Nope sorry it's free. I payed nothing for it and got the install images right off red hats site. I have it on 2 computers at work.

Just setup a dummy red hat account on my phone and look!

Ahem.

That's for full support. The OS it self is free. I been using it for years and have yet to pay a sent

Or this (I selected the self-support option).

So what is that you show there? Why on earth is Red Hat offering downloads for free and also paid at the same time? Doesn't make sense.

Yep that's what I'm referring too.

They have different versions with different capabilities. Some are free some are not.
The desktop and entery level server version are all free. All code is free too. Support however is not and you only get 30 access to the red hat software repository

Any versions for 4 to 7 can be downloaded for free and so can redhat rpms for 30days.

What are the terms under which you're licensed? This is the generic license agreement for Canadian customers. It's quite restrictive.
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/licenses-ca

You might want to check in case you're not in compliance with their licensing. Even if the image can be downloaded from Redhat's online resources without transferring money to them, you're obligated to be under a license agreement with Redhat to use it.

So what you're really doing is using the version with the 30-day limited trial package manager and then abusing the trial system.

All do respect. But almost no end user will ever care about a licensed. Only work places and lawyers. But I understand your point.

No it's a 30day support/repository trial, the os is still free and the packagemanager will still work. After the 30 days are up everything works as before hand but your support access is dropped. Basically your on your own.
There are other supplementary repositorys one can use after support is lossed, but you better have off using cent os at that point. And as always the source code is free and can be used to however you see fit, copyrighted items aside. Or at least that how it was when I lost looked about a year ago

Edit: you have to remember that redhat is almost entirely made up from free/open code.the bulk of it it under gpl, gnu and other open licenses.

Both CentOS and SL are free (as in freedom and beer) -- you should probably use those if you want a 100% free solution. If you use RHEL in production at work, Redhat may provide desktop licensing as part of an overall package.

@ Jade Falcon

Your phone went from 9% to 19% in 9 minutes. What sorcery is this?

Redhat is not FREE in the sense that you don't get to use it as a standard GNU/Linux distro, aside from images being free in cost to obtain (yet this, I honestly didn't know until today=. I misremembered the RHEL fork becoming main alongside Fedore as 6.0, it was after 9.0 as someone pointed out. Regardless, from that point on it was not a free OS - it comes bundled with Redhat software that are not GPL. You license RedHat Enterprise Linux regardless of how you obtain images for it. You could download install images for Windows versions from MSDN for free at one point too, didn't make it free.

I used Redhat up until 5.2 then switched to other distributions. They are good at somethings, but there is really no reason to have it on a desktop PC AFAIC. It was like running Windows NT 4.0 instead of Windows XP at home. (I acutally skipped Windows XP completely and ran 2000 until Windows 7 but alas, I digress..)

Even just the Redhat logos and the way they're licensed means you can't use RHEL without having an agreement with Redhat.

gdjacobs wrote:

You might want to check in case you're not in compliance with their licensing. Even if the image can be downloaded from Redhat's online resources without transferring money to them, you're obligated to be under a license agreement with Redhat to use it.

A lot of stuff in software licenses is basically unenforceable because it is at odds with various consumer protection laws, especially outside the USA.

Agreed, however the part I'm referring to is pretty standard. Again, even the logos and background images are artistic works which Redhat is free to license like any other.

RHEL is nice and all, but why even bother with it for personal-use when there's no question Debian based distros licensing is enormously more suitable for this purpose? What value does RH offer an individual that Debian, Ubuntu, etc doesn't? And while I realize this is purely subjective, I feel the APT package management system is better than messing with RPMs anyway.

I mostly wonder, what does comparing Linux versions have to do with retro hardware? Old distro boxes kinda count as hardware, being boxes and all, but the license arguement and distro superiority do not.

It started with an old Redhat hard box.

luckybob wrote:

@ Jade Falcon

Your phone went from 9% to 19% in 9 minutes. What sorcery is this?

low power mode on a old 5c. the battery jumps around a lot. I seen it go from 5% to 45% in seconds.

As for red hat being free. I'm not a Linux hippy, if its free (as in cost) to download and use then its free to me. I don't get tied up over licenses and stuff. Yes some of Red hat is technically not free, such as original redhat works. but most of the OS is open code so there is not much they can do to restrict the open code of the OS.

As for using it over deb. Linux. Well for most home users your better off with deb or fedora. Personally if I were using Linux it would be redhat or centos. I cant stand how fast Linux moves and centos/RHEL has much longer support cycles. RHEL4 was made all the way back in 2005 and its still in the extended life-cycle support stage. I'm not upgrading my OS install every 6mounts to a year.
They're also far more stable in my experience, another thing I hate about most Linux OS's is how unstable they can be. But I tend to only use a PC to get work done and play a old game once or twice a week so I would not be your average Linux user.

Anyway lets get back on topic.

I recently bout the fallowing.

a DVD drive, two 80mm fans and a 4pin molex to 4x 3 pin fan cable.