As a registered user of one CD, you will get a certain number of support minutes/calls/questions commensurate with your $75 fee. Once you exceed a predefined number of support calls, you will pay extra for more.
But isn't Linux supposed to be super stable? Why would it be necessary to make all those calls? Shouldn't the sys admin be able to handle the day to day glitches, which according to Linux fans, are extremely rare? The thing about Windows that has users so worked up is the instability of the beast. In some perverse way, Microsoft and its buggy software have done right by hordes of technical support engineers, probably creating more employment than Linux will for a long time to come.
Furthermore, since Linux is known to virtually every CS graduate walking out of college these days, isn't it relatively simple to hire a sys admin or two to support my 500 workstations? Besides, with Linux being so well behaved and all, I could get those sys admins to do other stuff, like maybe develop small applications to perform mundane chores to simplify life for my users. My sys admins would be in techie heaven, and I wouldn't need to depend on an outside vendor like Red Hat.
You want consulting on how to build a mainframe from 10 desktops and a SAN, become a "Platinum" customer, etc, etc.
If I want professional consulting, why do I need to go to Red Hat? Why not go to the guys down the street?
My view is that by being the first kid on the Linux-IPO block, Red Hat has visibility and market recognition, which is a real cachet for now. But as more and more players --large, small, and tiny-- enter the field, offering exactly the same kind of product and services, how long will it be before profits are squeezed to nothing? Unlike you-know-who that owns its products, Red Hat cannot call the shots on Linux. Hopefully, the company evolves quickly away from its present business model before the field gets too crowded.
Just playing the devil's advocate :) |
