This seems like a really bad idea to me. You can't charge for something that the...

natex · on Sept 24, 2012

> You can't charge for something that the user can just >build themselves for free.

Um, sure you can. Ubuntu, RedHat, and Slackware are quite successful at this already. Pat Volkerding has been doing it for as long as linux has existed (Slackware). Yes, someone can distribute the binaries, but they can't use the {Ubuntu, RedHat,Slackware} name.

mbell · on Sept 24, 2012

> You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free.

Why not?

kracekumar · on Sept 24, 2012

Centos does the same, isn't Redhat making money ?

MatthewPhillips · on Sept 24, 2012

The thing RedHat sells isn't the OS itself.

reidrac · on Sept 24, 2012

This is a little bit off-topic but... they removed basic support and now there's a "self-support subscription" option instead for $350.

If you don't get support for that subscription, I can't see a difference worth $350 between RHEL self-support subscription and CentOS.

EDIT: ate a word

EDIT 2: self-support desktop subscription is just $49. But the point is the same: no support.

ajdecon · on Sept 24, 2012

> If you don't get support for that subscription, I can't see a difference worth $350 between RHEL self-support subscription and CentOS.

* Access to the RHEL repositories, with faster updates than CentOS or alternatives.

* Ability to upgrade to supported tier.

* Possibly: access to RHN pages with their forums, documentation, etc?

None of which would be huge advantages to me, but I can totally see the potential value.