What is Reddit's opinion of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ Red Hat Enterprise Linux website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
11 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
I had never heard of them either, nor did I realize this wasn't /r/TalesFromTechSupport and we're not talking about Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I need my coffee.
Welcome to reddit,
> serious production environment
For commercial, mission critical work, I would use RhEL and a support contract.
The other points in your post, like "Arch simply doesn't take its users seriously" seem to indicate a general unfamiliarity with Linux, or worse.
Reading the Arch FAQ would benefit you. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Frequently_asked_questions. It's good, as are other wiki articles.
Good luck.
What is it that we would have prevented? Avoiding having to put in literature and on websites "Factom (r) Protocol" by giving the option of using "Factom Protocol (r)" ?
Don't know why anyone would care. Consider Redhat ... https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux
​
Note that they have a line with a awkward couple (r) marks up front, but nothing in titles, and nothing that then hinders the rest of the text is. The requirement for even a few awkward (r) somewhere in the text really isn't an issue.
​
[Edited for clarity]
Oh look, Slackware is using the name Linux, I'm confused, let's sue them: /s
Oh look, Red Hat is using the name Linux, let's sue them: /s
https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux
Oh look, a can of Pepsi-Cola with the term Cola clearly visible on it, let's sue them: /s
https://www.amazon.com/Pepsi-Made-Real-Sugar-Count/dp/B00NU5ZZJI
> the only customer supported Unix system
> Macbooks destroy any other laptop in terms of longevity and build quiality
That's definitely debatable. ThinkPad's, while not as sexy, have always given them a run for their money functionally. Meanwhile, if you're committed to sleek aluminum stuff, the competition has definitely caught up. Even Dell, of all companies, is now challenging Apple on their own turf, and I've heard nothing but praise for Microsoft's Surface line.
Meanwhile, the Apple price premium doesn't seem to have changed much. It's just become more difficult to justify. I think now more than ever it's become a question of personal taste and whether or not you have cash to burn.
From what I've seen (if memory serves correctly), people post open source apps on the microsoft store for a price to take advantage of people who dont know that they are free. GIMP has the same GPL copy left language that stallman made a while back that lets people sell Open source software as long as all the source code remains available to the public.
"Why would the GPL even allow people to sell the open source software?" You might ask yourself. Well it allows people to use open source software as part of a larger software package (leaving the open source part publicly available while not releasing the closed source software to the public), or someone can sell the open source software bundled with a service to help you use/navigate/work out bugs in the product ( see Red hat or Ardour )
Yes I'm positive. RHEL is licensed for enterprise use. Because it ships with the RHEL stuff they can. They dont charge you for the stuff they cant, and they say that. They specifically can disallow its production use even though it uses the Linux kernel because they bake it their licensed stuff. If you didn't want that you would download and use CentOS.
I had to explain this at work once why we couldn't just deploy redhat for everything unless we paid.
Free != open source Thats why FOSS stands for free and open source https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux
Their own explanation https://www.redhat.com/en/about/subscription-model-faq#?
Personally I’d recommend RHEL, it is paid(CentOS is free so if thats an issue look at that), it has paid professional support, only gets major updates every 5 years, with release getting security updates for 10 years, and it is incredibly stable and robust. Only downside is that with the default GNOME environment there’s a slight learning curve.
RHEL: https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux
CentOS: https://www.centos.org/
> GPL is the issue because it removes the freedom of modifying the code and selling it.
You're allowed to sell GPLed code. You just have to also give away the source.
Just because you can get the source doesn't mean you want to. Building and supporting an operating system is hard, most people will just pay for it.
A notable example is Qt, which is LGPL, and also sells a commercial license for companies that don't want the (L)GPL.
Don't forget RedHat enterprise Linux. Which you buy.
See also this stackoverlow.
Or directly from [the GPL itself](), third paragraph, emphasis mine.
> When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
Given the low cost of storage, especially spinning disk, using two disks for a single storage unit of any type with no redundancy is foolish.
If by "redhat" you mean RHEL then, as with any Linux platform, there are many ways to configure storage and if your user needs help (as they clearly do from your question) then they might consider employing professional advice so they end up with a properly installed and configured system based on their requirements and not a liability which will cost far more to address during the life of the system.
​
To answer your question: yes.
> They're called Redhats now.
As they are the operating system of choice in many federal agencies, Red Hat Linux will not take kindly to this.