[TriLUG] Red Hat 9.0 ?!?!

[Jerry M. Howell II]

Cant say I blame them for the most part but can't say I'm happy with
the choice eather. I know they need to make money but only makeing
beta's avalible to the small guy isn't what I was looking for.
I always thought they bundled in lot's of 3rd party software. Mabe
some scripts that made admining the computer easier or just tweeked
the system to be more a server in a bussiness environment for AS.
there are many ways to keep the free OS stable and drive more
bussinesses to use the AS. I started out teething on slackware
and freeBSD, went to redhat and now I'm back to slackware and
freeBSD. Funny how I ended up back at that point I started.
I'm not complaining, they are workhorses and can work twice as
fast as redhat, and I can have a good working system with just
over 100 megs using freeBS . Not to mention the stablility and
ports is great. Nothing quite compares, not even apt or urpmi
in my book

Ok, forgive me this once, i'm tired and acedetaly top posted.

Brent Verner said:
> [2003-03-22 10:47] Ken Wahl said:
> | On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:46:11PM -0500, Brent Verner wrote:
> | >
> | > This is probably less of a joke than you realise.  With Redhat's | >
> recent (and smart!) business direction, I predict they will only  | > be
> releasing .0 and .1 versions as $free "Redhat Linux," and the  | > fully
> debugged, stable version will be sold as "Redhat Enterprise  | > Linux".
> | >
> |
> | And this is a good thing?  It sounds to me that Red Hat is planning on
> | giving their home/personal/enthusiast users the shaft - allowing them
> | only to use buggy beta/.0/.1 versions unless there willing to cough up
> | hundreds of $$ for the enterprise version.  Sounds similar to another
> | software colossus that drove me to linux in the first place.
>
> I think it will be a good thing.  The cost of their Enterprise
> systems _is_ very reasonable considering the compatibility
> and stability the platform offers -- at $400/yr, I'd only have
> to save one day of sysadmin time to justify the cost.  Redhat
> is addressing the "linux is only $free if your time is worthless"
> with their Enterprise systems.
>
> Redhat and the unnamed colossus have little more in common than
> the fact that they are both public companies.  I believe Redhat's
> approach to making money is an appropriate balance for a company
> that continues to advance the state of Free software.
>
> The only pain I'm feeling is where I have stable production
> systems running on 7.2 and 7.3.  These systems probably have
> another two years of life, and I'm not looking forward to
> the EOL of these platforms.  I'd _love_ to be able to count on
> Redhat to provide security updates for the next two or three
> years for these systems, and would heartily recommend to my
> clients that they pay Redhat $400/yr for the updates.
>
> As far as the home/personal/enthusiast use is concerned, I don't
> think annual upgrades will be as much of a burden as it is on
> production servers.  I personally use debian unstable on my
> workstations so I have access to more bleeding-edge software.
> While I do care for a stable workstation, I am more willing
> to deal with a few glitches to have newer software.
>
>   b
>
> --
> "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman
> _______________________________________________
> TriLUG mailing list
>     http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ:
>     http://www.trilug.org/~lovelace/faq/TriLUG-faq.html


-- 

Jerry M. Howell II