Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com) [LWN.net]

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 12, 2003 17:44 UTC (Wed) by gbailey (subscriber, #58)
In reply to: Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com) by acar
Parent article: Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Maybe I missed something in the press releases, but it looks like they're pushing the "subscription" idea more heavily with the "enterprise" users. I guess I fail to see the idea of "squeezing financial gain" from that--enterprise customers who want that level of support will expect to pay, will they not?

And there's plenty of people (myself included) who run the regular "stock" 7.X or 8.X RedHat Linux on servers for "enterprise" usage who can download the aforementioned security updates for free from RedHat or one of the many mirror sites.

If your comment is intended to refer to SCO's actions, I fail to see the connection... correct me if I'm off base here.

to post comments

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 12, 2003 18:46 UTC (Wed) by acar (guest, #10082) [Link] (5 responses)

RedHat has different levels of security update programs: Demo, Basic and Enterprise (http://rhn.redhat.com/preview/).

The listed prices for the Demo, the Basic, and the Enterprise programs are "Survey," "$60/year," and "$96/year," respectively. In other words, even if you purchased the RedHat software (some of us did in spite of our local mirrors), you still need to fill out a survey form every 60 days in order to receive the security updates.

There are some obligations that come with the use of Linux and other open software. One part of the obligations deals with the accessibility of the code. Since they cannot outright block the access to the code, and since they made a big deal of having automatic updates; they introduce these types of inconveniences to steer the users to pay for the updates. For me that constitutes an attempt to "squeeze as much financial gain as possible," and it is "the managerial style of mostly failed enterprises."

In order not to be misunderstood, I would like to express that I use, support,and encourage the use of Linux in my work environment. Even though, I don't want to start a discussion on Linux versus Windows, I need to tell you that I paid more for the RedHat software than I did for the Windows upgrade and I get hassle-free security upgrades for Windows. (If you need to know, the only reason I still purchase Windows upgrades is to run a program that is currently only available for Windows.)

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 12, 2003 19:41 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (3 responses)

Since they cannot outright block the access to the code, and since they made a big deal of having automatic updates; they introduce these types of inconveniences to steer the users to pay for the updates.

This seems like a sort of "the glass is half-empty" way of looking at the situation. A more optimistic point of view might see the surveys as a method that Red Hat uses to measure the effectiveness of their services. I don't know for certain; last time I payed for RHN support there was no survey involved.

What sort of questions do they ask?

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 12, 2003 20:06 UTC (Wed) by acar (guest, #10082) [Link]

I sympathize with your optimism.

FYI: (to their credit,) the survey is short and simple.

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 12, 2003 20:35 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (1 responses)

You do not have to fill out the survey if you pay for the Basic/Enterprise level support. You do have to fill out the survey every 2 months if you just have a demo account.

If you do not like to fill it out and use up2date, you can download the RPMS from ftp.redhat.com or its 100+ mirrors. The cost of that will be 0.00 beyond your time and net charges.

Out-of-date vs. up2date

Posted Mar 14, 2003 12:23 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

OK, this is coming from a Mdk Cooker user that updates a couple times a week,
often more, to the latest available, but...

Does anyone besides me see anything ironic about quibbling over one-year limit
post-release support, with a service called "up2date"?

One of the characteristics of Linux is, after all, that it develops "at internet speed."
I mean, yes, I understand the longer deployment cycles of many business users,
who may spend a good six months testing it, before deployment, and once
tested, may want to wait at LEAST a good 2-3 years b4 even THINKING about
the next deployment cycle, but that doesn't change the fact that with an OS like
Linux that develops "at Internet speed", if your base installation is a year or more
old, it's more out-of-date clear-the-cobwebs and brush-away-the-dust than
"up2date", and no service, short of "up2dating" the entire installation, will fix that.
Thus, ending basic level support at a year makes sense, as that's at least the
equivilant of the 2-3 year major generation and several SP/OSRs minor
generations later, that comparitively glacial speed proprietary-ware normally
supports.

Considering the fact that with software libre, there's both the option to bring
security update support in-house, and the option to outsource it to some third
party, neither of which exist with proprietary-ware, where when the maker decides
to stop supporting it, you are left up a creek without a paddle, no matter WHAT
the negotiable price point, it's not such a bad situation after all, IMO.

Red Hat revamps premium Linux plan (News.com)

Posted Mar 13, 2003 2:34 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I *really* don't understand the complaint here. How is the situation now any different than before Red Hat came out with up2date? Except of course that if you *want* to use the automatic update service, you can pay for it -- and there's even a way to get this added service for free. The ftp server and mirror network still works like it always did. Better, in fact, since there's more and better mirrors.