On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Doug wrote:
> And isn't Redhat starting to do the same thing (charging for products, like
> postgresql)?

All the software components are still OSS, they have RPMs, SRPMs, etc.
that you can DL and install yourself. As far as I can tell, Roswell (7.2
beta) has updated Postgres components equivalent of that which ships w/
the DB product.

They are selling a "box set" with documentation and such but mostly they
are selling support. A specific RHN service level, phone support, install
support.. the type of support a lot of shops need. Timely, direct, and to
a certain extent guaranteed.

(NOTE about the RH lineup: I think there are specific components of CCVS
and the eCommerce bits that are closed source. Some possibly licensed,
I'm unsure... BUT RH remains a hard-core OSS company. They haven't
demonstrated any behavior I'd say was similar to Caldera (w/ Volution and
per-seat licensing))...

About your mention of Debian... Debian has Progeny now. I wish Progeny
well as it is important to the community.. unfortunately the Debian based
boxed distros have floundered thus-far (Storm and Corel for example).

> There is nothing wrong with the open source model, it's the open source
> business model that's flawed.

I haven't firmed up my conclusions on this but I don't think the model is
necessarily doomed or horribly flawed.

There is definitely a demand/need for a company that provides QA, support,
professional services, etc.

Red Hat happens to be a (current) example of 'that' in the OSS arena.
They have provided help and service to a wide range of companies (including
SUN)...

> The problem isn't that they are trying to sell software, it's that they
> are trying to sell something that can be obtained for free.

There are lots of reasons people buy the box sets, subscribe to the RHN,
hire Red Hat for professional services, etc.

A lot of it is for convenience. And a whole lot more for assurances and
stability. Red Hat puts the distribution through its paces, certain
guarantees of QA, packaging standards. A level of "Quality" and uniformity
that some people/places require.

> "But they are selling support for the software", well so what? you
> can get that for free to (this forum is a small example).

People like ~us~ aren't who they are worried about. We aren't gonna put a
huge influx of $$ into RH. They are shooting for medium and larger shops
that can't necessarily afford the overhead of a big IT department. Shops
that aren't pure technology.. flooded w/ geeks (us)..

And I don't think anyone here would say they've run off to #redhat or
comp.os.* and gotten timely answers for all their important issues each
and every time... sometimes you've got to have 100% assurance ~somebody~
will be on the "other side."

And even in ~our~ (at least ~my~) case there are times when setting up a
box on services like the RHN, gpg/md5 verified, QAed, etc. is simpler and
saves me time to tackle more specialized (read: fun) needs.  ;-)

Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that lots of people (myself included)
have a demand for these types of services regardless of who provides them
(I keep siting RH since they do provide a pretty decent example at the
very least)...

(LATE DISCLAIMER: I am typing this email on a RH box. I have active boxes
from other linux distributions and *BSD. I'm a OSS zealot ;-)  .. but not
always a RH zealot..)

Although.. the above brings up an interesting question that keeps
resurfacing in my mind. How big is this business space anyhow?  ;-)

> So if nobody buys the software or support, what can they sell? The only
> thing I can think of is proprietary software. Remember a business exists
> to make money, which in a way directly contradicts the open source model
> doesn't it?
>
> What they need to do is start creating some, and bundle the OS with it (In
> addition to giving the OS away) if the want to stay in business.

Ack! Don't even suggest such a thing. With the exit of Netscape from some
distributions (as Mozilla, Galeon, Konquerer, etc. progress), we will have
complete OSS suites...

And even though I can understand companies wanting to protect certain IP,
I'm hoping they'll open up more and more over time.

> I think another problem is that nobody is aggressively selling linux to
> large OEM's, on any level (am I wrong here?). Sure IBM is dumping $1 billion
> into it, but even IBM only has a small handful of machines they offer it on.

What I think people are expecting is a lot of desktop attention. That is
just not going to happen until the offerings on the linux desktop become
more compelling. When they do, Dell and the likes will pick-up those
options again.

> Dell tried it and dropped it because of lack of interest (their lack of
> marketing sure didn't help though).

They still offer it on their server lineup... which is how most vendors
are handling it. And that is a "Good Thing" (TM).

> I have been using Redhat linux since 5.2, and have store bought every one.
> I'm using Ximian Gnome and the beta's of Evolution, and will buy that on CD
> when Evo goes gold.

Good... remember, buy early and often.  ;-)

> But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Don't worry, you are.  ;-)

No no... I'm just stating my opinion. And my opinion is that I ~hope~ you
are wrong.  :-)

Take care, -Ali

--
GPG/PGP  53F7FF5F :: 6662 5087 119D 8D18 8501  8A8D C583 97B6 53F7 FF5F
--
QOTD:
        Y'know how s'm people treat th'r body like a TEMPLE?
        Well, I treat mine like 'n AMUSEMENT PARK...  S'great...