We called Red Hat on Monday to address speculation that its RHX (Red Hat Exchange) program was about to go tits-up. Red Hat responded to the concerns today with a blog post. Tits-up? Puhlease! - goes the blog post. The Red Hat Exchange is alive and well, only in a modified form. Gone are Red Hat's hopes and dreams of attaching, …
Rising tide for the ecosystem?
"The mission of RHX from the start has been to create a rising tide for the broader open source ecosystem,"
Right. So - it's a *marine* ecosystem, then?
Honestly. The day I start writing that kind of guff can someone please get me moved to a job with the EU press department where I can't do any harm? Ta muchly.
Yeah OK, not all the plans work, but OpenSource is better for them being around.
Businesses like a bit of support, from a large company, and whilst they may never use that support it is there for emergencies or a quick third party opinion.
When you sell an opensource platform to a business, they do ask about support, and if other companies could offer some, which is a wise move.
And even if they don't select RedHat it can be pointed to as a company that will offer Linux support services, so the business owner sees that there is support for opensource out there. It is not just some nerdy little fantasy, it is actually the face of computing in this day and age.
Business likes opensource for it is utility computing, and development likes opensource for bespoke application development. Each business needs software customised to their needs, and software that can give them the edge over competitor's in their field. Opensource does a pretty good job of meeting those demands, but marketing is lacking and Redhat do that, so well done to RedHat.
Whilst I'd agree that the presence of a company such as RedHat is definitely a positive for opensource in the enterprise, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning about support.
All the large companies I've worked for are after the support framework mainly for legal reasons, not "emergencies or a quick third part opinion". If they don't have someone to sue when things break, then it's a risk they have to accept in house, and that's not normally something that the management go for.
The flaw ...
... is in targeting SMEs. These are the biggest software pirates in the world, whether or not individual organisations are aware of it. In my experience dealing with SMEs, many seem to believe that buying a single copy of a certain office suite entitles them to install it on every computer they own. A company who are happily chugging along chock-full of pirated MS software are not going to be inclined to actually PAY for legitimate open source software support.
The copper knicker policy is fine, but no one sues do they, the licensing protects them.
It is not so much for legal reason but avoidance of internal blame, so instead of blaming an inept tech department they blame an external company. It is just childish and doesn't really fool anyone anymore.
It generally costs more to use legal services then it does to accept the problem and move on. If there is liability at their end then fine, but they will position to advise rather than command you do something, liability will lie with whoever authorized the action leading to lose.
But, the support line is real, and at times you need a quick response. The ability to dip into another company's knowledge base is invaluable.
And how can you mis-copy a quote, and claim to be in the industry, there is a y in party.
As to SMEs using pirated software, sure that does occur, but the penalties are quite steep if they are found doing so, most small businesses prefer not to take that risk, it is just bad business.
Especially in this day and age; if someone breaks into your system, and you bring in law enforcement there is chance they may notice that pirated software, so it just makes the business quite vulnerable.