On Fri, 8/15/08, Etienne Goyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not know where you got that from, but it is all wrong. > There is no subscription, never been, and probably never will. > It would actually go against the Ubuntu promise[1].
This is what my clients have been feeding me. They are paying $150/node (unsupported) for landscape. I have been told, repeatedly, that landscape is like RHN. I cannot, in good conscience, fairly compare the two. > LTS are simply regular releases blessed with longer > maintenance horizon. Yes, I'm aware. It's much like Red Hat's old, approximately three (3) x six (6) month release model, whereby the resulting, approximate eighteen (18) month release is offered with service level agreements (SLA). E.g., Red Hat Linux (RHL) 6.2E After SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) version 7 outsold SLAs for RHL 6.2E, Red Hat correspondingly changed their model. The additional trademark redistribution issues a few years later resulted in Red Hat(R) being yanked off of any community releases that are freely redistributable, after many attempts at defining "trademark guidelines" that many entities ignored. Even Canonical has "trademark guidelines" on Ubuntu. But I'm glad to see they haven't run into the abuse that Red Hat did with several entities (*COUGH*Cobalt*COUGH*Sun*COUGH* ;). > All release are completely free of charge, including LTS. I understand this. But thank you for correcting my ignorance on the five (5) year update release on LTS Server. I will correct several of my past clients in my next correspondence with them. > I am stepping out of character and getting somewhat > subjective here, but there are other business models > for Free Software outside of subscription. Operating > systems are commodities; there will still be > some money to be made selling per-seat copy of it > (off-the-shelf or through a subscription model), "Per-seat" suggests "run-time" licensing. I invite you to read the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) End User Licensing Agreement (EULA). There is no such thing. > Also, a subscription model is not a requisite for > certification of the product by third-parties. Agreed. But written licensing agreements often are. I.e., the whole idea of "certification" means many things. But contractually, it requires an agreement. ;) CentOS, after all, can be considered IHV/ISV as RHEL. But, contractually, it is not. > Again, there is no such thing. My clients equate Landscape with RHN, period, every single one of them. Whether that is true or not, you tell me. ;) Given the evolution of Canonicial's commercial offerings, there are many people associating the maturity of Canonical's line as almost an 1:1 after Red Hat's evolution. ;) _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
