4 ms·
This seems like a really bad idea to me. You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free. Someone else is just going to distribu
by MatthewPhillips 14y ago
This seems like a really bad idea to me. You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free. Someone else is just going to distribute the binaries. And so what do you do about your repos, are those just for paying customers as well? You wind up with 2 Ubuntus in this scenario, both weaker than the 1 today.
- mbell 14y ago> You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free. Why not?
- kracekumar 14y agoCentos does the same, isn't Redhat making money ?
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoThe thing RedHat sells isn't the OS itself.
- reidrac 14y agoThis is a little bit off-topic but... they removed basic support and now there's a "self-support subscription" option instead for $350. If you don't get support for that subscription, I can't see a difference worth $350 between RHEL self-support subscription and CentOS. EDIT: ate a word EDIT 2: self-support desktop subscription is just $49. But the point is the same: no support.
- ajdecon 14y ago> If you don't get support for that subscription, I can't see a difference worth $350 between RHEL self-support subscription and CentOS. * Access to the RHEL repositories, with faster updates than CentOS or alternatives. * Ability to upgrade to supported tier. * Possibly: access to RHN pages with their forums, documentation, etc? None of which would be huge advantages to me, but I can totally see the potential value.
- natex 14y ago> You can't charge for something that the user can just >build themselves for free. Um, sure you can. Ubuntu, RedHat, and Slackware are quite successful at this already. Pat Volkerding has been doing it for as long as linux has existed (Slackware). Yes, someone can distribute the binaries, but they can't use the {Ubuntu, RedHat,Slackware} name.