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:
>>>> 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?
> 
> I think  you're missing the reason that they're doing this.  Its simply 
> to ensure that people aren't going to purchase one copy of RHEL5, and 
> then spin up 500 VM's inside of it, when in the past they were 
> purchasing 500 copies of RHEL4.

I completely understand it. I just object to it. I bought it, it's mine, 
so what if I want to run one more VM than they think I'm worthy of.

>> 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.
> 
> I'm afraid that I just don't see the parallel that you're drawing.  And 
> BTW, Microsoft & Redhat are far from the only software vendors that 
> charge for the number of OS instances in use (rather than the number of 
> physical systems).

Yes, lots of companies do this. And it's not particularly new. I just 
thought OSS-centric companies might be better. I'm disappointed and 
concerned for the trend.

The good news is this will likely spur the rise of more "free but 
supported" distros without built-in arbitrary limitations.

Michael