Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, "Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS)" <slav.pidgorny@anz.com> wrote:
Red Hat sells support, not license to run their binaries. [...] But companies which pay for Red Hat "support" end up paying for all systems they run even though they usually don't have Red Hat people doing anything to the majority of systems.
I don't see how those statements are incompatible. At most, they're also paying for the warm fuzzy feeling of "one throat to choke" when it goes tits-up. And I guess it means you get security patches from RHN without having to jump through as many hoops. When I ran a significant amount of RH-flavoured kit for customers, only the exceptionally rich and stupid ones actually ran RHEL with subscriptions -- the rest ran CentOS. After all, they're already paying me for support, so what does the RH subscription get you? (Note: this was back in 4/5 era, before the CentOS took aaaaages to ship 6).