From: Martyn Drake <martyn at drake.org.uk> > When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable > impression. However, that's just my opinion. It's good enough that HP is losing lots of clients because HP (among other tier-1 OEMs short of IBM) is finding that Linux their support is sub-par. Even Dell and others are just farming support out to Red Hat. > Others wil no doubt have really benefitted from it. What I really > needed was the errata and updates rather than support, The Fedora Core and Legacy do a fine job for several years. Just not 5+ years like RHEL or SLES. Other than the Debian Project, I've yet to see another distro break 2 years of support. Red Hat used to support the last ".2" for a long time. Unfortunately, by RHL7, they got very popular. Companies where standardizing on ".1" and even, gasp, ".0" relesaes. At one point Red Hat was supporting Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7[.0], 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9 _simultaneously_. That was overkill and a waste. I like the current Core-Legacy strategy now. Basically the latest 2 versions are supported as "current," and the Legacy team supports the most popular of the old versions. Companies who want more than 1 year of guaranteed updates on any arbitrary version can now pay for it. > and an overall better overall lifecycle that RHEL promises and indeed, > delivers. I could have gone down the Fedora route, but wasn't too > thrilled with it's overall lifecycle. How was it any different than when Red Hat announced it would no longer support Red Hat Linux more than 1 year _well_before_ the Fedora Project was announced or Red Hat Linux became Fedora Core? I honestly don't blame Red Hat for not wanting to simultaneously support 6-7 revisions simultaneously. Dead beat companies who want to standardize on a release for 2+ years should pay for it. Those of us who either "keep current" _or_ use a very stable/popular release (e.g., Red Hat Linux 7.3, or Fedora Core 1) can stick with Fedora Legacy instead. > I'm a non-commercial user (but neither a charity or educational > establishment) and that $300 per year is a lot of money to pay for a > stable and constantly updated OS. You are paying for subscription, not a license. If you don't want the subscription, run a stable version of Fedora Core that will be supported by Fedora Legacy for a long time. That's what I do with my Fedora Core 1 systems. > You could argue I could use Debian or some other free distribution, Debian, like Fedora, is supported on contributors, in addition to the commercial companies that put paid development on it. Fedora Core is still primarily developed by Red Hat because Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability is based on it. As such, a lot of Fedora Legacy packages are released by people at Red Hat along side RHEL package releases (although they are often in "testing" because it's up to the community to support them). I have no problem with this sub-1 year "official" support model, and it was announced well before the "name change." Red Hat got tired of expecting people them to support their free product for 3+ years. > but having been a Red Hat Linux user for many years it's what I know > best and feel the most comfortable around. You're talking to someone who started on Yggdrasil and, later, Slackware, and has been installing Red Hat Linux on corporate networks for more than just web services since Red Hat Linux 4.2. I have installed both RHEL as well as RHL/FC at financial companies. I've put a lot of Fedora Core into pilot production, and then when SLAs were required, we switched to RHEL. FC also makes a great "next RHEL generation" evaluation platform, and thanx to Fedora Core 2/3 deployments, many of my clients were able to evaluate how RHEL 4 would operate well in advance. > Now I didn't actually mind PAYING for RHEL, of course not, but I just > find they need to find a sweet spot price for those that may not need > the install/configuration support (like me), Haven't you see the $99 Red Hat Professional Workstation / Red Hat Desktop at your local CompUSA? It's RHEL WS in a shrink wrap package. > or the SLAs, but want the lifecycle the product delivers and the stability > it offers. Is $340 per year worth it for that? Actually, subscriptions are just $179/year. I haven't checked to see if it's only $99 for people who buy the retail shrink-wrapped version at CompUSA or other superstores. > I was paying �65 a year for the RHN for the last available versions of > the Red Hat Linux and that suited me just fine. That price is now > �184, and includes features I don't actually need or want. Again, check out your local CompUSA and look for the shrink wrapped version of RHEL WS for $99. ;-> As Michael Tiemann said (and was mis-quoted), at the volume right now, it is cheaper to give away their time in developing Fedora Core and not charging for it than to make a boxed product like Red Hat Linux. The expectations of support at the volume they sell is just not worth their bother. It's cheaper to give away Fedora Core and support it for less than a year, even if they still put people on Fedora Legacy and release updates for longer than that based on popularity and testing support (which they leave to the community). And I don't blame them. > Of course CentOS has now came along, and that's meeting my needs just > fine. Hence why I'm more than happy to make the odd donation when I can. And that's great! But just don't feel the need to demonize Red Hat at the same time. > I'm not bashing Red Hat. Bashing Red Hat would be something along the > lines of "Red Hat sucks; they've done nothing for the community; > they're just another greedy organisation" which would be wrong on all > accounts. Red Hat is also a business and needs to be profitable like > any other business. I recognise that. I also recognise what they've > done for the community as well. They are a good company. Okay. But don't make statements like the one you did then. ;-> > I'm sorry to have come across 'bashing' Red Hat. Not my intention, > most definately. Understood. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org