>>a problem created by a software-as-product profit model primarily
pioneered by Microsoft in the '80s
And you said Microsoft doesn't innovate...<grin>
Sorry, but there were many software companies selling software-as-a-product
long before Microsoft. I don't believe we can flatter them such.
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:58 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Windows update
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> ?
> Red Hat servers still provide 100 percent free updates for all community
versions of Linux, including all the way back to Red Hat Linux 7.3.
> Just because you can't pay for priority downloads, or they don't call it
"Red Hat(R)" anymore for serious legal issues, does not mean it isn't free
or Red Hat does not provide them.
> It is in Red Hat's own best interest to provide updates for CL2.3 (RHL7.3)
and CL3.1/3.2 (RHL9/FC1) as they correspond directly to RHEL2 and RHEL3,
respectively.
> The only 2 things Red Hat is guilty of 1) Wanting to make sure the
trademark "Red Hat(R)" was not declared public domain by the USPTO and 2)
Stop having to maintain updates for 6-7 concurrent revisions when the last
".2" (or ".3") revision in a release would suffice (and businesses who think
otherwise can pay for it).
>
>
More to the point, I have no problem with RedHat wanting to charge money for
a service they provide. The major problem with the software industry -- a
problem created by a software-as-product profit model primarily pioneered by
Microsoft in the '80s -- is that the services provided by programmers and
other IT professionals have been drastically devalued. By redefining the
software industry such that software is a product to be sold, rather than
software design being a service to pay for, the industry has ensured the
current state of affairs wherein programmers in the United States are
obsolete. Tearing RedHat a new one for daring to charge for a service
rendered while offering the RedHat "product" essentially for free, as
opposed to the Microsoft method of charging outrageous prices for the
software "product" and offering a certain amount of support service for
free, simply adds to the apparent legitimacy of software-as-product profit
model that is the antithesis of Open Source (and otherwise free) philosophy
in the IT industry.
Where RedHat makes little or no pretense of treating their OS as an
exclusive property, instead attempting to draw revenue from services
associated with the software they provide, the Microsoft intellectual
property method of revenue generation involves pretending their software is
equivalent to a physical product, to be sold in units "produced".
Their provision of free service relating to the product is only enough to
maintain some facade of respectability for the supposed product itself. It
is, in effect, equivalent to warranty service provided by car manufacturers.
It is also something only financially sustainable in the long run as a
corollary to the software-as-product profit model.
If RedHat wants to move toward a more service-oriented profit model, I say
more power to 'em. I don't much like the design philosophy behind their
installer (anaconda) and default OS configuration, and ultimately don't like
RedHat-based Linux OSes very much in comparison with other distros, but I
certainly can't fault this particular aspect of their profit model. Others,
in fact, should follow suit.
If someone wants badly enough for there to be a free repository for update
packages and patches, they can always simply copy the open-source software
onto another server and offer it themselves. There's no reason to get angry
at RedHat for not wanting to offer that somewhat expensive service for free
under their own name. BS pointed out (above) that the guys at RH are just
protecting their trademark, but even if it was also a limitation of services
provided to a for-profit provision, I don't see any reason to paint them as
bad guys for it. It would be far worse to see them start producing
closed-source software at per-unit prices, enforcing copyright the way
Microsoft does, and providing updates for "free" (also the way Microsoft
does). Don't ya think?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted
are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy
or position of NKS or any of its employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:02:01 EDT