Has Red Hat gone MS?

[Michael Hipp]

Net Llama! wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Michael Hipp wrote:
>> Net Llama! wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>> Ouattara Oumar Aziz wrote:
>>>>> Net Llama! a ?crit :
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>>>>> What's the deal with limiting the number of VMs you can run? These
>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>> limitations are exactly the reason some of us are trying to get
>>>>>>> away from MS.
>>>>>>> What's next, selling us Device CALs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Red Hat will permit up to four virtual machines to run atop RHEL 5
>>>>>>> Server,
>>>>>>> but it's adding a new product called RHEL Advanced Platform that
>>>>>>> supports
>>>>>>> unlimited virtual machines and includes the company's Global File
>>>>>>> System
>>>>>>> software."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6166995.html
>>>>>> They're trying to protect their revenue stream which (used to)
>>>>>> depend on
>>>>>> the number of physical systems where the OS was installed.  Since
>>>>>> you can
>>>>>> now load up a bunch of VM's instead, it would hurt revenue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That was obvious that it would end up like that. And I believe that 
>>>>> will
>>>>>  happen with most paying linux system. They'll end up using MS 
>>>>> marketing
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Marketing is one thing - no-one believes anything said by 
>>>> marketing
>>>> anyway. But when their pricing model includes a question about whether
>>>> I want
>>>> to actually be able to use what I bought any way I want, then I'm
>>>> pretty sure
>>>> I walked into the wrong store. "You want tires and a steering wheel
>>>> with that..."
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the target market for RHEL5 are large companies, not
>>> random end-users.  For RH whores such as myself, FC still provides just
>>> about the same functionality as RHEL5, and its 100% free with no caps on
>>> the number of VM's.  Odds are if you're upset about Redhat's latest
>>> pricing decision, you're not one of their target markets anyway.
>>
>> True. I'm not. But some of my SMB clients might be. This just reminds 
>> me too
>> much of the recent hours I spent on MS website trying to understand the
>> various combos of CALs that one needs to actually be able to connect 
>> to their
>> O/S with actual users.
>>
>> And perhaps I'm the only one who has steam coming out of his ears upon
>> learning that moving from n to n+1 on something I already bought costs 
>> almost
>> as much as the n did to start with.
> 
> What percentage of your SMB clients are going to run greater than 5 VM's 
> on a single system?

I dunno. A couple of years ago I had no interest in VMs. Now I have lots 
of them. And what will RH decided to use next to protect their revenue 
stream? Limit the num of Samba connections? Only so many email accounts? 
  Network connections? Memory size? Processor cores?

MS didn't limit stuff like that in the beginning. But they eventually 
decided their revenue stream was more important than their customers and 
now it gets more complicated every year to just buy a copy of their 
abomination.

Maybe RH will be the one big corporation in all human history to not 
follow that pattern.

Michael