3 ms·

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my take on their lock-in argument is they're saying that once you install RHEL, and pay for the support from Red Ha

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my take on their lock-in argument is they're saying that once you install RHEL, and pay for the support from Red Hat, you are stuck with it. It is very easy to stop paying for support and attach your existing RHEL servers to other repos. That's what the use case of Liberty Linux seems to be: stop paying RH, keep your existing RHEL servers, pay us instead. It really can be that easy hence my argument that there isn't lock-in. But frankly the only reason we're having this discussion is because SUSE's marketing and description for this product is way too vague and possibly misleading.

lproven 5y ago
> That's what the use case of Liberty Linux seems to be: stop paying RH, keep your existing RHEL servers, pay us instead. No, I don't think so. If a company is a happy RHEL customer, why would they switch? I think the targets are: * CentOS Linux users who are upset that CentOS Linux was prematurely EOLed and don't want to pay RH as a result. Or pay Oracle, come to that. * Companies with a mix of CentOS Linux, maybe some RHEL, and some SUSE, for whom this gives them a choice of moving to all-SUSE distros rather than all-RHEL distros. * SLE customers who need some RHEL-compatible boxes for some stuff that only supports RHEL and RHEL clones, who can now keep it inside the SUSE family.