Linux.com

Feature: Linux

Red Hat Professional Workstation: More expensive, fewer features

By Jason Prince on February 18, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Red Hat Professional Workstation was designed to allow former users of the company's consumer product line to continue to use a supported platform without having to migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Unfortunately, it fails to live up to its predecessors in key areas, and is considerably more expensive in some usage scenarios. Home users should look to the Fedora Project if they wish to continue using Red Hat technology, or consider migrating to another Linux distribution. Small businesses should analyse their current expenditure and consider migrating to another vendor.

Late last year, Red Hat announced that it was discontinuing its consumer product line and replacing it with an unsupported, community-oriented developer platform, the Fedora Project. The announcement of the Fedora Project was taken by many in the wider community to mean that Red Hat was simply abandoning the home users and small businesses that had been its staple long before the existence of the Enterprise Linux platform.

However, shortly after the release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 3, Red Hat quietly made Red Hat Professional Workstation available. Initially buried deep within the Red Hat Web site, the company is only now putting greater emphasis on the product. When contacted, Red Hat made much the fact that they were not abandoning home users after all. "Professional Workstation is a derivative of Red Hat Enterprise Linux designed for the individual user," explained Michelle Chaperon, a spokesperson for Red Hat. "It is based on a year long release cycle that is ideal for those who do not wish to keep up with the rapid release cycle of Fedora."

Retailing at around $100, Professional Workstation comes with 30 days of phone and Web-based installation support, and access to Red Hat Network's Update module for one year. Although the product originally lacked a clear upgrade path, Red Hat announced earlier this month that users will be able to renew their subscriptions each year. However, considering the fact that Red Hat initially refused to disclose how it intended to proceed with users who deployed Professional Workstation, and given that the company has been gradually moving towards enterprise products for the last few years, how long this hybrid solution will be available for is unclear.

"It seems as if this is almost an orphaned offering," comments Stephen O'Grady, senior analyst at RedMonk. "Without a clear upgrade path and guaranteed support, it's difficult to say why anyone would choose this direction instead of Fedora -- after all, there's nothing to say that Fedora users have to keep pace with every single release."

Long-term viability aside, Professional Workstation is considerably more expensive than the consumer product line it replaced. Most former users of the consumer product line would have paid around $40 every 12 months as older products reached their end-of-life dates. However, Professional Workstation does include access to Red Hat Network's Update module, which would have cost $60 each year, so the actual difference in cost may therefore not be quite as pronounced as might be thought at first glance.

Inside Professional Workstation

Professional Workstation includes nine CDs and a printed installation guide, all labeled as "Red Hat Linux Enterprise 3 WS" -- as becomes even clearer once the installation is under way, describing the product as a "derivative" of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS is something of an exaggeration.

Desktop productivity users may hardly notice the difference between the two products. Generally, only minor package updates have been included over those that were available in Red Hat Linux 9. Although Ximian Evolution has been updated to 1.4.5, OpenOffice.org remains at an aged 1.0.2. A number of productivity applications, including GnuCash, have actually been removed altogether.

By contrast, small businesses that ran Red Hat Linux 9 on their servers certainly will notice what they're missing. A lot of the functionality that was available in Red Hat Linux 9 has been stripped out of Enterprise Linux WS, undoubtedly to force subscribers to the Enterprise Linux product line to move to the more expensive ES and AS platforms. This has naturally filtered down to Professional Workstation, which is missing server components such as BIND, OpenLDAP, DHCP, inews, and Kerberos 5. Professional Workstation does still include Apache, Samba, and NFS, and may therefore still be adequate for basic server needs, but small business users that had previously utilised services such as DHCP server will be forced to look at alternatives.

Support services are also lacking in Professional Workstation, again as the result of a deliberate decision on the part of Red Hat. While the functionality of Red Hat Network remains similar, Red Hat's Support on Demand service is no longer available at all, removing an important surety for small businesses.

Professional Workstation includes one year's access to Red Hat Network's Update module, to allow users to receive updates from Red Hat quickly and efficiently. The tools included with the Update module subscription are virtually unchanged from the old Basic subscription level, although access to ISO images is not available. Red Hat Network would be the one truly unique feature of Red Hat Professional Workstation were it not for the fact that the add-on services that would make the service distinctive, the Management and Provisioning modules, are only available to Enterprise Linux subscribers. As it is, Red Hat Network is just an update service, albeit one with a Service Level Agreement.

Beyond the initial 30 days of installation support, the support offerings available to users of Professional Workstation are poor. Prior to the discontinuation of the consumer product line, home users and small businesses were able to purchase basic support from Red Hat for $39.95 per incident. The Support on Demand service covered basic installation, configuration, and bug reporting, and represented an important safety net for small businesses using Red Hat Linux 9 in production environments. Professional Workstation's product description, on both the Red Hat Web site and the box itself, is at pains to point out that post-installation support is not available -- but is "standard in Red Hat Enterprise Linux." Small businesses that deploy Professional Workstation and require support will need to look to third parties for assistance.

Beyond Professional Workstation

For many users, the time has come to move away from Red Hat. There is no compelling reason to deploy Red Hat Professional Workstation; it is a good deal more expensive than former Red Hat Linux consumer products, and at the same time offers few useful enhancements and, in some cases, comes with reduced functionality. Both home users and small businesses will be better served by investigating other solutions.

For home users, there are numerous options. The Fedora Project offers an attractive Red Hat-based desktop environment, with newer packages and a Red Hat Network-like update service, although without any support or Service Level Agreements. If you want to move away from Red Hat, or are looking for a supported solution, there are an impressive range of well-supported Linux distributions available, including general-purpose products such as SUSE Linux and Mandrake Linux, and desktop-oriented products such as Xandros Desktop, LindowsOS, and Lycoris Desktop/LX.

Small businesses with requirements that go beyond the basic features offered by Professional Workstation need to carefully evaluate the costs associated with either migrating to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or moving away from Red Hat products entirely. "While Fedora certainly enjoys relatively strong support in terms of development and supporting packages," comments O'Grady, "it's clearly not intended for the enterprise nor is it billed as such."

The costs associated with Red Hat Enterprise Linux are substantial. A subscription to Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS costs at least $179 per year, and a fully supported subscription costs $299 -- three times the price of Professional Workstation. Red Hat Linux Enterprise ES, which includes the missing server software, costs at least $349 per year, with a fully supported subscription costing $799.

Moving away from Red Hat is the better of the two options, says Rob Enderle, principal analyst for the Enderle Group. "Red Hat Enterprise Linux reflects a much higher level of aggressiveness on Red Hat's part," he says. "Their pricing may not stabilise for some time to come, as margins are still a problem for them."

Enderle argues that Linux is becoming more like Unix as it moves into the enterprise, and says that small businesses should seriously evaluate vendors with Unix experience. "Linux is only going to get more expensive going forward," he predicts. "Companies with a history in Unix understand the need for stability in pricing."

Novell and Hewlett-Packard are the best bets, according to Enderle. "Novell clearly has a lot of history, while HP the safest for a vendor with a hardware capability," he says.

Jason Prince is studying Computer Science at Australia's Macquarie University. His areas of interest include Linux in small businesses and education, as well as Customer Relationship Management (CRM).

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Red Hat Professional Workstation: More expensive, fewer features

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Move on to another distro.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 04:23 PM
I would be surprised if the Fedora project in the long run shows up to be a compelling replacement. The point with Fedora from redhats point of view is that they don't want too high cost in "assembling" the distribution but leave this to volunteers. However, to get a complete distribution without a lot of glitches needs hard and boring work to put all toghever. I don't think anyone will do this for Redhat. People who want to do this will more likely go to a non-profit like debian instead.

#

Re:Move on to another distro.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 05:34 PM
If you're paying attention, the majority of Fedora's development work is payed for by Red Hat and its primary servers run by Red Hat. It's not that assembling it's a terribly high cost over development for RHEL (which itself requires a lot of attention from them, they'd be doing a lot of the upkeep anyway), it's that the amount they were charging for support in the consumer product and the amount of unsold consumer product in the retail channels wasn't justifying itself.

Oh, and I would have expected a product clearly labelled as "Workstation" to be missing lots of the server functionality. Hey, you know, I think I'll write a review of Debian GNU/Linux stable and gripe about how it's neither based on HURD nor using the 2.6 kernel already.

#

Re:Move on to another distro.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 10:37 PM
Actualy, RedHat developers are responsible for packages in Fadora and are on teh Fadora release deadline. So in reality not only do they fund Fadora at RedHat, a vast number of employee's are Fadora developers.

However, to get a complete distribution without a lot of glitches needs hard and boring work to put all toghever. I don't think anyone will do this for Redhat.

Actualy that is what RedHat does do. Their paid developers are responsable for making sure the boring work gets done. Volenteers don't may contribute to that work but are not obligated by it.

#

Give it a rest already...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 08:16 PM
* If it is'nt 100% FREE...
* If it is'nt perfect...
* If it does'nt come on a silver platter...
* If the company does'nt kiss your butt...
* WHINE AND MOAN!!

How pathetic is that???

#

Re:Give it a rest already...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 09:26 PM
I'd agree with your comment. But... learn to spell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
The apostrophe(') means "a letter is missing here". Therefore, "is not" becomes "isn't", as opposed to "is'nt", which doesn't mean anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

No offence. Just an observation. Hey.... I know this is *rather* off topic!

#

Puhleeze

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 09:06 PM
The author is just another Debian shill trying to disparage Red Hat.

#

Re:Puhleeze

Posted by: mrtom on February 19, 2004 12:07 AM
The author of the parent post is just another Red Hat shill trying to disparage Debian.

#

Debian is the way of the future

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 12:39 AM
Debian is the way of the future whether you like it or not. Red Hat will either have to bring back something like its old distro or it will effectively lose out the small business market, particularly Web servers.

Debian stable is just that. Every package works properly when installed and is stable for around 1.5-2 years. Plus, the fact that it is nonprofit means that it will never go away. And HP likes it, too, so it has no problem affording hardware for its mirrors.

Debian is also on the forefront of SELinux integration. It will likely have it done quicker than Red Hat.

#

Re:Debian is the way of the future

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 02:03 PM
Russell Cooker who works for Red Hat is the one who packages SElinux for Debian kernel why would they be better/faster when It's a Red Hat employee who maintains Debians patch. Attempt to be informed?

#

Get a clue

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 21, 2004 08:43 AM
Debian is hardly the future of Linux and it has nothing to do with whether you like it or not. Debian lost a huge part of its user base to Gentoo and they never came back. Even more left because of Debian's horrible release schedule and inadequate outdated installer. Noboy wants to put up with Debian when it looks and acts like a distro from 1995. There is a reason why Debian is a distant 4th or 5th in use behind Red hat, Fedora, Mandrake, and Suse. Sorry for the harsh reality check but sometime you Debian zealots need it.

#

Okay until ..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 09:37 PM

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Rob Enderle, principal analyst for the Enderle Group


You left off CEO, janitor, Linux basher, and FOSS hater extrordinaire. The so-called Enderle Group is a one man shop, him. He, Didiot, and a few others are infamous for parroting whatever party line dribbles from the anus of the likes of Microsoft, SCO, etc. Their credibility approaches negative infinity.

#

ditto! sheesh, Enderle's an ignoramus (nt)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 07:57 AM
-----
sig goes here

#

broaden your horizons my friends

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 10:28 PM
RH's changes are traumatic for those "patriots" who simply cannot concieve of looking beyond the flagship US-distribution. But if you look at "alien" distros, then you will see there is plenty of choice out there including the superior, but French (gasp of horror!), Mandrake.


Alternatively - maybe its time to give Debian, and its derivatives, a good look<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Re:broaden your horizons my friends

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 06:13 PM
I cannot speak for other Americans but I can give you my 'opinion'?

SuSe is out of the question because of thier propritary software bundling and because Novell is sure to start stacking more propriatry products ontop of that. The live eval stuff, the only i386 downloads. I just do not apporove of the way they handle themselvs in general. The Novell VP or CEO (I cannot remember which) said they will soon rethink making thier products available for Red Hat which is a big red flag to me. People are still locked into edirectory and now they may want to lock in linux users, no thanks, good bye.

Mandrake could be a possibilty for desktop use but I will not base my company on a business that for 1.) is forked from RH in the first place so why bother and 2.) They were very close to bankruptcy which makes me nervous. And 3.) I do not care for GUI tools as I am not a newbie, If you do not need GUI tools what point would there be to swich from Red Hat if you like paying for Linux. I can live with the ad-ware and even the buggy software they've developed a reputation for having. But not for my place of business.

Debian is not a EU company and I have never used them myself only across networks. They would probably be where I would look to if Fedora, Red Hat ever fails to suit my desktop or business needs.

All in all I use Red Hat not cause they are a US company but because they make _enormous_ controbutions to OSS with the money I give to them. What other distro are you aware of that has bought a completly propriatry company (sistina) and opened the code as GPL within the first month of purchase, they didn't even hesitate. Everything is OSS to red hat and I think when they have money we all benifit. I look at This is my investment to ensure no lockin's and price competitiveness for the future. albeit a personal decision some might dis-agree with. We can all agree that Whitebox linux is sure to be a better distro than if someone made a SuSe fork due to licesnsing.

#

Re:broaden your horizons my friends

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 10:03 PM
thanks for the interesting post. I am not a RH user and I could never figure out what was so attractive about their products. Anyway - I still wonder:


1) if you don't like GUI, what is it that makes RH better in your mind then Debian?


2) Mandrake's "fork" from RH took then a loooong way from the fork. Why don't you look at Mdk 9.2 and see for yourself how far they got? Also, Mdk *was* close to bankcrupcy but that is practically over and, besides, their products are not really affected (the advantage of GPL).


3) Mdk has not ad-ware or buggy code. Check the download edition of 9.2 and see for yourself.


4) Debian is really rock-solid and does provide you with anything, even if they are typically a littie "late" (timewise) compared to bleeding-edge distros. But they are also more stable. Last but not least: they are the ONLY ones whom we know for SURE will not sell out to the "korporate" world.



what do you think?

#

Re:broaden your horizons my friends

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 02:55 PM
I am not a RH user and I could never figure out what was so attractive about their products

For me It's many of the reasons I listed before. They wrote anaconda (which debian uses)
kudzu (which debian/knoppix uses)
NPTL (sent upstream to 2.6 kernel which took it from 2,000 threads, to 50,000 threads)
They maintain GCC, RPM, GTK+, freedesktop.org, wrote orbit, exec-shield (which debian now has) If fact the guys who packaged exec-shield and SElinux for Debian are Red Hat employees. They bought out sistina and GPL'd the previously closed code. You can see what I'm getting at. They do alot for everyone and do not attempt to screw over the competition. They also pay some of the top kernel hackers. It's just always at the forefront of everything linux. To me they are the best, Maybe cause i've used it so long and know so much about it I'm not aware of other distros making nearly this much of a controbution.

I know about Mandrake. I didn't want to say they have buggy code since I can not give experiences first hand, but we've all heard the rumors. Word is they are shipping mdk10 with 2.6 kernel, that surely is not going to be stable I guarntee it.

Debian Is fine too. They all are good enough, thing with me is. Why switch if I'm happy? You'll notice most of us Red Hat users are not usually as religeous about getting people to use our distro as much as Debian/Gentoo people are. We say if you like it great. I hope you enjoy it but let me use mine without hearing a speech.

This last part is just my opinion and I may be wrong but in the future I expect Debian to be left behind and I'll tell you why. 2.6 kernel is no longer a hacker/geek box. It out performs BSD, Solaris, Windows in quite a number of important benchmarks. So people are going to start buying it. That money will go to companies like Red Hat and SuSe who will pour months of 24/7 development into ideas, they will be the ones making the break throughs, they will be the ones innovating and the other distros will have the appearance of being along for the ride (taking redhat/suse's code and putting it in thier distro). It has already begun if you look close, Look at how many products are made by red hat the distro's use daily. Debian has had some great ideas and will continue to but I don't see them keeping up pace with distro's who have fulltime programmers working on things 24 hours a day. Unless everyone who codes for Debian quits thier jobs and codes for free or they become commercial thus pissing off %95 of debians user base and voiding thier social contracts.

Again, Just my opinion and a 'guess' as to what I think may happen.

#

Re:broaden your horizons my friends

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 21, 2004 09:29 AM
1) if you don't like GUI, what is it that makes RH better in your mind then Debian?

chkconfig
setup
rpm
redhat smokes debian so much on system initialization it's not even funny.

what's this start-stop-daemon bullshit give me the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/init.d/functions in redhat.

Debian's rc-update.d is absolutely cludgy compared to chkconfig (and debian users view this with some wacko superiority complex!) One example, every server package that I install was set to start and stop at 20 in the system init. That means that debian has no knowledge of what should start before what. A process named bind9 starting at S20 in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/rc2.d/ before a firewall called at S20 is just F****ed up. Of course if you know what you're doing you can fix it. I'd rather do something like the following with redhat to find out what servers initialize at a specific level
chkconfig --list | grep on.

Debian confusingly has defaults that expect you to know what you're doing, and then during the setup expects you know nothing. It should be consistent. I couldn't stand getting sendmail to work with debian, it was so cludged... That too is probably a deinstall waiting to purge.

Let me be fair and say that I have purchased RedHat ES3, and I'm not all that impressed by the cost versus what is offered. In fact my servers in my place of employ are becoming debian, but I'm bemoaning that because debian is deficient in so many ways, but still better than some other alternatives.

let me point out the deficiencies of apt-get, dpkg. I initially installed apache through apt-get and was mortified to find out it didn't support apxs, so I installed it on my own. when doing the "magical" apt-get dist-upgrade, all of a sudden debian is trying to upgrade apache. Hmm, I uninstalled the debian apache, but no apparently I hadn't. dpkg was listing apache as deinstalled? Wow isn't that helpful, I need to upgrade deinstalled software. So I do a dpkg --purge apache. Guess what I lost all of the work that I put into it due to a symlink. How do you display when a package was installed with apt-get dpkg? Wow with redhat I can rpm -qa --last | more. How do you verify checksums? Not sure, with redhat rpm -Va | grep "^..5"

I like to say that debian is great if you have a lot of time on your hands, to say nothing about gentoo, which demands even more time than debian.

I like redhat kickstart, provisioning a server in half an hour to production ready. Sensible defaults, doesn't treat you like a retarded admin. Does what it needs to and knows that when you need to grow out of the defaults you can do that the way it was meant to be, by changing the config.

My bitter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02

#

Seems they forgot who got them there

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 10:32 PM
I have been a long time Red Hat user and developer.

I think they have forgotten who got them where they are today. With IBM, et al, getting into the act of developing for Linux, they probably feel like they don't need the home developer anymore; And that might be accurate.

How it was, was that we would put together some software, and they would coordinate testing and package it nicely for a reasonable amount of money.

Now it reads that we develop it, and they will package it into some beta product (Fedora) that we are welcome to test for them too - but don't even think about an affordable version of a stable system that the community has written.

My question is: Where is the payback to the community? Some stripped down system? Some beta system? Yea, I really feel like my efforts are appreciated by Red Hat.

Personally, when I read the write up of WS on Red Hat's site, I decided to head back to slackware or try out Suse.

#

Re:Seems they forgot who got them there

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 01:47 AM
My question is: Where is the payback to the community?


How about the fact that the whole of RHEL bar some graphics files is free software, so you can download the source and rebuild it yourself. Or if you can't manage that you can use something like <A HREF="http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/" TITLE="whiteboxlinux.org">Whitebox</a whiteboxlinux.org> where someone else has already done all the work for you.

#

why is everybody overlooking the Mdk alternative?!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 04:59 AM
"I have been a long time Red Hat user and developer (...) I decided to head back to slackware or try out Suse."



disclaimer: the following is not a troll, but a sincere question.

Why would you go from RH to slackware or Suse and not consider Mandrake? As a RH developer, you are used to RPM-based distros. but Suse is even more corporate-oriented (read: big $$ oriented) than RH. As for slackware, well, its a good distro for sure, but much further form RH than Mandrake. I assumed you choose to contribute to RH because of its technology and not just because its "American", right?


Now, Mandrake is RPM-based, has urpmi, arguably superior tools to RH and has promised to keep a GPLed community version fully suported. Does that not seem attractive to you? Again - I really would appreciate if you, or any other disillusioned RH user/developer, would help me understand your choice.


Finally. if you want a distro *really* centered on a community, Debian comes to mind as a clear "no contest" winner. What do you think?

Thanks

#

Re:why is everybody overlooking the Mdk alternativ

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 12:44 AM
If you want all that w/o the hassle of RPM, you can always use Libranet which has every advantage of Debian plus more. And it actually makes money so the company isn't in financial danger like Mandrake is.

#

Re:Seems they forgot who got them there

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 12:00 PM
http://www.redhat.com/solutions/industries/develo<nobr>p<wbr></nobr> er/

If you're a developer as you say, you can get it for free. Or you can get Fedora at fedora.redhat.com

#

It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 11:33 PM
We are moving thousands of desktops to Linux. We are going to SuSE Desktop because Red Hat Enterprise Workstation is more expensive per seat that WindowsXP Professional with Office 2003. It is not about free vs. paid...it is about what you actually get for the money. SuSE gets our vote.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 12:12 AM
What a load of crap.

If you are moving "thousands" of desktops then you should have looked at Red Hat's proxy and satellite services.

You need to be fired if you are making that migration and you didn't at least call up Red Hat and ask them about a migration of "thousands" of desktops.

If you had done that you would know about the additional services and then you would realize that Red Hat is drasticly less expensive than windows+office OEM.

Of course even if you paid full price for Red Hat it would be less expensive.

Get a clue.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 04:31 AM
I'm not doing the migration...our GIS team is. Since you seem to know all, why don't you tell us you work for Red Hat. Hey...facts are facts...Red Hat on the server...great. but on the desktop, they are over-priced. Go ahead...call me a debian shill (since you seem to think you know about everyone's environment, and since you seem to have personally been involved in the negotiations). You don't seem to like the idea that SuSE Desktop is going to get our business. Why is that. I call your bluff...you're a Red Hat shill, and nothing more.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 05:16 PM
-Note: I'm not the guy you're yelling at.

Oh the systems being migrated are workstations? well RHPW goes for 49.00 at staples, you can order online or go down to the store how is that more expensive than windows? I think the 'red hat shill' guy is right in this case whoever at your place of business making these decisions appears to be inept for this job. He/She should attempt to make phone calls instead of look at webpage price tags. Companys would love thousands of subscriptions and are surely going to make a deal like Red Hat does with our EDU. Perhaps YOU should make some phone calls and save your company thousands of dollars, Might get you noticed =)

btw i don't think you're a debian zealot, they'd never be happy as punch with a propriatary distro.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 07:18 PM
I agree. It is more expensive. I love Linux and use it at work and home. However, in a business model RH has gotten too big for their britches...A price equal to microsoft XP, support equal to microsoft, shorter long term support (1yr) = no way. Microsoft still supports (grudgingly) Windows 98 with bug/security fixes at no cost. What is this yearly subscription thing after I already paid for the product?! Well, capitalism being what it is, just opened a door for all the other distros...I can see Mandrake and Suse doing a dance.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: WordBooty on February 19, 2004 10:04 PM
Heres the deal, you aren't buying their "product" because it doesn't belong to them to sell. You are buying support, a guarantee that a company will be around to support your system.

If you don't want to pay, the stuff is still free, you do have options, such as:

1) Use CentOS, TaoLinux, or WhiteBox for free.
2) Buy RH for one year, by then CentOS/Tao/White should have proven themselves either keepers or dead. Use CentOS/Tao/White updates from then on for free.
3) Buy RH License as long as you need to run RH

It doesn't matter which you chose to do, that's the freedom that comes with using Open Source. Red Hat doesn't owe anyone anything, but they are still providing full on src.rpm's and going above and beyond fulfilling the requirements of the GPL.

#

Re:It isn't about the money...but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 03:19 AM
Let me see if this explanation helps...

We have a lot (over 15,000) MS desktops w/Office. We get a sweet deal from MS for those. With Red Hat it comes down to two things...

1. Technical Support
2. Per seat licensing.

My point is this...I have a few of you who are lecturing me, and that isn't necessary. I'm not bashing Red Hat, and we are switching to Linux. I am pointing out facts that have quotes behind them. SuSE's quotes are much more aggressive.

If you think I am panning Red Hat, I am not, and apologize if it comes across that way because it is not my intention. I just don't think it does anyone any good to bash someone when they think they know the facts. Because you're not part of this project, you can't honestly tell me you know what we pay for anything, including MS + Office. It is in fact, quite inexpensive from what I am told by those who make those decisions. These same people WANTED to use Red Hat because that is what they know...but SuSE makes a better business case for us financially. That is all I am saying.

I tried to tell you what we are experiencing with our migration, and nothing more. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but this is our environment.

#

Give it a rest already

Posted by: Joe Klemmer on February 19, 2004 01:42 AM
The amount of reviews and commentary on RH's move by uninformed biased "reporters" is becoming tiresome. There are so many misstatements and downright errors in this article that it's almost not worth reading. The entire article beyond the paragraph starting with the sentence -


> "Desktop productivity users may hardly notice the difference between the two products."


is a waste of bits. None of the things brought out in the later part of the article are remotely pertinent to RHPW. No one with more than two brain cells is going to run it as a business/production server. The comment -



> "The Fedora Project offers an attractive Red Hat-based desktop environment, with


> newer packages and a Red Hat Network-like update service, although without

> any support or Service Level Agreements."


is particularly annoying because you could actually replace "Fedora Project" with Debian, Mandrake, Xandros, Linuxos, Lycoris, or any of the other distros low-end offerings. There's no SLA's and minimal support for any of these.


The bottom line is that for anyone who has been using RHL up to version 9 the next logical step is Fedora. Fedora Core 1 is exactly what RH 10 would have been, only much more so. It's already got the infrastructure and capacity that took Debian years to achieve.


Linux is not going to be helped by the constant infighting and hatred that seems to be a part of the communities need to bash distros or desktops or even such trivial things as mail clients. All of the Linux distributions are excellent! They all have a place in the world and all do great things. We must stop bashing the very thing we are trying to promote!

#

Re:Give it a rest already

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 10:26 AM
amen brother

#

Re:Give it a rest already

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 05:35 PM
I personally do not mind constructive critizm, what I have the problem with is people are basing thier opinions of Red Hat on Slashdot comments. This is why so much FUD, nobody has the facts and are going off other peoples emotional rants. This is very bad for people who write papers they will be remembered by many as the ones who do not research which makes them a terrible source of information.

As a long time Red Hat user I've mostly given up posting facts. I've posted 'facts' in nearly every FUD article I read, but apparently everyone pretends not to hear it. Many think this is thier 'in' to grab RH customers and do not want facts getting in the way of thier religious push to be #1

At one point recently RH was trading at $23 a share, just a few bucks short of M$ (yes I know what a stocksplit is) but it's still a very significant number for a Linux distro. And the community is scared to death of having Red Hat == Linux which I don't think to be warrented. Red Hat is debian with a bank account they _love_ OSS.

#

Workstation, not Server

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 03:06 AM
This isn't so much a review, as a whine that there is no super-cheap server software sold by Red Hat.

What part of "Professional Workstation" did you interpret to mean "Professinal Server"? As "workstation" software, server components have NO place.

As far as support goes, my biggest complaint with Red Hat is the lack of per-incident support. Nice as per-machine, annual subscriptions is for THEM, I don't need it.

Solution? Buy one copy and install it on ALL your machines, just don't set them up to use RHN. I've re-read their agreement posted online, including the Tradmark documents and don't see any issues with this at all. They are getting per-machine fees on the SERVICE, not the support. If you don't need their service, you're cool.

(If I'm wrong, someone point me to a link showing where and how. The amendments to the RHEL agreements specifically allow you do copy anything. The only restrictions are on the GRAPHICS files, and those restrictions pertain to external distribution or selling the software. This is clarified in the linked Trademark documents.)

Finally, if you think this will turn off a lot of customers, then make them YOUR customers -- provide support for Whitebox or even RHEL that people don't register with Red Hat!

That sound you here is opportunity knocking.


  -chill

#

Re:Workstation, not Server

Posted by: WordBooty on February 19, 2004 10:09 PM
Finally, if you think this will turn off a lot of customers, then make them YOUR customers -- provide support for Whitebox or even RHEL that people don't register with Red Hat!

Damn you're stupid. Why bother installing RHEL if you aren't doing it to get updates. Without registration, you can't get access to the updates. At that point you are better of sticking to RH9, at least you'll still get updates until April. Still newer and more up to date than the base packages RHEL will install.


In addition, everyone seems to forget that Fedora legacy is planning on keeping 7.3/8.0/9.0 around for a while to come.

#

Doing it *for* Redhat?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 01:29 PM
No, I don't think so. The people who assemble and maintain the Fedora project do it for the same reasons that any developer offers his/her services: as a contribution to the Open Source community. I don't think that Redhat is getting anything out of having its name associated with the Fedora Project, and in fact, I'd say that the project is quite fortunate to have Redhat as a sponsor.

I've been slowly migrating my RH distro to Fedora, but I've also decided to give Gentoo a shot. This isn't an anti-RH move, it's just an effort to see what else is out there. Overall, I appreciate the availability of Fedora (though I don't understand some of the packaging decisions), and hope that it continues.

#

WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 02:08 PM
Take a look at WhiteBox Enterprise Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it is built from the RHEL 3 source and updated when Redhat releases to security updates<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Download the 3 ISOs, install, configure Yum or up2date<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

You will like it.

<A HREF="http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/" TITLE="whiteboxlinux.org">WhiteBox Enterprise Linux</a whiteboxlinux.org>

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 05:41 PM
I do not get this, why would a _business_ trust some unproven 3rd party with the backbone of information for thier company? I can see in a few years after WBEL has established itself as a reputable distro but until then, you might as well buy one copy of RHEL and maintain your own updates in house for the rest of your servers, It's not terribly hard since SRPM's are distributed with your pay copy.

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 06:37 PM
Not having to pay more that $2000.00 each for 100 servers might have something to do with it.

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 06:55 PM
The idea of WhiteBox is quite a nice one, but one huge flaw in it is trust - there's no way a company would run a set of binary ISOs from an untrusted third party just to save some money.


What's sorely missing from the WhiteBox project is a completed and fully scripted guide to creating the ISOs yourself (the <A HREF="http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html" TITLE="whiteboxlinux.org">instructions</a whiteboxlinux.org> are absolutely woeful - it needs to be fully scripted [or fully documented where it isn't scriptable]). If I could create my own ISOs using, say, a Taroon beta setup to re-build everything from source, then I might have a play, but as it is, WhiteBox simply can't be "trusted".

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: WordBooty on February 19, 2004 10:13 PM
So let me get this straight....

You don't trust someone to do it, and you don't know how to do it yourself. At some point you either have to learn yourself or trust someone, be it Red Hat or whoever.

CentOS is a community project, and is also available for free download. Trust them? Probably not, but you'll trust Fedora, won't ya?

Why not compromise and buy RH for a year, get future updates after the expiration from CentOS/TaoLinux/WhiteBox, whoever. The one which has proven itself in a years time.

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: cjcox on February 20, 2004 12:28 AM
You know, Fedora existed way before Red Hat took it over (and yes.. they did TAKE it over... read the faq). Fedora was designed to be the support that Red Hat was incapable of providing. They were so good at it, it made sense for Red Hat to turn everything over to them (in exchange, Red Hat was given charge of the overall direction of Fedora). For people who don't think community support is better than commercial.. here is a VERY clear sign that Red Hat, at least, believes that Fedora does a MUCH, MUCH better job at support than they ever could.

Given that..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.realize that the number of dedicated support people on Debian is much larger than Fedora today (though it is growing). Red Hat will also tell you that the added plus is in the "guidance" you get from Red Hat. Ok...

I think if you're die hard Red Hat.. if you actually wear a Red Fedora (tm.. everything that sounds like Red or Hat is tm according to Red Hat), then I'd give Fedora a try.. you'll probably like it better.

#

Re:WhiteBox Enterprise Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 03:25 PM
question:
If Red Hat took over fedora would you mind explaining to me why it was Warren Togami said this "I made the proposal for Fedora to merge with RHLP, because many of the things that Fedora already did for months was within the general ideas of a community based distribution that RHLP wanted to be."

It was Warrens idea and he approached Michael Johnson about it who took the idea to Red Hat.
He said everyone was very excited except a few of the EU people who couldn't bundle MP3, java, etc.
Other than that no problems.

As for why he approached red hat was because he needed help so how do you get the idea community is better than commercial using this example when the oppisite is the case. Fedora is a hybred of the two, it has the Red Hat guys to do the boring work, set the guidelines for us hackers to go nuts on. To me I think its freakin brilliant. Thats why I contribute code to it.

#

$49.94 at Staples

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 10:38 PM
For anyone considering Professional Workstation, it is available at Staples for $49.94 until the end of the month - http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?Pag<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> Type=1&Sku=521660. As stated in the article, the disks say RedHat Enterprise 3 Workstation, the RedHat Network says it is RHEL 3 Workstation, and the patches/extras available online are RHEL 3 Workstation. At $49.94, Professional Workstation is a great option - you get the RedHat Enerprise platform, RedHat tested patches, and RedHat enhanced kernel. I am preparing to replace a RedHat 7.3 server with Professional Workstation.

#

Re:$49.94 at Staples

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 01:56 AM
Uh, that's a bug. Staples and Office Depot typically have bugs on their websites. The SKU you are referring to is actually RH9. I pointed this out to RH but they did nothing about it -- typical that they ignore people at RH.

#

Rob Enderle

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 12:01 AM
Rob Enderle is the lazy reporter's quick and easy source for an ill-informed quote on anything. Please make more of an effort to find someone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject matter.

#

In all fairness to Red Hat...

Posted by: cjcox on February 20, 2004 12:09 AM
You know that SUSE is so well supported in their consumer edition that it's really not worthwhile going to their enterprise editions. Of course, just like Red Hat, vendors aren't "certifying" against the consumer based version... well, arguably, someone might certify against RHEL WS... but the point is that with SUSE, you can get a good quality enterprise class distribution for $80 (with full manuals) or $50 (Admin manual and media). So for "vendor" reasons, you might feel safer with SLES, but, I actually find the SUSE Pro to be more than good enough. Not sure if Novell will cheapen (quality and support wise) SUSE Pro or not... I hope not.

Now.... I'm also a user of Red Hat... primarily their Advanced Server (the thing that for whatever reason, Red Hat now denies ever existed... weird)... just for you that don't know, or have been listening to the VERY, VERY confusing (and deceptive) information coming out of Red Hat, the Red Hat Advanced Server product was what Red Hat TOLD people was their enterprise level product, until last year when they decided that they NEVER had ever supported the enterprise. Anyway, I consider RHEL AS 3.0 to be RHAS 3.0.. and rightly so IMHO (but Red Hat would chastise me for using the old moniker). My point on this is that RHAS (or whatever Red Hat wants to call things now) was not nearly as well supported as SUSE's Pro (consumer) distribution. That's pretty sad. Perhaps the RHEL moniker means that Red Hat is serious about support. Time will tell. Shoot, I can't even get Red Hat to answer sales related questions!!(??). RHAS 3.0 looks pretty good, but NPTL... as much as that will help in the future, RH took great risks in putting that in RHAS 3.0. Which is interesting when you consider that they are SLAMMING SUSE for trying to put the 2.6 kernel into their SLES 9 product!!!

For what it is worth, SUSE, while not perfect on support, they did at least return my calls. They even answered quite a few of my support questions even though I didn't have a contract with them at the time. To me... that worth a lot. We do have some SLES in play now... though Red Hat like to tout their RHEL as being the first cross platform enterprise Linux, it is WELL KNOWN that SLES has been supporting iSeries, pSeries and zSeries IBM hardware for MUCH, MUCH longer. This just shows you the power of lying^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing from Red Hat. I like Red Hat... but to me... they're mainly about raising the value of their stock price. I used to be able to talk to Red Hat, now they either don't answer.. or they give me some kind of "fake" doublespeak... sheesh...

We'll just have to see what happens with Red Hat... and now that SUSE is Novell... we have to wait and see what will become of SUSE (Novell has that Ximian/Red Carpet thing... which seem to be fairly ANTI-SUSE!). This whole mess has been a great blessing for Debian and Gentoo in particular.

#

Re:In all fairness to Red Hat...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 02:43 AM
It's significant that Oracle was certified first on SUSE, and only much later on Red Hat.

#

Re:In all fairness to Red Hat...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 04:12 PM
though Red Hat like to tout their RHEL as being the first cross platform enterprise Linux, it is WELL KNOWN that SLES has been supporting iSeries, pSeries and zSeries IBM hardware for MUCH, MUCH longer.

do you have a link for that? no I don't think you do, what you may have read was:
"we are the first enterprise Linux platform to be certified by the Free Standards Group across all Linux Standard Base (LSB) Runtime Environment architectures"

suse is still missing S390X (not s/390) certifications I beleive, but Red Hat was infact the first to have them all. You may check dates if you wish but I have had this debate before and seen the facts already. Fell free to check them at Free Software Groups home:
http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_prodlist.t<nobr>p<wbr></nobr> l
shows SuSe was later on s390, iseries, pseries and I do not see SuSe with a zseries cert. They only were faster on one Cert x86 and that was by one day in 2002.

What does this prove? nothing both distros are good but it does show you are spreading the lies you were so quick point were the fault of others.

You'll understand if I lost interest in your post after catching this right?

#

Enderle Shill Watch

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 01:53 AM
Please, when you see reporters citing Rob Enderle in a purportedly serious news article, refer them to the canonical information site about the fellow, <A HREF="http://enderle.iwethey.org/" TITLE="iwethey.org">http://enderle.iwethey.org/</a iwethey.org>. Reporters deserve to have the full background. Thanks.

#

How to leave Red Hat without leaving Red Hat

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 20, 2004 10:25 AM
(or even spending a dime)

There are three excellent clones of RHEL 3 out there right now. CentOS is run by a community, Tao and White Box are one man shows. All three are nice. For business use I would only trust CentOS. For personal use pick any of them.

Updates from one will generally work on the others so if you favorite clone distro withers you have two others to move to painlessly.

The beauty of the clone projects is that they will have updates available for five years, just like RHEL. Except without the price tag.

http://www.centos.org
http://www.whiteboxlinux.net
http://www.taolinux.org

#

Easy Earnings

Posted by: rmstock on February 21, 2004 01:25 PM
Imagine lotsa newcomers visiting RedHat's website and see a latest $100,= Red Hat Professional Workstation for sale. Everyone not knowing Redhat Linux from the old days will purchase without hesitation, and will only say to that Linux oldtimer: "Will you please shut the f..k up? I'm just purchasing a shrinkwrapped Linux Workstation from a premier vendor".


Well nothing wrong with that, certainly if it makes RedHat a stronger and healthy company.


However do i smell a rat here?


Most if not all of the Red Hat Professional Workstation software components, allthough with RedHat varnish, are created and developed by people on the internet and NOT nessecarily on the payroll of RedHat. There is a discrepancy in that fact. And i predict that sooner or later RedHat would be better off to start contributing financially to the key open source softwareprojects which are inside their Enterprise labeled products. Certainly if some open source software projects might become the target of legal attacks.


Robert

#

redhat is not all bad

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 21, 2004 08:54 PM
I have put out 6 installations of Redhat Enterprise ES and i must say it is pretty good and comparable price to SuSE's server offering. although i agree that i would not be tempted to use the non server versions of redhat anymore (as i was never super keen anyway) but fedora is damn good i still call it redhat 10.

so if you want a solid server version use Redhat ES or AS but if your a SME or want a workstation distro go fedora it is very good.

As a side note dont use SuSE's server line standard server 8 is a joke (ex SuSE resseller here)

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya