On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Denice wrote: >> life dates we are projecting, and "end of life" is defined as >> "there will be no further software updates after this date". > >I'm just being the devil's advocate here.. I have no problem updating >my systems; it's the other kind of system admin. that worries me. >I'm speaking for the biased point of view of supporting *nix-type operating >systems in research and academia for a decade. The effect of having >absolutely, emphatically NO security errata for anything _other_ than >RH 9 from Red Hat after December scare me a bit. > >I know what kind of a panic-fest sets in when certain kinds of security >problems crop up. An example security alert that caused more than a bit >of uneasiness in this school was the 'slapper worm' last fall. > >Facile answers like 'just build your own patch' aren't going to cut it >in some corners of this school. This answer seems okay to experts on this >mailing list. But in my experience this level of expertise is sadly lacking >in the trenches, and I mean LACKING.
I'm not saying "build your own patch". Rather, I am defining what "product end of life" means in order to avoid any possible confusion. As it stands now, products that are supported currently, receive errata updates. Almost *all* of those updates are "security" updates. As long as the product is supported, it will receive security updates up until the "end of life" date. After that date, it is a dead product. Since almost all erratum released, are security erratum, this means that end of life means effectively that the product no longer exists, and will not receive any further updates of any kind. If it did receive updates, then it would not be "end of life". The end of life dates, as stated on the website, are subject to change if a particular release is popular enough. What does that really mean? This is in no way any official Red Hat statement, it is entirely my own interpretation based on common sense: Cutting to the chase, as far as I'm concerned, what it really means is if Red Hat is not receiving enough incoming revenue via RHN et al. on or near the projected end of life dates that show that not only do we cover the expenses of continuing to provide erratum or a given release, but that we produce positive profit from doing so - why would/should we do it? That makes the most sense to me personally. If there is no monetary benefit to the company to continue supporting a product, then all we would be doing is losing money by supporting older products. It should be no surprise to anyone in my opinion that for Red Hat to be profitable, we must gear products and services in a way to make a profit. If people want to see products supported longer, they should purchase RHN subscriptions for all of their machines in order to show their support, and cast their vote that products are supported longer. If people don't do that, then it's a no brainer. I really don't think we're going to support products for several years, and do so without it being profitable. It's just common sense IMHO. Of course, all of this, as usual, is my own personal opinion, and does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of Red Hat Inc. or any of it's employees (except myself of course). ;o) -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
