| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Dear Microsoft resellers: It's time to look at Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 16:39 EST/21:39 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
We've been seeing stories lately indicating that Microsoft is beefing up its direct sales staff and relying less on independent resellers . If you're one of those resellers, it looks like it's time for you to start offering Linux and Free/Open Source solutions in addition to the Windows-based ones on which you've based your business in the past, if only in self-defense. Chances are, you and your clients will like Linux a lot once you get used to it. And if you're clever, you may see higher earnings than you did when you only sold Windows products. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/3/2003 5:05:31 PM |
|
Roblimo's experience is as a limo driver, not a systems integrator.
He's a leftover from the dot com heyday when anybody who claimed to know HTML could get a job whether or not they actually knew anything about computers. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/3/2003 8:36:30 PM |
|
MadJo - Interesting, RHAT actually did pull off a profit this quarter to the tune of about 1.5 Million. They're also showing revenue growth from last year.
This probably has a lot to do with the fact that they've abandoned the Open Source model for a proprietary software licensing contract scheme. I do have to hand it to them, they found a creative solution to the problem, even though the result is a license even more intrusive than Microsoft's. |
| #3 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/3/2003 9:27:48 PM |
| you cant teach a blind man to see linuxhippie. some people love extremes. sodablue just happens to be stuck in a everything but ms sucks stage of life |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/3/2003 9:31:19 PM |
|
#7: Apparently being able to read isn't a requirement of operating Linux (or being a developer for it either! :)
Quote: BEFORE INSTALLATION CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE INSTALLING ANY OF THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS. INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT AND OF THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS. END QUOTE Further down: Red Hat, Inc. warrants that the media on which any of the Software Programs are furnished will be free from defects in materials and manufacture under normal use for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery to you. Wow, a whopping 30 day manufacturer warranty. ANY WARRANTY OR REMEDY PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT EXTENDS ONLY TO THE PARTY WHO PURCHASES RED HAT LINUX FROM RED HAT OR A RED HAT AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR. No support for downloading! Other than that it's a fairly standard EULA. You'd almost think they were a viable business actually trying to make money, but this is about the only thing that would give you any indication of that :) |
| #5 By 16451 (65.19.17.194) at 7/3/2003 10:40:43 PM |
|
#4 >>> This is just silly to even discuss
Then please don't. #6 >>> even though the result is a license even more intrusive than Microsoft's. I most heartedly agree. I find it so intrusive that RedHat forces their source code on me. #11 >>> Wow, a whopping 30 day manufacturer warranty How much longer do you need to determine if your CD is warped or cracked? |
| #6 By 531 (64.108.128.235) at 7/3/2003 11:04:04 PM |
|
Oh oops, wait, it doesn't forbid you any of those things.
Of course they don't, linuxhippie - Linux (and open-source in general for that matter) is all about theft... why would they prohibit the very core of their being? |
| #7 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 7/3/2003 11:39:28 PM |
|
friends, i just dont think many of the readers here "get it". For example...
RH7.3 How much longer do you need to determine if your CD is warped or cracked? Do you understand that they are trying to sell this shite to COMPANIES. This "warped or cracked" idea might fly for the enthusiast, but not for an IT group tasked with a BUDGET, and DELIVERABLES. And regarding red hat. They company is a 100M revenue company. In other words... small potatoes. We are talking technology here... usually HIGH revenue. $100M doesn't even put you on the map. Even loser apple does Billions, with a B. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/4/2003 12:47:24 AM |
|
linuxhippie - Actually, no, this is the link:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Basically, if you buy Linux Advanced Server, you have to buy a license for every installed instance, and you agree to let Redhat come in an audit your facility at the drop of a hat to insure compliance. You can't get Linux Advanced Server any other way, it's only available with this license. That was the point I made in #6... i.e. this new licensing agreement. I find it interesting that our resident Linux fanboys were not aware of this. Or were they aware, and they tried to deceive us by pointing to the desktop version? This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, July 04, 2003 at 00:52. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/4/2003 3:59:20 AM |
|
linuxhippie - "Wrong. Nothing in the enterprise licence forbids you from your rights under the GPL."
Well certainly! You can copy it and install it all you want, you just have to pay a license fee for each install. ;) Is that contradictory, or what!? More on that later. :) "You can acquire and distribute exactly the same software as the Enterprise licence covers - for example from here : " The link you provided is for the source RPMs, so yes if you want to recreate the whole thing from scratch that might be an option for you. But you won't find the ISOs or the binary RPMs on any site because anybody who obtained this from Redhat would be financially liable for each additional install the occured. "I find it interesting that you were not aware of this, soda. Or were you aware, and blah, blah... " Oh, but it get's even better! So with Enterprise Linux updates are going to be available during a full 5 year lifecycle, right? But updates are only available to people subscribing to the Redhat Network. So the Enterprise License agreement says you have to pay them a fee for each system you install to for a year. Now during that year you get a year long enterprise Linux RHN subscription as well. So now at the end of the year, you have a choice... either subscribe for another year of Enterprise Linux, in which case you get updated versions of the OS. Or you switch to a Redhat Network subscription(at $96/system/year) in order to maintain access to the updates. Either way it's guaranteed revenue stream for Redhat. You can use the software under the GPL rules, but you're entirely on your own... If some critical issue comes up, you're downloading and compiling the software from scratch. Basically Redhat is implementing Licensing 6.0 from Microsoft, but without all the hoopla of how evil it is. Kind of humourous, no? That's why I say the Redhat license is even worse than the Microsoft one. At least with MS, if I want to, I have the option of buying the software retail without the subscription license. I pay MS once, and then I get free product patches for life, compared to the yearly payment one has to give Redhat, unless you're willing to support it down at the source level which is downright not cost effective. I gotta give Redhat credit. They might have proven me wrong, that you can actually make money of open source software under the GPL license. Except, I'm pretty certain that the Redhat Enterprise Linux license is illegal when combined with the GPLed software in so much as it introduces additional restrictions on your usage of the software. But do you really think the FSF is going to sue over this? If they do, they stand a chance of alienating the industry from their "movement." You gotta love it! It's masterful legal thinking on Redhat's part! This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, July 04, 2003 at 04:03. |
| #10 By 16451 (65.19.16.162) at 7/4/2003 8:20:11 AM |
| #15 Do you "get it" that the referenced warrenty clause in the license applies only to the media, and not to the software contained on that media? And do you "get it" that sound fiscal practices require received merchandise to be inspected prior to authorization for payment of invoice, and that net 30 is a standard payment term (in fact it is imposed by law in most states unless another term has been negotiated between the parties prior to the purchase)? |
| #11 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/4/2003 11:08:37 AM |
| RH7.3 No he doesnt, along with not getting anything else that would possibly compromise his view of MS being the one and only love of his life. Its just not possible in his view for Linux or anything to do with Linux having a shred of credibility. Don't you almost laugh at his blindness evertytime you read his comments? Laugh but shake your head in disbelief that someone could possibly be so onesided and ignorant?.... |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/4/2003 2:45:59 PM |
| tgnb - I think it's sad how onesided you are. |
| #13 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 7/4/2003 6:59:51 PM |
|
cba3.14 - "I mean look: WHY are there so many linux stories even on this site?"
I would venture to say it has something to do with Microsoft beating the last "Microsoft Killer". Is your memory so short, that you cant remember a time when you could take all the "Linux will beat Microsoft" articles and replace "Linux" with "AOL"? Don't you remember that? It was just 2 years ago. And guess what happened? Thats right, all the wishful thinking didn't make AOL conquer Microsoft. And all your wishful linux thinking will not make them stronger either. Dont fall victim to the "Journalist Template" story of "CompetitorX beats Microsoft". That template has been used Thousands of times... and hasnt been true yet. You disagree with me? Show me. The fact is that Linux has 2% or less of the overall market. Wow, quite an accomplishment for a FREE alternative. Hell, this crap cant even be given away for free... and get past 2% in 7 years? That is a horrible failure. Its FREE, been out for many years... and still only commands 2% of the market? And then of course, that 2% market share has to be split amongst a dozen linux companies. |
| #14 By 9589 (66.57.63.97) at 7/5/2003 6:37:00 AM |
|
Sorry guys, but Red Hat has never been profitable. In their last fiscal year ending in February they were down -.04 EPS. In their most recent quarter ending in May they posted a "profit" of .01, but a closer reading of their financials indicates that they were unprofitable from actual "sales". The "profit" arose from gains on investments.
To date, there are no profitable publically traded so-called "distro" companies. Does that mean that companies like Red Hat will never be profitable from actual "sales" of their product? Maybe, but it certainly doesn't garner their rediculous market caps (RHAT's market cap is $1.5billion !#!@#?). Nevertheless, the executives at Red Hat are making millions quietly selling their shares (At this link http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/sec/filing.asp?Symbol=rhat&tools=standard&target=%2Finvestor%2Fsec%2Ffiling%2Easp%3FSymbol%3Drhat you can hardly find the financials for the insider selling go on!). They seem to be the only "distro" winners to date! Certainly, share holders have been royally shafted by one and all "distro" companies. |
| #15 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/5/2003 10:15:35 AM |
| sodablue, it makes sense that you think I am onesided, because from your perspective even somone who stands near the middle is "on the other side". |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/5/2003 1:06:10 PM |
|
CooCoo - Windows NT started out without per seat licensing on connections. Maybe Microsoft should just go back to that model, as it is less complicated to understand.
linuxhippie - Ok, you're not bothering to read. tgnb - Bah, I was trolling you. But I don't see anything middle about your position of always attacking Microsoft. |
| #17 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/5/2003 4:10:53 PM |
|
sodablue:
"But I don't see anything middle about your position of always attacking Microsoft." I don't always attack Microsoft at all. Anyone can look through the forum and see for themselves. But then again, thats how your logic works. From your perspective not loving Microsoft exclusively equals "attacking" them. |
| #18 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/5/2003 7:56:30 PM |
| JaggedFlame stop your obsessive stalking me please. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
