[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
agilmore at uc.usbr.gov
Thu Sep 25 13:06:15 MDT 2003
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 10:28, Ed Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 11:15, Andrew Gilmore wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 15:53, Joseph McDonald wrote:
> > [snip] comments and replies.
> > > It seems we're not the only ones either..
> > >
> > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/shrike-list/2003-September/msg00963.html
> > This post is a VERY good summary of the problems I see in the new Redhat
> > Strategy.
> > I am not sure what I am going to do. I may just have to fall back on
> > Solaris for production use, since I'm not that deeply into Linux for
> > production.
> > I'd still like to use a Redhat Linux desktop, but with the upgrades and
> > errata expiring so quickly for any particular release of Fedora, I'm not
> > sure.
> > This makes me very unhappy.
> Hi Andrew,
> That post that you reference does a lousy job of summarizing whats
> happening. Its just a rant containing little or no actual information.
> If thats the only post you've read, then please take a few more minutes
> to read:
No, I have been watching with interest for some time what Redhat is
doing. That post does a pretty good job of summarizing how *I* feel
about the situation.
I am not interested in RHEL ES or WS. I am not interested in spending
that much money on an operating system. I am having a hard time
justifying RHN at $60 a year, for perspective.
I am not interested in upgrading my servers every ~6-9 months, to avoid
being caught short by a security problem that is not available in
I will probably run Fedora on my laptop. I went from 6.2>7.1>8.0>9 and
upgrading is fine with me there.
If I'm not running the same system on my desktop and server, I have
less interest in running it on my laptop.
It is nice to be able to develop on the laptop and deploy elsewhere, but
Fedora -> RHEL does not guarantee that.
> The real summary is:
> 1) If you want stability (5-year product life) with guaranteed
> support and updates then you can run RHEL WS or ES for
> $180/yr or $350/yr for the first year (~100/yr afterwards),
> with all updates through RHN.
> 2) If you want a distro thats in the process of *becoming*
> the next RHEL and contains more frequently updated packages,
> then you can run the "Fedora Core". And if you subscribe
> to RHN for $60/yr (which is completely optional) then you
> can get access to updates in exactly the same fashion as
> the RHEL versions---albeit with a shorter "product
> lifetime". You will also be able to get these updates
> through other (free) channels such as apt and yum.
> I'm actually rather happy with this arrangement since I'll get:
> - a faster-revving RH-like distro for my laptop
> - a nice, stable distro (RHEL WS & ES) for my servers
> ps - I own no stock in RH and am not in any way supported by them.
I'm excited about Fedora on the laptop, but I guess I am too much of a
cheapskate to be excited about spending much more money on my servers.
I run 2 Redhat machines at home, and there is no way I'm going to be
able to put RHEL WS on them.
That post I referenced is perhaps a bit hyperbolic about the price, but
not much, considering my wallet.
I was someone who was using Redhat Linux in a home or consumer level
desktop situation, and I am very disappointed. I do not have time to do
a Fedora type upgrade every 6-9 months. I don't have broadband either,
so I can't do a gradual type tracking approach either.
I'm guessing this is a little disjointed, which is why I liked that
More information about the LUG