On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:14:51AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > > I wonder if it might not be designed this way on purpose. I mean how > better to sell support contracts when the product needs support because > the admins run into trouble? Kind of like the conspiracy theory that > says that a lot of the viruses come from the same people who make the > anti-virus programs, thus creating a business for themselves. > > Now of course this can't really be true, but one does have to wonder. > Using RedHat in my day job has caused me to do some reflection. Basically, I have come to the conclusion that while I like Debian much better, RedHat does make a good solid and stable operating system. In addition, RedHat employs some very well known F/OSS hackers (Tridge, Alan Cox and others), plus many people whose sole or primary job is to contribute changes, updates, fixes and so on to various free software projects. Remeber, the default business model (so to speak) in the free software world is to give away the software and charge for the support, custom modifications and so on. That is what RedHat does. To hammer them for it is a bit disingenuous. Besides, all of those people have families to feed and so on. I'd rather see RedHat out there charging quite a bit and making a nice profit in their enterprise and then allowing the whole world to benefit from their contributions. The alternative is more like MS and Apple. They charge quite a bit of money, make a nice profit and then the only people who benefit are the executives and shareholders. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature