On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 09:18, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > Hi Johnathan, > > It looks like not enough people voted with dollars and cents to ensure > that RedHat could provide the services you're looking for. I see no > reason to believe that Fedora will be less stable than RHL 10. If you > need support you'll have to pay for it, the price is set by the market > place. If someone else can provide what you need cheaper, by all means > they're the correct choice for you. It would be great if RedHat could > afford to be all things to all people, but we know that isn't > realistic. The net result of this resent change may very well lead to > more improvments to Linux, better support for the High end, and better > community involvment in the low and mid markets. I just don't see any > reason to worry yet. > > Sean.
Before I go on. I run RH9 at home. I used RH at the last place I worked. I do not like the behavior and configuration methods in Suse. SuSeConfig is an evil mess that can wax custom options on the next Online Update blah..blah.. blah. Second, I think that something like Fedora is needed because of the turnover in terms of boxed sets that many people here have mentioned. Getting beyond branding and the fact that a lot of people like to go out and buy a copy of the software when they do not have access to broadband etc..etc.. There is one major issue. The market has already set the intro price for most OS products and RH Enterprise Workstation exceeds that market price by about $100 US as I noted in my original mail. $179 dollars US is a high price to pay for the bottom line workstation install of a OS in comparison to many other distro offerings. Does the Enterprise sales and commercial installs actually exceed the standard RHL installs in the field by that much? -- Johnathan Bailes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
