[CentOS] redhat vs centos

Wed Nov 2 23:54:26 UTC 2011
Trey Dockendorf <treydock at gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml at conversis.de
> wrote:

> On 11/02/2011 06:34 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> > On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> >> On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> >>> On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> >>>> David Miller wrote
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go
> with CentOS as long
> >>>> as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about
> getting "support" from
> >>>>       the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50
> and server for $350 a year.
> >>>>       That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or
> open tickets with Redhat.
> >>>>       The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will
> provide are artificial.
> >>>>       Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x
> amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>>      From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that
> >>>> support/subscription model.
> >>>> They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or
> more
> >>>> for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
> >>>
> >>> https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual
> >>> guests.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one
> physical
> >> system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000
> are
> >> only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number
> of
> >> guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest
> on
> >> top of that?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>      Dennis
> >>
> >
> > All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to
> > install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then
> > install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to
> > updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So
> > unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
> Is that the $2000 license or how much do you pay for that? I'm trying to
> understand if the costs of licensing RHEL are actually feasible for and
> right now I'm a bit perplexed that their licensing isn't all that clear.
> If the license indeed includes the entitlements for RHEL guests on that
> host then this actually looks manageable  but if you have to pony up more
> on top of that for each VM then something like debian looks indeed more
> attractive.
> Regards,
>    Dennis
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I don't work for Red Hat, but I had these same questions answered a few
months ago when I wanted to move my employer from CentOS to RHEL, as we are
moving ALL web hosting assets from IIS *shudder* to Linux.
 Unfortunately my employer confuses "open-source" with "free" and felt that
$1500-$2500 (Education pricing) for unlimited guests was outrageous.
 Personally, I felt if they want enterprise level web services, and value
continuity then it was worth it.  If I ever left this organisation, it
would be much easier to find someone who can use RHEL (or a phone) to get
things working than to go with no commercial support.

Anyway, The Unlimited guests means you pay for one physical machine with up
to two CPU sockets (not cores).  If your physical host has 20 guests, it's
of no extra cost.  In my case I would have to pay for 2 servers as I run
them in a failover cluster, but between those two servers I would pay
nothing extra no matter how many virtual guests I ran.


As for CentOS and it's future, even with the changes from RHN I don't see
CentOS being any less useful.  The fact that Red Hat took the time to make
sure the CentOS devs understood the changes to the AUP shows some
appreciation.  They could have just never bothered and waited for someone
to slip up then sue, and destroy CentOS.  Red Hat is a business, and even
as good as it is for their business to help CentOS, they cant make
exceptions to their AUP.  I think they did CentOS a big favor by
communicating the changes.

I've used Linux for about 12 years now, and never once have I been able to
pick up the phone and call support.  However when things require enterprise
level service, and business, or in my case a University, is dependent on
those services, it is good to not have to rely entirely on the in house
talent for solutions.  Some things I've had to tackle took probably $2,000
worth of my time to solve, which is how the "bean counters" see things.

- Trey