"The GPL isn't open source compatible with most other open source licenses, either."

In that sense, no open source license is compatible with any other - since each is trying to do something _slightly_ different.

If they all said the same thing, they wouldn't be different licenses would they?

Yet, there is quite a range of "differences". Some licenses are quite similar and some wildly different.

Your statement is without useful meaning.

"This is the comment I was replying to:

Redhat and Ubuntu will update your system to the latest version (think Vista in MS land) for the same price of the SP3 update to a legacy OS."

OK, that wasn't mine.

"How about "direct from the vendor, in a supported and trusted form"."

Given that definition, then I believe you are correct about RedHat. Note, that is not true of Novel/SLES/SLED.

The whole thing seems a bit silly. If you like the way RedHat software is laid out, or have an application which tells you you need it (lets not go down the road at how absurd that is) but don't want to pay for RHN access, there are multiple alternatives based on the same source code. Yeah open source.

The bottom line is that if someone is stuck in the MS mentality and doesn't take a moment to understand what open source means - in terms of the options for support that just doesn't exist under any closed source business model, then you will miss out.

And I have been involved in too many face to face instances of folks just flat saying 'that can't be true' because they are just unaware of what open source means.

Now that said, the comment you were referring to, I thought was actually a leering reference to the fact that you could buy an 'update' to Vista that gets you to XP. Remember, it is also true in the open source world, that if you want a nice shiny install medium you don't have to build, or often printed manuals - you can pay something around the Vista upgrade price for a boxed set.

I still recommend OpenSuSE boxes to folks for that nice documentation. 8-)

"No, they're not. At least not in any comparable form."

I guess you have to define 'comparable form' since the entire OS and updates are available as white box ....

The updates are available. You can pay for quicker access and to use certain tools, but it is open source software, after all.

"Tight control over computer resources by IT staff is certainly best practices for a secure network."

Having worked in at least one place that had policies set by network admins that defined my assigned tasks in support of muliti-million dollar inhouse software projects as 'subject to dismissal', I sorta feel tight control should only be given to folks with a clue. It was also funny that turning on X protocol on the network was subject to dismissal but the company just invested about $30 million in machinery whose admin tools were X based.

So, the concept that someone in an IT department might be doing something really stupid for the circumstances really has nothing to do with whether it is their responsibility - it has to do with whether it is stupid or not.

"Depending on the support contract, RedHat costs you anything from US$500 to US$thousands per year for updates."

Nope. Sorry. Simply not true. Updates are available regardless. Get over it. The whole model is not comparable to MS. Though millions of dollars change hands because lots of folks, including IT folks, just don't get it. Geez, I wonder if it is worth looking up the thread from maybe 4 years ago with IBMers who thought their support contract was a user license and they had to have it in place before they could use SLES.

But we in the community appreciate you dumping the money out there, even if it is on totally bogus assumptions.

"Ya, NO linux based company would EVER do something like that. "

Not only they wouldn't - they couldn't. They cannot revoke your user license (MS can) and you have the source code - so whether you get updates from redhat, Joe's code and update emporium, or you inhouse IT staff, they can't try to force you to change to their newer product by restricting the availability of updates. They don't own the code.

If you think Linux comes from a vendor, you just don't get it.