On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:49:47PM +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a little surprised that I haven't heard anyone on the new "product end
> of life" policy. Maybe I haven't been looking to well though...
There's only bit a bit of grumbling on the list, but then nothing has
really happened yet - just the announcement. A few people I've talked
to said that they really expect Red Hat to back off on this because it's
too stupid to be believable.
For a business user, let's look at the alternatives:
1. Any release you put up today will be obsolete in a year - not even
security releases will be available. This means that business users
either have to upgrade to 8.1 or manually update their systems.
2. Microsoft is still releasing security updates for a release that's
over 2 years old. Red Hat wants to cut there's back to a year. The press
will not be kind in early 2004 when Red Hat Linux systems start getting
hacked. Managers will start looking at Microsoft as an alternative to
Linux. Yuck.
3. Those of us with RHN subscriptions will be cancelling them by the
end of 2003. After all, they're going to be useless if we can't get
updates anyway.
4. Many Red Hat customers still run older versions of the OS. At our
office, we've still got a bunch of 6.2 systems and some 7.x. None are
8.0 nor are they planned to be upgraded to 8.0.
5. Red Hat Linux Advanced Server is an option, but it's very pricey.
It's certainly not budgeted for us for anytime next year and the budget
cycle is already frozen through early 2004. That means that we'll be
forced to upgrade our systems manually. Red Hat will get *less*
revenue, not more, as we cancel our RHN subscriptions and not buy AS
licenses.
Red Hat must (IMHO) offer a "prior-release" service that we can
purchase. We simply will not be updating 10+ servers annually - we
don't have the manpower to do that and Linux won't survive here if
they're penetrated or become too labor-intensive to manage.
> > We have also taken this opportunity to clarify the end of life dates for
> > errata support for our current products:
> >
> > Red Hat Linux 8.0 (Psyche) December 31, 2003
> > Red Hat Linux 7.3 (Valhalla) December 31, 2003
> > Red Hat Linux 7.2 (Enigma) December 31, 2003
> > Red Hat Linux 7.1 (Seawolf) December 31, 2003
> > Red Hat Linux 7.0 (Guinness) March 31, 2003
> > Red Hat Linux 6.2 (Zoot) March 31, 2003
>
> Am I correct in my assumption that this means that Red Hat effectively
> reduces the life span of it's "base" OS releases to 12 months?
> Any thoughts appreciated.
You're correct. Any release you put up today will be obsolete in 12
months. With so many remotely-exploitable holes in Linux (typically
patched quickly) an unprotected but current (as of Dec 31, 2003) 8.0 system
left on the Internet will likely be penetrated before we're done shovelling
for the winter.
I support Red Hat in eliminating 6.2 through 7.2. Eliminating support
for 7.3 is *way* too premature. There's nothing out there later than
8.0 and they've already put a 12-month EOL on it. It's asinine. We're
not all running home desktops here! A 6.2 or 7.0 systems today will need
to be upgraded at least twice in the next calendar year just to be current.
Once before the end of March, and then again before the end of December.
.../Ed
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
