[Gllug] Discussion: Is Enterprise Linux a lock-in

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 10:30, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 09:04:49AM +0000, Simon Morris wrote:
> > 1. RMS suggested that "all the companies that distribute GNU\Linux also
> > distribute non-free software, which is unethical. Some even develop
> > non-free software which is worse"
> 
> Not true for Red Hat.  They have a fanatical devotion to freedom of
> software which in some ways is quite damaging to them.

While Red Hat seem to GPL everything they develop, they definitely used
to distribute non-free software. If you bought Red Hat Linux boxed sets,
you used to get a CD of other stuff, like Metro-X, and one or two other
bits. I think they also used to ship Applixware. RMS would probably
consider distribution of non-free software unethical, as it encourages
users to accept conditions that preclude their sharing the software.
RMS's attitude is entirely consistent, though most people probably
wouldn't reduce it that far.

Just for the record, I've always liked Red Hat for their policy on free
software. They don't always do what users want (no more free beer RHL
distros), but they do seem to consistently behave in a manner consistent
with the values of the free software community. I can think of no other
company that does this, and for a commercial concern to have their
attitude is most refreshing.

> > 3. The cost of deploying "Enterprise Linux" distributions (RH, SuSE) is too
> > high. Bruce Perens quoted: "The very aspects that made Linux desirable are
> > under attack by Linux vendors bent on increasing shareholder value"
> > Organisations are paying more and more for Linux as distributors demand a
> > per seat cost and a service lock-in that withdraws support if the customer
> > alters the source code
> 
> But again from my experience at Red Hat ... the reason that RH
> developed Advanced Server (now called Enterprise Linux) is simply that
> customers *wanted* per-seat pricing.  It was what they were used to,
> and they asked for it.  So if they asked for it, give it to them.

Indeed. And you'd probably find that RMS would be fine with that. These
users have the software, and the source, and the right to do what they
wish with it. If, for commercial reasons, they choose not to exercise
their right to modify the software, in order to maintain a support
arrangement, that's their choice. The software is still free. The
commercial market can't deal with the idea of running business critical
apps on software they downloaded for free from the internet. They want
someone to blame, and they're willing to pay for that. I consider this
behaviour somewhat ostrich like, but that's up to them....

Mike.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug