Hi, On 11/06/2013 2:54 PM, 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.
You really should talk to some people who are involved in Red Hat "support" contracts.
If it was really just "support" then you would be able to get Red Hat "support" on a single system (and maybe one of the cheaper licenses) and reproduce all bugs/problems on that one system. Among other things you ideally don't want to be trying out bug fixes on production systems anyway so reproducing bugs on a test system that is allowed to have down-time and which has no secret data is a good practice.
Yes.
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.
Yes, every system you install RHEL on, you pay for a license -- even if you have 10 virtual machines on one host server, you pay up to 11 times. Oracle OTOH, on such a system, would cost you ONE Oracle Linux license. If you want to run ALL Oracle product on that box, it is far cheaper than using RHEL. Oracle want ALL your business and make it expensive if you choose different parts for your setup .... all due to licensing consideration. Those wanting RHEL type /assurance/ can probably settle for CentOS as a binary equivalent alternative (on the whole), but even then there are some proprietory parts that Oracle and RHEL only make available under license with a cost. All systems are vulnerable at times to one issue or another (including the costly RHEL option), I prefer to stick with Debian stable wherever possible and update it regularly.
Every company which has multiple RHEL systems with paid licenses is proof that they aren't just paying for "support".
Too true. I like RHEL as an idea, but not with their pricing. And I like Oracle too for some reasons, but not for their lock in. Cheers A.