen any value in having 3 months of support), and brag of uptimes in the 400-day range. I have already spent 37K CHf on Dell redhat-installed systems this year...
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 11, 2003 11:58 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] RH 9 sure _looks_ a lot like 8.0, but it is a different beast inside (nptl for one, lots of large version jumps elsewhere). This is not the 7.3 --> 8.0 jump (looks changed, not a whole lot otherwise).Besides, what's so magic about version numbers? If it is called 9.1 or 10 is of no consecuence, as long as it does its job well (and 8.0 was a far cry from the awful 7.0)
More than cosmetics ... Posted Apr 19, 2003 19:01 UTC (Sat) by ucntcme (guest, #10755) [Link] Looks and not much else changed?How about the inclusion of OpenOffice.org, the move to a much newer Apache (v2 instead of 1), PHP, Python PostgreSQL, better RHN capabilities, improved functionality in many places, MTA-switchers, multiple printing subsystems, GNOME 2 instead of 1.4, bind9 (IIRC RH did an update to Bind9 for earilier releases. I know, it pissed me off since Bind9 wouldn't run on my 6.2 system, and it gave no warning about the whole-version upgrade --config file breakage, etc. but I digress), etc.. No small changes there, friend. :^)
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 14, 2003 1:12 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] > It is worth noting that the Source RPM errata for the enterprise> versions are freely downloadable from mirrors, even if the binary RPMs > aren't. Interesting. Darned if the .srpms aren't posted. Not sure how much good it does though since the only way to get the base distro is direct from RedHat, and you have to agree to the license before they take your money so it is not the typical EULA that isn't worth the paper it is printed on; it would probably be enforcable. So if the only people who could make use of the srpms have already agreed not to install on more machines than they are buying support for it is kinda a moot point. The only loophole I can find is that my read of the license says it only applies while you are under support so maybe you could buy a set of media/support and then find a way to cancel the support contract leaving you free to build your own binary rpms and install on as many machines as you please. The license does say nothing in the license trumps the GPL so they can't revoke your basic right to use and redistribute the basic distro when your support ends and any binary RPMS built from the GPLed SRPMS would be redistributable. However it would be legally dubious at best and not at all the sort of trick our auditors would be happy with. And after the first time they debug their license. Just not worth it, if you can't play nice with someone in the OSS/FS world it is usually better to find someone else to play with. Let us try and leave the lawyers behind in the closed world.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 17, 2003 13:20 UTC (Thu) by jeremyhogan (guest, #10719) [Link] >>Interesting. Darned if the .srpms aren't posted.<<Yes they are. I picked a random mirror: I'm starting to doubt the claim this wasn't a tirade against Red Hat all of the sudden.
Blah blah blah Posted Apr 10, 2003 23:29 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] You are a whiner, only trying to convince others. I know this, because you offer no positive alternatives to RedHat. If you don't like RH, then look at the Linux Weekly News list of over 200 alternate distributions. Pick one. If you don't like it, pick another.
Blah blah blah Posted Apr 14, 2003 0:24 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Eh? Reread the letter, I AM downloading and evaluating the alternatives. Not that the news is all that good so far.....Debian (Woody) was a something of a bitch to get going in VMWare, but otherwise looks viable; if a bit dated. (And if I thought running Sarge was a good idea in a production environment I wouldn't be bitchin about .0 RedHat releases now would I?) Mandrake still isn't downloaded/installed yet, but they already look to be going the chase the new releases to get errata route and aren't exactly a safe choice because of their business situation. Suse, while not offering ISOs does have ftp installation as an option. It's on the agenda. And Caldara/SCO was eliminated right off the bat. :) Can't think of any other distros with a reputation for a stable desktop and better than even odds of being around in 3-5 years. Additional suggestions welcome!
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 11, 2003 4:46 UTC (Fri) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link] Is there anything illegal in downloading RH 7.2, compiling the additional RH 2.1AS SRPMS and the SRPMS of the updates, and running the result?I do not condone such an action; I am just asking if this is prohibited or not by any law or license.
RHAS download and run: go for it. Posted Apr 19, 2003 18:28 UTC (Sat) by ucntcme (guest, #10755) [Link] Perfectly legal. WHat most people fail to grasp is that the commercial RHAS includes Java and other things RH does not own and is not open source. Of course, you can't expect any official support from them, just as when you download RH 7.3 or 8, or 9, or 6.2.Nothing wrong to condone. RH is charging for service, not SW.
Why I won't be downloading RedHat 9 Posted Apr 12, 2003 20:49 UTC (Sat) by stock (subscriber, #5849) [Link] I watched Revolution OS a couple a days ago on DVD and it stroke me that these guys need you to test their software. Thats basicly their revenue of OSS. However beware of abusers of that principle. A possible abuse scenario could be the debugging of gentoo. On a irc channel: "don't you see , you are just debugging those emerge scripts? when the work is finally done. you can buy the shrinkwrapped box in your favorate store :)" We all know windows is exit and has been killed by M$ management last year. No happy end pending. end of story. M$ played itself lock tight, no escape possible. Now the whole load of the IT burden hangs on the shoulders of Linux and OSS and alike software. Well it could very easy be that the burden will be too great. (maybe too pessimistic?) Now that the burden is growing, its pretty tempting for certain company's to abuse the ideals of free and open source software. RedHat is IMHO already going into such roads. They released RedHat 9 a couple of days ago. No-one is yelling yet that: 1. the author of "RedHat 8.0 unleashed" didn't sell any books yet, and now his book is redundant. 2. the downloadable versions 8 and 9 suck badly , are slow and are full of bugs. well i don't know about redhat 9 yet, but 8 was to me a really bare-bones .0 version , with really annoying bugs. And now RedHat will tell you : "Ahh you want a solid version... well, we have Advanced Server, Enterprise Ed. Server, and Enterprise Workstation". The problem of that is : 1. They cost a fortune. 2. Linux was a low cost OS? 3. Because they cost a fortune, independant linux admins cannot give you advise of those expensive redhat versions. 4. The blue suits selling that expensive linux stuff are the only ones who can advise you. And then you get the old commercial unix situation found at IBM (AIX) HP (HPUX) etc... Next we have indeed the argument like the letter here above , saying that contributing bugfixes on the latest .0 versions to bugtraq will not result in RedHat releasing the combined effort by the installed base (redhat community) in a .1 , .2 or even .3 release available for public download. Redhat has taken a rather long time to arrive where they are now : They apparently still have a nice product : Redhat Advanced Server. But today they slam the frontdoor closed. The community which tested and used RedHat versions 3, 4.x 5.x 6.x 7.x for them is kindly asked to leave the building. A bunch of former windoze clickers is now emerging as a 'new community' who are happy with the marketing trash called redhat 8 and 9. So whats new? RedHat is killing open source basicly. The community as we have known sofar will stop to exist. Hence the big power of Open Source dies and the good old ideal of Free and Open Source has died on RedHat. Robert
|
|||||||||||||