Well, I was going to ask ...

[Michael Hipp]

Net Llama! wrote:
> On 05/06/04 18:21, Collins wrote:
>> Well, I've said for years that RedHat was the M$ of linux distros. I'm 
>> too spoiled running a non-profit distro.
>>
> 
> At the same time Redhat makes the argument that OSS has value.  You're 
> paying for quality software that is more scalable & stable than M$ 
> offerings.
> 
> The fact that Redhat feels that they can charge such prices and be 
> profitable really says alot about how far Linux has come in the enterprise.

Even tho I'm still miffed at how RH changed the game on us last year 
with regards to RHL, I'd take them over MS any day of the week.

To me it is great that they are actually turning a profit on Linux. And 
the fact that they can do it by charging stratospheric prices for free 
software means there must be people out there who want Linux really bad 
and consider it to be better than MS even tho it costs more. And RH must 
be doing a terrific job servicing those accounts. Good for 'em.

But RH has now narrowed their potential customer base down to only the 
very biggest and richest and I fear that will be a mistake in the long 
run. They have, in effect, told a huge number of people "your money is 
no good here."

Michael