| |||||||||||||
Enterprise distributions and free softwareEnterprise distributions and free softwarePosted Mar 8, 2011 0:14 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Enterprise distributions and free software by airlied Parent article: Enterprise distributions and free software
fragmented without the lock-in is not nearly as much of a problem.
the kernels used by different distros used to be far more fragmented then they currently are, but since there was no lock-in, things were able to be smoothed out.
if there is lock-in, it makes it much harder to fix any of the other problems.
(Log in to post comments)
Enterprise distributions and free software Posted Mar 8, 2011 0:47 UTC (Tue) by blitzkrieg3 (subscriber, #57873) [Link]
> Red Hat's move to lock down information about this kernel is an admitted attempt to increase customer lock-in; they are trying to make it harder to move to another provider of support.
I take issue with this definition of lock-in, which is one I've never heard before. Red Hat doesn't do anything to the OS or to the customer to make it harder for the customer to move, we simply make it harder for competitors to support Red Hat software. Now if you're a business person and you say, "We could move to vendor X for Enterprise Linux support, but their support is not as good as Red Hat", I could see how that might make it "hard to move", but that isn't lock-in.
Enterprise distributions and free software Posted Mar 8, 2011 1:09 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
I agree. An example of lockin would be creating custom APIs without ever pushing those APIs upstream. Android kernels seems to have that problem, not RHEL (as far as I know).
Enterprise distributions and free software Posted Mar 8, 2011 2:03 UTC (Tue) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]
I can't parse your comment, there is no different lock-in now than there was with RHEL 5 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||