Red Hat Enterprise Linux

[Linux_junkie]

Reading their website I'm quite impressed with their development of the Linux distribution and was thinking how many Linux users would choose to pay for this distribution? Or the fact that most people (if not everyone) can get a free copy of a Linux distribution so the thought of paying for it alienates Red Hat for most people.

As there are a lot of users still prepared to pay for Windows wouldn't it be better for us to try and get these users to buy Red Hat instead?

[Paqman]

You can get RHEL for free, it's called Cent OS. What companies are paying for by shaking hands on a contract with Red Hat is support, not the actual software.

Red Hat aren't interested in selling desktop Linux to home users, they're purely focussed on enterprise.

[pmlxuser]

as the name suggest "Enterprise" not personal. most of those that buy linux are on the enterprise caliber. i wouldn't after all there is a free development versionof the same called fedora core

[Spice Weasel]

They used to sell the original "Red Hat Linux" (without this, there would probably be no Desktop Linux today) for around £30, but yes, you can get RHEL for free due to Scientific Linux and CentOS. The cost is mainly for support.


as the name suggest "Enterprise" not personal. most of those that buy linux are on the enterprise caliber. i wouldn't after all there is a free development versionof the same called fedora core

It's just Fedora. Fedora Core was dropped in 2007. RHEL is far more stable (but with older packages) and includes support.

[szymon_g]

You can get RHEL for free, it's called CentOS.

CentOS isn't exactly a "perfect" copy of RHEL- but it's hard to get something more similar to it (i.e. to RHEL).
and we all should thanx that RH exists- without it, there would be no linux (they contribute to kernel/glibc/gnome and other parts of linux /as a usable operating system, not only as a kernel/)

[Dragonbite]

Reading their website I'm quite impressed with their development of the Linux distribution and was thinking how many Linux users would choose to pay for this distribution? Or the fact that most people (if not everyone) can get a free copy of a Linux distribution so the thought of paying for it alienates Red Hat for most people.

As there are a lot of users still prepared to pay for Windows wouldn't it be better for us to try and get these users to buy Red Hat instead?

They focus on the Enterprise, which means the IT people and Executives want the "one throat to choke", or company to yell at when things don't work. That's what Red Hat, Canonical and Novell provides over CentOS and openSUSE.

CentOS is an alternative if you want to "go it yourself" and a large number of companies already do. Yet, when the company wants to either build a safety net (support) or needs grows to a point they need help with development where are you going to go? Youbetcha!

Red Hat, though, is not focused on the desktop (or at least the desktop for consumers) nor are they focused on the latest-and-greatest versions. The can do this because they sponsor the Fedora project, which vets out the bugs and issues with newer program versions and developing new/better applications.

Canonical has taken Red Hat's old model, where the community version and paid-for version are one and the same. It has worked for Red Hat getting adopted, and Canonical has shown the benefits with getting it pre-installed on computer systems for consumers.

What I love about Red Hat is their dedication to FOSS. To this end, when there is a lack or gap in something (open source video drivers, wireless drivers, etc.) they put their money where their mouth is and develop open source drivers. My laptop has a broadcom wirless card that has worked out-of-the-box only in the last 2 Fedora releases, never in Ubuntu or openSUSE.

[RiceMonster]

as the name suggest "Enterprise" not personal. most of those that buy linux are on the enterprise caliber. i wouldn't after all there is a free development versionof the same called fedora core

CentOS is better described as the free version of RHEL. Think of Fedora as testing ground for RHEL.

But you're right. They sell to businesses who want the professional support. This actually gives RHEL and advantage in this area.

[NMFTM]

I never really saw the need for paid support until this term in school when we were given tasks to complete in Windows Server 2008 and almost nothing worked the way it was supposted to, even following Microsoft's own instructions. I used to think managing a server was as simple as just following the official instructions. But, it seems like almost everything doesn't work the way it's supposted to out of the box.

We had some networking problems in Feddora too. But we were usually able to at least work them out.

[conundrumx]

CentOS isn't exactly a "perfect" copy of RHEL- but it's hard to get something more similar to it (i.e. to RHEL).
and we all should thanx that RH exists- without it, there would be no linux (they contribute to kernel/glibc/gnome and other parts of linux /as a usable operating system, not only as a kernel/)

What's missing from CentOS other than branding?

[3Miro]

Red Hat is for servers, I wouldn't use it on a desktop. I would pay for an OS, if I have the money and I know what I am getting. If I am paying for it, then there better be someone I can call to yell at, if things goes wrong. You can pay for that to Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva or many other companies.

I will never pay for a system that tells me "you are on your own, figure it out yourself" or when I call, they get me someone to read from a script "did you make sure your computer is connected to the internet, have tried rebooting your computer ...."

Many people do need help with basic things, however, I don't think reading from a script is the same as helping them. This is double useless when the problem turns out for be something not included in the script.

[inobe]

Red Hat is for servers, I wouldn't use it on a desktop. I would pay for an OS, if I have the money and I know what I am getting. If I am paying for it, then there better be someone I can call to yell at, if things goes wrong. You can pay for that to Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva or many other companies.

I will never pay for a system that tells me "you are on your own, figure it out yourself" or when I call, they get me someone to read from a script "did you make sure your computer is connected to the internet, have tried rebooting your computer ...."

Many people do need help with basic things, however, I don't think reading from a script is the same as helping them. This is double useless when the problem turns out for be something not included in the script.

and workstations similar to novells red carpet, a very basic system with office and server applications, not my kind of system unless i am working :)

[samjh]

I used to think managing a server was as simple as just following the official instructions. But, it seems like almost everything doesn't work the way it's supposted to out of the box.

In live/production environments, nothing works the way it's supposed to. ;) :p

[inobe]

In live/production environments, nothing works the way it's supposed to. ;) :p

they fail to mention results may vary :P

[phrostbyte]

I use RHEL as a desktop for work related purposes. It's a extremely stable OS, but RHEL 5 is ancient at this point. Sometimes that aspect can be annoying.

[toupeiro]

Red Hat is for servers, I wouldn't use it on a desktop.

I personally support desktop counts in the hundreds that run RHEL, including my own work machine, just fine... The number of RHEL desktops in my company is likely somewhere in the thousands if I were to speculate. Maybe you wouldn't use it on a desktop, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with running it on a desktop...

[stmiller]

I personally support desktop counts in the hundreds that run RHEL, including my own work machine, just fine... The number of RHEL desktops in my company is likely somewhere in the thousands if I were to speculate. Maybe you wouldn't use it on a desktop, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with running it on a desktop...

Sure nothing wrong with redhat for a strict office environment. But for a home user, Ubuntu / Mint and others are better.

Redhat does not install nvidia drivers, mp3 codecs, flash, dvd playback, etc easily at all, for example. (If that matters to you.)

[perspectoff]

Both CentOS and Fedora are Red Hat based.

Fedora tends to be more friendly to the average Joe, but CentOS is favored by business and technical users.

Currently, however, Debian/Ubuntu/Kubuntu is used by more users worldwide.

It is not trivial to switch back and forth between the Debian/Ubuntu/Kubuntu ecosystem and the RedHat/CentOS/Fedora ecosystem, though.

In the end it is best just to focus on one.

Of course, it is possible (and not that difficult) to install both (K)Ubuntu and Fedora/CentOS side by side on the same computer. You can then try both and see which you like.

For a method to install multiple OSs on the same computer, see:

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Multiple_OS_Installation

or

http://kubuntuguide.org/Multiple_OS_Installation

[perspectoff]

In live/production environments, nothing works the way it's supposed to. ;) :p

And:

Things were never "the way they used to be."
-- Yogi Berra

[SeijiSensei]

Redhat does not install nvidia drivers, mp3 codecs, flash, dvd playback, etc easily at all, for example. (If that matters to you.)

You just need to add third-party repositories like RPMForge (http://rpmrepo.org/RPMforge). You can also use rpmfind.net (http://rpmfind.net) to locate packages that use the RPM method.

I've switched from Fedora to Ubuntu on the desktop because it is easier to install non-free items and because apt/deb seems faster than yum/rpm. On servers I stick with CentOS 5.5 because it's been kicked around a lot more than Ubuntu Server.