Then why not just pay for Linux?
If it means it could be revolutionary and stable?
(
JamTallons, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:55,
Reply)
stability isn't a problem,
it's stable, that's why it's so popular in servers.
You can't pay for "Linux" because Linux isn't a single thing. You mean why not a commercial distribution? The Kernal is GPL so I don't know what the legality of that would be.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:57,
Reply)
The GPL on the kernel
doesn't stop Redhat selling RHEL.
There is nothing to stop you selling a distro or selling commercial software to run on top of linux. A number of companies do.
(
LP, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:01,
Reply)
they sell the support package,
that's how that works as far as I know
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:04,
Reply)
nope
they sell RHEL - you can't download it for free.
Edit: not unless you count CentOS, which is RHEL with all the redhat stuff stripped out and doesn't have the infrastructure around it that RHEL does
(
LP, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:14,
Reply)
RHEL
is the free Linux kernel with a few Red Hat proprietary tools on top and a fucking expensive support package.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:30,
Reply)
Linux makes a great calculator, don't get me wrong.
It's just lousy for everything else. It's like you said before about too many cooks.
(
JamTallons, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:05,
Reply)
a lot of people do pay for linux
canonical make money out of ubuntu, redhat make money out of RHEL, Oracle make money out of Suse.
Hell, I make money out of linux!
There are many many companies out there who pay people to develop open source software and the open source software you use every day wouldn't be as good as it is without that.
Just because you as an end user can get something for free, it doesn't mean that *no one* is paying for it.
(
LP, Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:59,
Reply)