Xen and Mdadm?
-
@BBigford said:
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. So if you want XenServer, you have to go to Citrix and pay for it, right?
No, there is nothing that requires money anywhere in the Xen ecosystem. Nor is there any hypervisor on the market for which you pay any money.
-
@BBigford said:
What I'm understanding, is that Citrix designed XenServer, and it is a paid for solution (like RHEL requires payment, and service is an optional/additional payment).
Even RHEL is free. Red Hat doesn't provide a free download of it, but they have no means of not having it be free. Nothing built on Linux is non-free, it has no way to not be free. RH just doesn't have to pay to give it to you. Same thing with Xen. Xen and all products built on it are free, period. XenServer has always been free, Citrix just didn't used to advertise how to get it for free. Now they do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
What I'm understanding, is that Citrix designed XenServer, and it is a paid for solution (like RHEL requires payment, and service is an optional/additional payment).
Even RHEL is free. Red Hat doesn't provide a free download of it, but they have no means of not having it be free. Nothing built on Linux is non-free, it has no way to not be free. RH just doesn't have to pay to give it to you. Same thing with Xen. Xen and all products built on it are free, period. XenServer has always been free, Citrix just didn't used to advertise how to get it for free. Now they do.
If you want RHEL, aren't you required to purchase a license (~$799) and bind it with a subscription in the customer online portal? That's how I've always done it...
-
@BBigford said:
If you want RHEL, aren't you required to purchase a license (~$799) and bind it with a subscription in the customer online portal? That's how I've always done it...
Nope, they have no means of making you pay for RHEL, they don't own the software that they are selling, how could they demand that you pay for it?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
If you want RHEL, aren't you required to purchase a license (~$799) and bind it with a subscription in the customer online portal? That's how I've always done it...
Nope, they have no means of making you pay for RHEL, they don't own the software that they are selling, how could they demand that you pay for it?
Where would someone download a free copy? I've always been told by any admin, "Red Hat requires you pay for it. If you want free, download CentOS."
-
CentOS and Scientific Linux are both people just downloading RHEL and providing it for free. Red Hat is allowed to keep them from labelling it Red Hat, but they can't stop them from giving it away (nor do they want to.) Red Hat actively encourages this, to the point that they bought CentOS to make sure that they could ensure quality and speed on the project. CentOS is literally just a free copy of RHEL. But even RHEL if you have a copy you can just give it away.
-
@BBigford said:
Where would someone download a free copy? I've always been told by any admin, "Red Hat requires you pay for it. If you want free, download CentOS."
Yes, Red Hat requires that you pay for it. But don't confuse that with it not being free. Red Hat isn't going to give it to you for free, but you can get it from anyone who has a copy for free. The product itself is free, but getting Red Hat to hand it to you is not free, you are paying for them to hand it to you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But even RHEL if you have a copy you can just give it away.So it doesn't check in with the Red Hat activation, to ensure people are paying for it (thinking of Microsoft & Windows)...
By the way, not trying to hijack this thread. Kind of spun off from Xen...
-
Think of RHEL like bottled water. Is water free? Yes. Is it free if I put it in a bottle? Yes. Can I choose to sell that free thing to you if I want? Yes. Does that make water not free? No.
-
@BBigford said:
So it doesn't check in with the Red Hat activation, to ensure people are paying for it (thinking of Microsoft & Windows)...
No, there is no check. CentOS is a binary identical copy of RHEL, as is Scientific Linux. If RHEL checked that, they would too!
-
@BBigford said:
By the way, not trying to hijack this thread. Kind of spun off from Xen...
At the core it is still an attempt to understand the GPL licensing that equally affects Xen and Linux.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Think of RHEL like bottled water. Is water free? Yes. Is it free if I put it in a bottle? Yes. Can I choose to sell that free thing to you if I want? Yes. Does that make water not free? No.
Well it does make that bottle of water not free...... because you're buying the bottle....
Sure I could drink sewer water, but I want the filtered stuff that I can carry with me in a bottle.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Well it does make that bottle of water not free...... because you're buying the bottle....
But the question isn't about the bottle of water, it's about water. RHEL is water, it is free. You pay for RH to bottle it and hand it to you.
-
Yeah but who doesn't want a waiter when they go to a restaurant?
-
@scottalanmiller So then why would someone want a free copy of RHEL vs. CentOS? Anything baked into RHEL that CentOS doesn't provide?
I understand there are very minor differences, but is there a justified reason? Documentation? Why does CentOS exist if RHEL can be given away for free, without paid support? Guessing you can't get updates if RHEL isn't licensed, whereas CentOS can, because they are protected by the GPL and serviced by the community...?
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller So then why would someone want a free copy of RHEL vs. CentOS? Anything baked into RHEL that CentOS doesn't provide?
No reason, which is why no one bothers with it. Or... that's exactly what CentOS is. Works both ways. CentOS is literally people took RHEL and gave it away for free. They are literally the same product. They are built from the same source. There is no reason whatsoever to want RHEL except that is where RH provides support. And I think you can buy support for CentOS these days.
So either....
- No one cares about a free RHEL because CentOS is identical to RHEL OR....
- People do care and made CentOS and you see free RHEL every day,.
-
@BBigford said:
I understand there are very minor differences, but is there a justified reason? Documentation? Why does CentOS exist if RHEL can be given away for free, without paid support?
Because you can't call it RHEL. The product is free, the name is not!!
-
@BBigford said:
Guessing you can't get updates if RHEL isn't licensed, whereas CentOS can, because they are protected by the GPL and serviced by the community...?
RHEL can be updated the same as CentOS, even without a license. But RH's own patch servers are only accessible to licensed users.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I understand there are very minor differences, but is there a justified reason? Documentation? Why does CentOS exist if RHEL can be given away for free, without paid support?
Because you can't call it RHEL. The product is free, the name is not!!
wow, there's a lot of value in a name - but really is just FUD.
lolThe support though I suppose has value.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I understand there are very minor differences, but is there a justified reason? Documentation? Why does CentOS exist if RHEL can be given away for free, without paid support?
Because you can't call it RHEL. The product is free, the name is not!!
wow, there's a lot of value in a name - but really is just FUD.
lolThe support though I suppose has value.
I wouldn't call it FUD. RH goes to rather extrordinary lengths to ensure that they are very clear that everything is free, CentOS is official and an exact copy of RHEL and that Fedora is free, too. From day one they've made such a huge deal about the GPL and everything that they do being free.
