Linux Free?

[un4given1]

OK. So I have always been a Microsoft fan and I will always use their products, but I have always been entrigued by some of the Linux distros. They are all unique in their own way. We were running RedHat on one of our servers up until about 6 months ago, and I thought, "Hey, I wanna install RedHat on my extra PC."

So, I visit RedHat's website... and what do I find? I find that RedHat is $179.00 and that's only if you want the "Basic" version because the "Standard" edition is $299.00. Well, yeah, that's for "Enterprise" linux. But it boasts that this new "Enterprise" version is secure. There is a FREE version called "Fedora" which is not supported by RedHat and according to them, isn't even a RedHat product. It states that it should only be used on "non mission critical" PC and PCs that don't require high security.

Am I the only one who sees this as a messed up situation? Yeah, I know there are other distros but this is rediculus. It's just a matter of time before they all move this way... But that's a good thing for Linux I guess. Linux will never grow to be the OS Windows is if noone stands to make any money off of it.

[/rant]

[dman]

Red Hat has always been about making money, and as you noted, that's not a bad thing. Same with Novell SuSe. Others like Debian and Mandrake have always been about Open Software and are not for profit.

Linux is a great OS that keeps getting better. It continues to make inroads on the server side, but its fragmentation and lack of pre-install are going to keep it a distant second on the desktop for the forseeable future.

If you have some time on your hands try building a linux distro from source. It will give you an appreciation of just how many various packages from disparite sources make up a linux distro, and a pretty thorough instruction on how it works.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

BTW, there is nothing inherently unsafe or unsecure about Fedora Core, and updates are available. It's just not an "official" red hat product and is on a more agressive development track and thus has not been as thoroughly tested.

[un4given1]

I wasn't trying to say Linux is not, or won't be great. I think that if everyone put their heads together and worked to create ONE product Linux would surely be on the heels of Microsoft... but until there is money involved and everyone has their mind on the same thing Linux is just going to be a backyard OS.

[dman]

I agree. As I noted, fragmentation is one of the biggest hurdles Linux faces. The new Linux Standard Base is a step in the right direction, but by Linux' very nature everyone is NEVER going to be on the same page.

I am not a partizan, I Love Linux and Windows both for what they are... Great OS that have some advantages, one over the other, but also a lot of overlap. (I can do almost everything I want to with either). My bread-and butter is Windows, though, cause thats what everyone uses.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix...39192273,00.htm

[sven]

hum, i didn't know red hat cost money..... and so begins Red Hat, Pirate edition

ill stick with windows

[matrix0978]

yeah i was amazed i even saw free OS's. Lol. But i havent really tried hte Fedora, i was thinking about putting it on my extra computer as well

[prathapml]

I think that if everyone put their heads together and worked to create ONE product Linux would surely be on the heels of Microsoft...  but until there is money involved and everyone has their mind on the same thing Linux is just going to be a backyard OS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I'd like to give this rant a chase for its money.

Why is Redhat's enterprise editions not free? Because of the support and extra testing that goes with it.

Why do they call Fedora "non mission-critical" ? Simply because it has received only peer review and not the resources or support of the company.

So what's wrong with either of this? Its perfectly fine that 90% of people go and use the free version - all that they lose out on, is that they won't get priority support. Which is fine with the community because the average linux user's IQ is orders of magnitude better than the windows wimp. You want an OS legitimately and fully free, and you get it, full stop. Ever thought what kind of support an unlicensed windows user has access to? third-party support, you say? Well, its the same here as well - except that we know to fix our linux problems ourselves.

And its also perfectly logical that a company exists to do business - they make one set of products "seem" better than the free ones. This is because of the assurances and support that comes with it. For example, in multi-user environments like ours, we need "justifications" to push something new - we need guaranteed support if something goes wrong, and need someone's a** to sue if something goes REALLY wrong.

Think of it as insurance - were you under greater risk of life before you opted for it, or after? Neither! Your life is free then and free now, but its just that you don't want people to fend for themselves, you want to pay something and guarantee their worry-free life-style.

Now to the issue of "free".

The open-source community has a sore throat replying to this charge millions of times. The fact is that free here is as in "free speech" and not "free beer". You could make an app on linux from scratch by yourself, and charge millions of dollars, and no one's gonna ask you why you did that. Similarly, you could make an app on the shoulder of GPL'ed tools, and still charge whatever you like, as long as the resulting app is also bound by the GPL. If linux is not making money at the moment, that's because there isn't yet a large percentage of population using it.

If you want examples that open-source can make money, just take a look at how many millions of web hosts make money from Apache, PHP and MySQL - which are the best and still free.

Now about fragmentation.

The GPL by its very nature requires that modifications be contributed back to the trunk of development. So this is not a danger. But if by "fragmentation" you actually mean all the thousands of distributions that exist, then its perfectly fine - not a problem at all. It is frightening only to the windows wimp.

Distros exist because each niche of users want a different set of features. Its just like how your unattended installs are basically the same at the core, but tailored according to the client's needs.

Grandma's needs, the gaming freak's requirements, the engineering student's wants, and the fiddling power-user teenager's wishes - all of these are likely to be totally different. This is where distros come in. If this statement is wrong, explain why longhorn is going to have 16 different distros.

About linux being free if you don't value your time.

Sorry to say this, but this "waste of time" that some people complain about..... this phenomenon is only occurring to those who don't have a sound basic knowledge of computing. Those that know what they're doing, and have got training and a good unix foundation in their student days see no hassles at all. The lame typists who just learnt to use "MS-Word" and now pass-off for higher titles, need not feel welcome into the "free" world. Stick with "Planet Microsoft" which grabs for your wallet for every slightest activity you want to do, and understand that you lose your value on that planet if you refuse to pay-up, or if you aren't rich enough.

About needing everyone to put their heads together and come up with ONE linux.

A big no is what you'd hear. One justification is as reasoned above for multiple distros. There's no need for everyone to have their mind on the same thing, for that leads to stagnation and uniformity (sounds undemocratic?). Uniformity leads to deformity of the grouping as a whole. First, there's no NEED for money to be involved. Second, getting market-share never was a bother for us - we make our apps for our own sake. Third, the media has mistakenly projected linux in an anti-MS light, which is not true at all, because linux doesn't (and is not evil enough to) care what MS does. Another case for non-monolithic structuring is that being free has led to a lot of innovation and progress, which the commercial world immediately copied from the free world, without so much as a word of credit. We have a huge range to choose from, for any and every need. If its difficult for the new-comer, then so be it. We like the built-in filtering in this kind of a system, which ensures that only the truly best brains can be part of the community and reach the highest levels.

But one problem that I do see in the community, is that ppl who have entered open-source apps usage some time ago, are now literally forcing others to do the same, at gun-point. As in firefox's militant evangelism, which is detestable. A few years ago, the preferred mode of evangelising open-source was to demonstrate what it can do, and let ppl "pull" it towards themselves - unlike the aggressive "push" tactics today.

Hoping that whoever reads this knows that there's no malice or bitterness in this post - its just to set the record straight.

Edited March 27, 2005 by prathapml

[DigeratiPrime]

Your news is from 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Core

Also I forget where I saw it, but you can get "Red Hat" for "Free" still, because the source is always availible you can compile it yourself or download a distro that already has.

BTW The Title of the thread is ambiguous, I though it referred to the TCO debate. In that arguement I side with the point that Linux is Free if you dont value your time, although i hope that will change soon.

[dman]

Linux is Free if you dont value your time

Yes, it is true that Linux has a steeper learning curve than Windows, and is still somewhat harder to set up and administer (though that is getting better with modules such as udev and new admin tools). That doesn't mean the time spent learning Linux is wasted, as you are going to be more and more likely to have to deal with it as time goes by.

[dman]

But if by "fragmentation" you actually mean all the thousands of distributions that exist, then its perfectly fine - not a problem at all. It is frightening only to the windows wimp.

Yes, that's what I mean. 99% of user base is baffled by Windows, and there isn't even a choice to make there. At least with windows you can walk a user through the screens over the phone, knowing that he is seeing what you are seeing. With Linux, you can't even know what packages they are running, even within a single distro.

I find the abundance of choices tremendously empowering, but to the average user (many of whom can't even tell you which version of Windows they are running) it will never be anything but confusing.

[seapagan]

Sort of offtopic, but anyone interested in trying *nix could also try FreeBSD. This is a completely free and open source Unix (not linux) based on the original BSD unix source tree. Development is constant with a huge team of contributors, all passionate about their OS . Support is avaliable through newsgroups and mailing lists - from the people who actually develop the OS.

Agreed, installation and use is (slightly) more complicated than windows, but there is pretty much a 'click to install' default system for first time users, and configuration is quite straight forward once installed.

I have talked some 'average windows users' through an install over the phone or in chat, and while it is confusing at first for them most are still running it now and loving it.

It can also run Linux binaries without any recompile, and comes with the same x-windows and windows managers as a linux distro would.

You can get versions for most processor types, and there has been an AMD64 version for ages.

I believe that M$ used to (or maybe still do) use it as the backend for hotmail .. says a lot for their confidence in their own server software , and pretty sure that google / yahoo etc use various BSD versions.

I have personally used FreeBSD for years, as a web, irc, ftp etc server, internet gateway and firewall - on of my systems has a current uptime of over 2 years ... beat that windows!

Worth noting is the 'ports' collection - a set of scripts that allow you to download, patch, get dependencies and install any *nix program simply by typing 'make install' at a command prompt.

Just for anyone seeking an alternative to RedHat or Linux in general.

<steps off soapbox and puts Windows hat back on, lol>

SP

[prathapml]

If anyone would like to know, my post above has been completed/updated.

Interesting that this kind of a topic came up here where MS is the darling.... But whoever reads this knows well enough that I'm not an anti-Windows camper. Similarly, nor can I be expected to be anti-linux.

[dman]

@prathapml

I have found your posts to be most interesting and insightful. And I have been meaning to thank you for all of the great software you have hipped me to in the "Technology News" section. You come up with some real gems!

[KernelOverlord]

prathapml - thank God someone understands Open Souce and the GPL.

Can I just add, regarding the person who thinks that there should be one Linux, you miss the point completely! Linux is about choice, youll neverfind such choice and diversity with M$. Each and every linux Distro is in some way unique and a creation of its owner, they are not some locked down, mass produced pile of sh#t like XP!!!

PS - this is the last post Ill make in an M$ forum, Im off to do some real computing now - using Linux!!!!

[DigeratiPrime]

About linux being free if you don't value your time.

Sorry to say this, but this "waste of time" that some people complain about..... this phenomenon is only occurring to those who don't have a sound basic knowledge of computing. Those that know what they're doing, and have got training and a good unix foundation in their student days see no hassles at all. The lame typists who just learnt to use "MS-Word" and now pass-off for higher titles, need not feel welcome into the "free" world. Stick with "Planet Microsoft" which grabs for your wallet for every slightest activity you want to do, and understand that you lose your value on that planet if you refuse to pay-up, or if you aren't rich enough.

prathapml I had to reread your post, the update was very worthwhile!

about my statement of TCO with Linux, I should explain.

I am familiar with the Mechanics and Philosophy behind Open Source, I also have used/use several Linux Distros, and various OpenSource Software. Though honeslty I am still a newb with it.

A couple issues I have with the Linux Distros is Packages and Drivers.

Hardware Support is terrible, XP is easily the Champ of Drivers.

Packages have Dependency problems, and some require opening a shell or rebooting to install!

Also in my experience the distros seem to run slower than Windows, the desktops (KDE, GNOME) do not respond as fast, and programs take several times longer to start than in Windows. I'am confused about this last point, if the source is open couldnt the distros be optimized to run this software?

One of the original issues I had was Fonts, the Internet looks terrible lol. Thankfully one can download the MS fonts freely and easily fix that.