This is what I meant.

https://www.redhat.com/apps/download/

I still don't get it. Yes, RedHat costs a lot more ($179 as compared to Slackware at $40), but that doesn't make Slackware "free". Don't let the price fool you. Pat's price includes a lot more than just the cost of media.

Furthermore, you can take out a subcription to Slackware, the same as you can with RedHat.

I think his point was that you don't have to buy it to try it. The Red Hat link listed downloading options as "If you have an active subscription," "Purchase from the Red Hat store," or "Free 30-day evaluation subscription."

While I guess the 3rd sort of fits the "try before you buy" option, you don't HAVE to buy it a) if you can't afford it, or b) if you really don't want to.

I'm no distro expert, but from what I've seen, Red Hat is not typical of most Linux distros.

That is FAR from true. Slackware IS a free distro. It's free to download, free to use, free to modify, and free to re-distribute and resell. Saying that it's a commercial distro just because you CAN purchase it is like saying that oxygen is a commercial gas because you can buy it in tanks.

Slackware is not a company, it's not publicly traded, and the fact that you have to pay for slackware is more of a "donation" thing than a "commercial" thing.

Those attributes are all conditions of the GPL and are required of every Linux distro that complies with it.
That doesn't mean anything. I don't know how Slackware is structured, but even if it is only a one man shop, it still meets the definition of "carrying on an enterprise." Just like RedHat, Novell and every other vendor who sells GPL'ed software. There's no difference.
If I don't wanna pay Novell for a copy of Suse, I don't have to. Does that mean that Suse isn't a commercial distro either?

To clarify some misconceptions

For people who needlessly burn their hearts over the term "commercial" applied to Slackware, all I can say is it's perfectly valid... Slackware chooses to release free binaries (as in cost) versions through the web while RedHat does not. Both ways are compatible with the GPL. Nobody needs to give a software away free (in cost terms) while licensing under GPL. They only need to make the source available to those who're entitled to the binary. But Slackware distributes the binaries free and also charges for the distribution (for convenient packaging). That's perfectly acceptable too.

You *can* have a distro that's both Commercial and Free (as in freedom).

So in Summary:

1. Slackware is free to download (in cost terms).
2. Slackware is also sold through official channels.
3. Most Slackware packages are Free Software.
4. Slackware is both a commercial distro as well as a free distro (in both senses of the term).

1. RedHat is not free to download (in cost terms).
2. RedHat is sold through official channels.
3. RedHat contains some proprietary software (hence not absolute Free as in Freedom).
4. RedHat is a commercial distro with some proprietary components.*

* Not 100% sure of this in the latest versions of RH. It's been a long time since I've used RH. Any clarifications would be welcome.

What's incompatible is Proprietary and Free.

Confused yet?

*cough* Fedora *cough*

Well, Fedora is a project that's distinct from Redhat these days, is it not? Also I don't think Fedora contains some of the enterprise software that RH does.

I might be wrong, but isn't RHEL just Fedora with added proprietary stuff?

Originally posted by Harishankar
The Fedora Project is a Red Hat sponsored and community supported open source project.

Did you mean "separate from the RedHat Linux distribution?"

If so, yes. Red Hat (the company) discontinued it on 30 April 2004.


Originally posted by TL_CLD
Some good posts here, particularly unSpawn's. The answer IMO is yes.

I have 6 computers on my LAN; as well as build, install, and repair computers. We first tried RedHat 6.0 (for a few months), then years later RedHat 9.0. Next was Debian, and then we found Slackware ... it is IT.

And the official support bundled with it yes. But it's not comparable with people who download Slackware or buy Slackware from the Slackware store. That's the point I wanted to make.

Also if you want RHEL clone without paying RedHat, CentOS is a good option I think.

If the GPL/downloadable version of Slackware had a different name to the paid-for version, would you think otherwise?

People who purchase Slackware receive more than just the software. They also get printed documentation and preferential treatment in Pat's email inbox.
The modus operandi of CentOS isn't comparable to Slackware's, because they don't sell their product.

Wait. Slackware doesn't cripple anything for download users. Sure, printed documentation is nice and support from the maintainer is an added bonus. But surely that doesn't mean the same thing as saying that RedHat == Fedora - support. Fedora is a community supported version - that's all. Being a company, RedHat is way different in its commercial practices than Slackware. They have certification courses, just as an example and widespread industry recognition, their main audience is the enterprise customer and so on and so forth.

RedHat being a full-fledged business entity does make it different from Slackware. Both are commercial distributions, but they vary hugely in terms of marketing, distribution and the intended target audience.

OK, fair enough, but that is really beside the point.
Isn't it the development "testbed" for RHEL?
So the issue is one of scale? IMO the commercial/non-commercial distinction is black and white. There is no grey area. If a product is for sale, it is a commercial product regardless of the structure or size of the entity which provides it.

Yeah, but there is a qualitative difference. Black and white in purely technical terms, yes and if you want to win the argument, that's ok by me.