subject:"RE\: RH 9\: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed"



The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's (binaries) from them or any other version's SRPM's. It seems that you would need a like system to build from or they would not work. Or am I just not understanding the process?

thanks
Steve
Sorry if I came off with a strange attitude, I didn't realize that I was.



Steve, I don't really know what your level of expertise is, so I hope 
that I am not being pedantic,
At a very high level, a source RPM is just an archive of the source 
tarball of an application, the patches, a configuration
file used by RPM that tells RPM how to unpack the source, apply the 
patches, configure the make options
and make the source code into binaries  (there are lot's of details and 
other little things, but that is the basic gist).

If you have a RedHat server and you have installed gcc and make and rpm 
and rpm-build
you can then get a source RPM file and run "rpmbuild --rebuild 
name-of-package.version-number.source.rpm"
and the rpmbuild utility will unpack the source rpm file into it's 
constituent parts:
  The source,
  patches
  the build instructions
  config files
And then the rpmbuild utility will build the source code into a binary 
and package all the resulting files back
up into a binary RPM file that can be installed on other systems that 
have the rpm utility.

You are correct that you need a "like" system to do the builds from.
Usually it is recommended that if you are building a binary RPM for a 
distribution
that the SRPM be built into an RPM on the same distribution that you 
plan on installing it.
However it doesn't have to be exactly identical, just the libraries that 
it dynamically links against
and the directory structure should be the same (and such.)

From what I have seen from my investigations you could probably start 
with RedHat 7.2
and build the SRPM's one at a time and install them.  Of course starting 
with things like
gcc, and glibc, and the kernel, and make and such, and working on to 
things like
KDE and mozilla last

As far as building the CD's there is a good article here:
   http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6473
I was lucky in that I had a RHAS 2.1 server to build all the SRPM's on.

I found that I could set up an FTP repository and then use a RedHat 7.2 
bootnet floppy to
do a network install of a server, where all the RPM's that were being 
installed were from
the RHAS set of RPM's.

-Ben.



--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Edward Dekkers

> Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
> Does this represent a change to just 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12?

No. apparently - there will be an 9 SE, then service pack 1, 2, 3 etc.

(grins and ducks)

Regards,

---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Steven Efurd

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:37:19 -0500
Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
> >Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >snip
> >  
> >
> >>So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
> >>and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
> >>SRPMS.  I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
> >>servers as I like (quite legally - GPL) without needing to pay Red Hat snip
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I would be interested in the process used to build the AS binaries from the SRPMS. 
> >Any howto's or pointers on where to look?
> >
> >Steve
> >
> 
> The RedHat FTP sites and Mirrors contain the RedHat AS RPM's and the 
> Errata RPM's.
> 
> I have a licenesed AS server and I compared the SRPMS on the CD's to the 
> ones on the FTP site, they are EXACTLY the same
> (MD5 checksum).
> 
> I also compared the binary RPM's to the ones in the 7.2 system, out of 
> 1244 RPMS on the RedHat AS CD's,
> they are almost all identical, even the MD5 checksums are identical.
> 
> I was lucky that I had one RHAS license, so I installed RHAS, and then 
> downloaded all the SRPM's from a public mirror,
> did an rpmbuild of each and every one, then downloaded all the SRPM's 
> for the errata, and did those too.
> 
> Then I created an FTP server, dumped the directory structure in there 
> for all the RPM's, used anaconda tools to rebuild the
> correct hdlist files and such, and then used a RedHat 7.2 bootnet floppy 
> to install the RHAS RPMs that I had built myself.
> 
> In effect I have a server that is functionally the same as a RedHat 
> Advanced server.  (all the same packages, from the same source code).
> 
> Then I installed a CURRENT server and hacked the /etc/sysconfig/rhn/* 
> files for up2date and rhn_register to point to my own server.
> I set up a cron job on the CURRENT server to automatically download and 
> compile new errata as they appear on RedHat FTP mirror sites,
> and I can update my servers as time permits.
> 
> -Ben.

The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat 
being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's 
(binaries) from them or any other version's SRPM's. It seems that you would need a 
like system to build from or they would not work. Or am I just not understanding the 
process?

thanks
Steve



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed



Ben Russo said:

 

The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have  a
Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
"copyrighted" or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
nate wrote:

yes but note on that errata site, the SOURCE rpms are not available
except through RHN. Checking updates.redhat.com(via ftp) reveals they
do have source rpms though a brief check revealed no trace of
the most current openssl source rpm(openssl-0.9.6b-30.7.src.rpm),
the most recent is openssl-0.9.6b-28.src.rpm ..maybe they plan to
update it. looks like it may just be openssl, several other of
the errata seem to have current SRPMS on updates.redhat.com(file/samba
among them).
   

I just checked my system and you are right about he openssl srpm,
I haven't noticed any others, I'll have to check.
Since Openssl is not a GPL program I am not sure that RedHat even has to 
release
their modified code.  It is probably just a mistake on their part, I 
don't think there are
any sinister reasons for it.

RedHat *HAS* to do this for all the software packages that come from  Open
Source Licenses.
They don't have a choice.
   

they do have a choice. Since they are not distributing binaries
to the public they have no obligation to distribute source to the
public. They only have an obligation to provide source for those
that recieve the binaries, they seem to go above & beyond that
requirement, when they don't have to(which is nice). Even more,
redhat doesn't have to provide the source to anyone unless that
person requests it. But again they go above & beyond the basic
requirement and make it public. which is cool .. my understanding
is the GPL only kicks in when the software is distributed, and
only applies to those that the software is being distributed to.
But the recipient of the software can then turn around and give
the source to whoever(under the terms of the GPL).
 

True, but I know of several people that are doing the same thing that I am,
and all of us have RHAS licenses as well.  If it comes down to it, I'm 
sure that
we could set up our own mirror for SRPMs of packages whose licenses
allow redistribution.

from the GPL:
 "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."
and this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it
available to the public without a charge?
   No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For
example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site
for the general public.

nat

I agree with everything that you are saying, and although these cynical 
positions could
be taken by RedHat, I *think* that RedHat will continue to make the 
SRPM's available publicly
simply because to do otherwise will seriously alienate the community of 
users and developers,
I think the openssl SRPM is probably just a slip on their part.  I will 
have to ask them about it.

If they don't then they will quickly loose my support, and I  *DO* 
support them.
I am an RHCE, my company recently purchased 25 enterprise subscriptions 
to RHN
at my urging, and we are considering making the move to RH Enterprise ES 
right now.

I have no problem with RedHat making money, and I will BUY licenses for 
servers
where the cost is justified.   I have made a point about going out and 
buying at least one
boxed set of every version of RedHat that has come out since RedHat 6.2

However, I feel not one single tiny iota of guilt about
using RedHat Advanced Server SRPM's the way that I am on my home servers and
on any server that doesn't need "Mission Critical" support for 3rd party 
software or
hardware vendor certified compatability.

RedHat has gotten to where they are with the grace and generosity of the 
Open Source developer community
and the FSF and GNU projects and the good graces of hundreds of 
thousands of programmers.
The spirit with which much of that software was released was one in 
which the receivers of
the gift were urged (heck...required) to pass on their kharmic fortune.  
blah blah blah
you get the idea   :-)  (besides mixing legal and philosophical 
arguments is getting way OT)

Anyway, I have contributed (in some very small ways) here and there, 
with my Syslog-NG
to database HOWTO, and a Web-Kiosk HOWTO (from the mid '90's) and with my
sporadic contributions to the graciously hosted public mailing lists.  I 
have from time to
time done some debugging and bug reporting and participated a few times 
at community
LUG groups, and I have helped two local schools set up computer and 
network equipment

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Edward Dekkers

> What's the point in upgrading if you don't need to?  My server still
> runs 6.2, and has no need for an upgrade.

As long as you keep up the security updates after RedHat drops the automated
ones, I have no problem with that.

Regards,

---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L




-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:30:17PM -0500, Ben Russo wrote:
> The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have 
> a Redhat AS
> RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL) 
> "copyrighted" or licensed
> or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
> 
> However the SRPMs are available via the RedHat FTP site and the RedHat 
> mirrors.
> As long as you build the SRPM yourself you are "Free" to do so.
> 
> RedHat *HAS* to do this for all the software packages that come from 
> Open Source Licenses.
> They don't have a choice.  

They have a lot of choices.  They have to make the sources available
to those that get the binaries.  You and I don't have to get them.  Red
Hat can also distribute the sources in any traditional software
distribution they choose - this could be tar files, not srpms.  Red Hat
could release the srpms only through RHN and be compliant since *every*
Enterprise Linux has RHN access (it's part of the service).

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:47:33PM -0800, nate wrote:
> curious, does redhat provide the erratta updates to the public? from what
> I have seen they do not, so it would be up to the end user to find the
> patch & patch manually. Not that they are under any obligation to provide
> such information, from my understanding the GPL only requires source
> distribution for those that recieve the binary distribution. 

Red Hat currently releases the errata to the public, but not always in a
timely manner.  If people really start getting Enterprise Linux for free
and Red Hat sees this as a serious revenue threat, I would not be
surprised to see Red Hat no longer make them available except via RHN -
it's easy to do since *all* Enterprise Linux customers have free RHN
access.  Additionally, nobody says the sources have to be nicely package
into an rpm.  Red Hat could easily issue nice binary rpms for their
customers, and then externally just distribute out tar files and be
fully GPL compliant. 

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread nate

Ben Russo said:

> The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have  a
> Redhat AS
> RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
> "copyrighted" or licensed
> or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.

yes but note on that errata site, the SOURCE rpms are not available
except through RHN. Checking updates.redhat.com(via ftp) reveals they
do have source rpms though a brief check revealed no trace of
the most current openssl source rpm(openssl-0.9.6b-30.7.src.rpm),
the most recent is openssl-0.9.6b-28.src.rpm ..maybe they plan to
update it. looks like it may just be openssl, several other of
the errata seem to have current SRPMS on updates.redhat.com(file/samba
among them).

>
> RedHat *HAS* to do this for all the software packages that come from  Open
> Source Licenses.
> They don't have a choice.

they do have a choice. Since they are not distributing binaries
to the public they have no obligation to distribute source to the
public. They only have an obligation to provide source for those
that recieve the binaries, they seem to go above & beyond that
requirement, when they don't have to(which is nice). Even more,
redhat doesn't have to provide the source to anyone unless that
person requests it. But again they go above & beyond the basic
requirement and make it public. which is cool .. my understanding
is the GPL only kicks in when the software is distributed, and
only applies to those that the software is being distributed to.
But the recipient of the software can then turn around and give
the source to whoever(under the terms of the GPL).

from the GPL:
  "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."

and this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic


If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it
available to the public without a charge?

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For
example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site
for the general public.


nate





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

Steve wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip

So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
SRPMS. I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
servers as I like (quite legally - GPL) without needing to pay Red Hat snip

I would be interested in the process used to build the AS binaries from the SRPMS. Any howto's or pointers on where to look?

Steve

The RedHat FTP sites and Mirrors contain the RedHat AS RPM's and the
Errata RPM's.

I have a licenesed AS server and I compared the SRPMS on the CD's to the
ones on the FTP site, they are EXACTLY the same
(MD5 checksum).

I also compared the binary RPM's to the ones in the 7.2 system, out of
1244 RPMS on the RedHat AS CD's,
they are almost all identical, even the MD5 checksums are identical.

I was lucky that I had one RHAS license, so I installed RHAS, and then
downloaded all the SRPM's from a public mirror,
did an rpmbuild of each and every one, then downloaded all the SRPM's
for the errata, and did those too.

Then I created an FTP server, dumped the directory structure in there
for all the RPM's, used anaconda tools to rebuild the
correct hdlist files and such, and then used a RedHat 7.2 bootnet floppy
to install the RHAS RPMs that I had built myself.

In effect I have a server that is functionally the same as a RedHat
Advanced server. (all the same packages, from the same source code).

Then I installed a CURRENT server and hacked the /etc/sysconfig/rhn/*
files for up2date and rhn_register to point to my own server.
I set up a cron job on the CURRENT server to automatically download and
compile new errata as they appear on RedHat FTP mirror sites,
and I can update my servers as time permits.

-Ben.

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

nate wrote:

Ben Russo said:

 

If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and  then
download the
SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
that are different,
from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
You can have a 5 year lifespan on your personal server for free with a
little extra work.
   



curious, does redhat provide the erratta updates to the public? from what
I have seen they do not, so it would be up to the end user to find the
patch & patch manually. Not that they are under any obligation to provide
such information, from my understanding the GPL only requires source
distribution for those that recieve the binary distribution. Checking
redhat's errata site makes me believe that this is indeed the case with
errata:
compare these 2 (otherwise seemingly identical advisories):
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-062.html
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-063.html
both are for the OpenSSL timing attack, yet the advanced server packages
are marked as "only available through RHN". Now they may very well
give free RHN users access to these packages but I'd be suprised if they
did.
not that it matters to me, all my important systems are debian :) but
I thought I would mention the above point anyways..maybe someone
has more concrete information.
 

The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have 
a Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL) 
"copyrighted" or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.

However the SRPMs are available via the RedHat FTP site and the RedHat 
mirrors.
As long as you build the SRPM yourself you are "Free" to do so.

RedHat *HAS* to do this for all the software packages that come from 
Open Source Licenses.
They don't have a choice.  So far RedHat has done this with all the 
packages, even the ones
that they are not required to do it for.   (Such as publicly available 
software packages).

-Ben.



--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread nate

Ben Russo said:

> If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and  then
> download the
> SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
> that are different,
> from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
> You can have a 5 year lifespan on your personal server for free with a
> little extra work.


curious, does redhat provide the erratta updates to the public? from what
I have seen they do not, so it would be up to the end user to find the
patch & patch manually. Not that they are under any obligation to provide
such information, from my understanding the GPL only requires source
distribution for those that recieve the binary distribution. Checking
redhat's errata site makes me believe that this is indeed the case with
errata:

compare these 2 (otherwise seemingly identical advisories):
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-062.html
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-063.html

both are for the OpenSSL timing attack, yet the advanced server packages
are marked as "only available through RHN". Now they may very well
give free RHN users access to these packages but I'd be suprised if they
did.

not that it matters to me, all my important systems are debian :) but
I thought I would mention the above point anyways..maybe someone
has more concrete information.

nate





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

Ed Wilts wrote:

Does Red Hat want people to go to Enterprise Linux?  Sure, that's where
the revenue is.  Without the redistributable line, however, Red Hat
would have to do their own QA on every product that they don't even
write, and they probably decided that shipping and supporting a free
version was lower cost to them.  I also think tha Red Hat is realistic
and knows that not everybody will jump to RHEL - I certainly can't
afford $349 per year at home for the OS.  At work, yes, because my time
is worth something.  At home, I'll be running the redistributable
versions for quite a while.
 

You can use the RedHat Enterprise Source RPM's and the RedHat Enterprise 
Errata
Source RPM's all you want.

If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and 
then download the
SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few 
that are different,
from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
You can have a 5 year lifespan on your personal server for free with a 
little extra work.

-Ben.



--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Bret Hughes

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 13:00, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> >>>Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> >>>Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> >>>compatability was maintained.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> >>From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
> > http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/leaplist/2003-March/029108.html
> > 
> > "Starting with Red Hat Linux 9 the numbering system for 
> > the consumer release will be stated only as an integer. The Red Hat 
> > Enterprise Linux AS/ES/WS product line will retain traditional decimal 
> > release numbering."
> > 
> > Hm... this will confuse me. I fail to see the reason RH changes the numbering 
> > scheme.
> > 
> Three guesses:
> 
> 1. Marketing?
> 2. To get rid of the .0 stigma?
> 3. To drive people to the Enterprise Linux Product?
> 

How 'bout 

4. All of the above

Bret



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:00:12AM -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> >>>Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> >>>Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> >>>compatability was maintained.
> 
> >>From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
> > http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/leaplist/2003-March/029108.html
> > 
> > "Starting with Red Hat Linux 9 the numbering system for 
> > the consumer release will be stated only as an integer. The Red Hat 
> > Enterprise Linux AS/ES/WS product line will retain traditional decimal 
> > release numbering."
> > 
> > Hm... this will confuse me. I fail to see the reason RH changes the numbering 
> > scheme.
> > 
> Three guesses:
> 
> 1. Marketing?

Yup.

> 2. To get rid of the .0 stigma?

Not really.  I wouldn't be surprised, though, to see Red Hat worry less
about binary incompatibilities than they do today.  The worrying will be
in the Enterprise line where they'll face some serious consequences if
they screw it up.

> 3. To drive people to the Enterprise Linux Product?

The drive to Enterprise Linux is to get the long-term support and
stability.  This is, obviously, at the expense of being able to run
cutting-edge products.  I tried to install the latest mailman from
rawhide onto an AS2.1 system and eventually gave up.  The
incompabilities are just too great.

Does Red Hat want people to go to Enterprise Linux?  Sure, that's where
the revenue is.  Without the redistributable line, however, Red Hat
would have to do their own QA on every product that they don't even
write, and they probably decided that shipping and supporting a free
version was lower cost to them.  I also think tha Red Hat is realistic
and knows that not everybody will jump to RHEL - I certainly can't
afford $349 per year at home for the OS.  At work, yes, because my time
is worth something.  At home, I'll be running the redistributable
versions for quite a while.

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Rick Johnson

Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
[...]


From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/leaplist/2003-March/029108.html

"Starting with Red Hat Linux 9 the numbering system for 
the consumer release will be stated only as an integer. The Red Hat 
Enterprise Linux AS/ES/WS product line will retain traditional decimal 
release numbering."

Hm... this will confuse me. I fail to see the reason RH changes the numbering 
scheme.

Three guesses:

1. Marketing?
2. To get rid of the .0 stigma?
3. To drive people to the Enterprise Linux Product?
-Rick
--
Rick Johnson, RHCE #807302311706007 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux/Network Administrator - Medata, Inc.
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/rjohnson.asc


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Reuben D. Budiardja

On Tuesday 25 March 2003 01:20 pm, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:


> > Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> > Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> > compatability was maintained.
> >
> > -Rick
>
> And that changes what, exactly?
>
> Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
> Does this represent a change to just 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12?

>From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/leaplist/2003-March/029108.html

"Starting with Red Hat Linux 9 the numbering system for 
the consumer release will be stated only as an integer. The Red Hat 
Enterprise Linux AS/ES/WS product line will retain traditional decimal 
release numbering."

Hm... this will confuse me. I fail to see the reason RH changes the numbering 
scheme.

RDB



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> > 
> > Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> > X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> > rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> > result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
> > .0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
> > same reason.
> > 
> > If memory serves, there are people on this very list that acknowledge
> > they tend away from X.0 releaes. Many suggest staying away from X.0
> > releases as well. I would think it more dramatic for these people to
> > suddenly be pro-9.0.
> > 
> 
> 
> Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is 
> Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary compatability 
> was maintained.
> 
> -Rick

And that changes what, exactly?

Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
Does this represent a change to just 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12?

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:30, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> > X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> > rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> > result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
> > .0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
> > same reason.
> 
> Let me be perfectly blunt here.  If you're avoiding a .0 release solely
> based on the numbering scheme, then you haven't earned the right to be a
> system administrator.  Every release needs to be evaluated based on its
> strenghts and weaknesses and how relevant it is to your environment.

I think you are being a bit arrogant here, Ed. I've been using RH since
3.x and am an RHCE. I've learned through *experience* that X.0 tends to
be buggy, since historically it consists of a host of new changes, such
as new kernel such as 2.0 -> 2.2 -> 2.4 -> 2.6(or new kernel prep as was
done in 7.0), new C libraries, etc.. Most of us have learned through
*experience* that RH's and other vendors' initial releases of a new
system (the X.0) tend to have many bugs, wich are discovered by people
to install it, and are then subsequently released in the .1,.2, and
occasionally .3 releases.

In fact, the X.0 being the buggier of the reelase set is inherent in
both open source and proprietary products. That's the point of release
early and release often.

It is my understanding that this release change is predicate on
significant changes that break binary compatibility, including the NPTL,
which is what, less than 6 months old? It is bound to have a host of new
bugs, and unexpected interactions in it's first release. For most o fus,
that is not a viable production system. We have made that decision
through experience. To use that decision as a tool to say we haven't
"earned the right to be a system administrator" is not exactly very
tactful or respectful of others' opinions, and downright insulting.

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:39, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> > I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come out.
> > I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
> 
> If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it, why would 9 not suit your needs?
> What makes you think that 9 is that much different than what you thought
> 8.1 was going to be?  It's just a number!

If there is a technical reason for the change, then yes, it is different
enough. The reasons suggested here are technical reasons, such as
breaking binary compatibility. if the changes are enough to warrant a
new major release number, then it will indeed be another X.0 release,
complete with issues that tend to plague X.0 releases.

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Steve

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


snip
> 
> So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
> and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
> SRPMS.  I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
> servers as I like (quite legally - GPL) without needing to pay Red Hat snip

I would be interested in the process used to build the AS binaries from the SRPMS. Any 
howto's or pointers on where to look?

Steve



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Gene Yoo

Ed Wilts wrote:
Let's step back and put it all into perspective.  Red Hat sent out an
e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
annoyed they're jumping distributions?  Take a deep breath, pop a valium 
and slowly back away from the keyboard.

i'm going to listen to ed and follow his instruction above 
anyways.  but seriously folks, red hat is a company, they 
don't particular have to follow any type of scheme per se, 
besides i didn't think the release version of the distro 
mattered much as package release control.
--
<>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iQCUAwUBPhxERRxoVYCzmrKXAQJK5gP3Y7CTsFyKpEz2p5W4GWI9+qSm+kWfdJ0R
xNlma0Ma9rAL/OBJcZMo5IXyXas+3Edogbv4Al6dIf8lot1WS0Iaxxl/cg2f7gf+
otf7LfNpZDE/6OzR7A1qN6baPMLSjGzywwQWMfSVuWWb6kGQxMsA13Kn68G7Ozxs
5CODZqUPyg==
=AolA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Rick Johnson

Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
.0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
same reason.
If memory serves, there are people on this very list that acknowledge
they tend away from X.0 releaes. Many suggest staying away from X.0
releases as well. I would think it more dramatic for these people to
suddenly be pro-9.0.


Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is 
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary compatability 
was maintained.

-Rick

--
Rick Johnson, RHCE #807302311706007 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux/Network Administrator - Medata, Inc. (from home)
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/rjohnson.asc


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

RE: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Burke, Thomas G.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

What's the point in upgrading if you don't need to?  My server still
runs 6.2, and has no need for an upgrade.

- -Original Message-
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed


On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come
> out. I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.

If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it, why would 9 not suit your
needs?
What makes you think that 9 is that much different than what you
thought
8.1 was going to be?  It's just a number!

- -- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program



- -- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3

iQA/AwUBPoBrUdPjBkUEZx5AEQImTQCg27w+yYdcKC6tOMpB1Y/IVqqB8PYAoN3c
Ahd3/01DuP4KSstEF0DmUQOV
=1+Tt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:30:00PM +1100, Roger wrote:
> I had a number of servers running 6.2/7.2/7.3, but as 7.3 won't be
> supported after 31-Dec-03 I had to decide what version I was going to
> run.  Like many people, I don't want phone/email support from Red Hat,
> just the errata packages for security and bug fixes.  As the general
> releases won't be supported for more than 12 months (unlike RH6.2 - 3
> years), I was not too keen to upgrade my reliable 7.2/7.3 servers with 8.0
> or 9.0 at the end of the year.
> 
> So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
> and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
> SRPMS.  I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
> servers as I like (quite legally - GPL) without needing to pay Red Hat a
> huge amount of money in per server per year licenses.  With this, I now
> get the benefit of 5+ years of errata for a stable Linux distribution.

I'll be migrating to Edge Server.  At $349 per year, it's still
reasonably priced for enterprise software and it's cheaper for my
company to install Edge Server on 80 servers than it is to maintain my
collection of sources, develop some procedures to build patches, risk
the delay in getting notification of security holes, plan and install
new upgrades, etc.

> I don't mind paying money for errata packages, such as if Red Hat decided
> to support 7.3 for 2 more years, but I'm not going to pay $US1500 per
> server, per year.

That's my Edge Server makes a lot more sense than Advanced Server for a
lot of people.

> Anyone running one of the 'consumer' versions of Red Hat will soon be out
> in the cold.

That's going too far.  The 'consumer" versions will have their place.  I
see regular posts from people who want the latest and greatest features,
want it now, and don't mind upgrading regularly.  Look at the flood that
will happen within a day of 9 being released - there is always going to
be a demand.  After all, the price is right (free, with free security
updates).  The 'consumer' versions just won't have a place in large
businesses, nor should they (IMO).

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
> .0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
> same reason.

Let me be perfectly blunt here.  If you're avoiding a .0 release solely
based on the numbering scheme, then you haven't earned the right to be a
system administrator.  Every release needs to be evaluated based on its
strenghts and weaknesses and how relevant it is to your environment.  

You can have a crappy 8.27 release and it might be just as likely that
you'll have a rock solid 9.0 release.  It's just a number.

I've seen alpha releases more stable than production releases.  I've
seen production releases from *lots* of vendors that plain out suck.
These aren't all .0 releases either.

People doing installs next month have multiple choices, all with varying
tradeoffs.  They can install 7.3, 8.0, 9, or Enterprise Linux.  All have
pros and cons and some will be more relevant to your environment than
others.  You can even install a release older than 7.3 if that suits you
better.  You get to trade off features, bugs, performance, and support
(and price with Enterprise Linux).

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Roger

Red Hat Linux 8.x/9.x... is now considered by RH as a bleeding-edge
operating system for consumer use, mainly targeted towards home users,
small business and enthusiasts.

As a significant percentage of Red Hat's revenue is coming from Advanced
Server (Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS), they are trying to push companies into
buying this product.  One way to achieve this is to turn the general
releases of Red Hat Linux into a constantly changing test bed
for Advanced Server.  Features that have proven solid in the general
releases will be eventually migrated into the Enterprise Linux products.
As this will no doubt result in reduced stability in the general releases,
anyone wanting stablity and reliability will need to run Red Hat
Enterprise Linux.

I had a number of servers running 6.2/7.2/7.3, but as 7.3 won't be
supported after 31-Dec-03 I had to decide what version I was going to
run.  Like many people, I don't want phone/email support from Red Hat,
just the errata packages for security and bug fixes.  As the general
releases won't be supported for more than 12 months (unlike RH6.2 - 3
years), I was not too keen to upgrade my reliable 7.2/7.3 servers with 8.0
or 9.0 at the end of the year.

So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
SRPMS.  I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
servers as I like (quite legally - GPL) without needing to pay Red Hat a
huge amount of money in per server per year licenses.  With this, I now
get the benefit of 5+ years of errata for a stable Linux distribution.

I don't mind paying money for errata packages, such as if Red Hat decided
to support 7.3 for 2 more years, but I'm not going to pay $US1500 per
server, per year.

I do not need any of the advanced features in Red Hat Advanced Server, all
I am looking for is a reasonably priced release that is stable and
supported (errata) long term.  However, I object strongly to paying per
server licensing for software that is essentially GPL.

You might ask, why not run another distribution, eg Debian, Slackware...?

Well, may software vendors only support there products on Red Hat Linux
and most are now moving to support only Red Hat Enterprise Linux or SLES.
Server manufactuers are also moving to only supporting the Enterprise
Linux products of the main 4 Linux vendors with their hardware management
agents.

Anyone running one of the 'consumer' versions of Red Hat will soon be out
in the cold.



> I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
> Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
> enterprise environment.
>
> Why should third parties develop for an ever changing platform? Already
> it's hard enough to convince them that there is a large enough user
> base, now try and explain to them that there will be a major version
> change at seemingly random times.
>
> How on Earth does this look in the least bit professional? Was 8.0 the
> beta for 9.0? Six months for a major version number? This comes off as a
> poor management decision, it makes Red Hat appear unstable. Between
> their release of a bunch of "enterprise" distributions, the recent cut
> off of rhn and two major releases in six months, Red Hat looks desperate
> for sources of income. Big corporations won't base their infrastructure
> on a company that doesn't look like it's going to be around next year.
>
> Why would I want to support another distribution? I was only now
> starting to place 8.0 in non critical systems, now you expect me to
> support 7.X, 8.X, and 9.X. And don't give me the "they have AS for that"
> argument, show me the company that will pay for AS for a nameserver and
> I'll show you a company going out of business next week. Red Hat can
> leverage administrators familiarity with their product to sell the AS
> product line for mission critical systems such as Oracle Databases, but
> if Red Hat decides to shoot itself in the foot like Caldera did, don't
> think I won't switch distributions in a second.
>



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread T. Ribbrock

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
[...]
> > Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> > now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
> > think?
> 
> Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
> .0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
> same reason.

Amen. I for one was waiting for 8.1, maybe even 8.2, as the x.2
releases have proven to be excellent releases (exception: 7.2 -> 7.3).
The way I see it now, I'll probably consider switching distros rather
than going 7.3 -> 9.0. That would still present me with new bugs and
challenges, but maybe bring me back to a distro with a more suitable
development direction. I've been using RHL since 4.1 and I've been
happy with it, but recently the inclination to switch slowly increases.
At least, I'll start gathering information about alternatives.

> If memory serves, there are people on this very list that acknowledge
> they tend away from X.0 releaes. Many suggest staying away from X.0
> releases as well. I would think it more dramatic for these people to
> suddenly be pro-9.0.

Is the second 'x.0' supposed to be a 'x.1'? Would make more sense that
way... ;-) But you're absolutely right: For the folks you describe
(and which I'm part of), 9.0 would have to offer some *very* juicy
bits to even think about switching.

Cheerio,

Thomas
-- 
==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <==
-
Thomas Ribbrockhttp://www.ribbrock.org 
  "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-25 Thread Jim Wilferling

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:29:48 +1100
Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 Right On to that, Stephen!
!-
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> >   this whole thing was really poorly done.
> > 
> > rday
> 
> Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
> the whole "new" direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
> ten years of "sticking" to RedHat, I'm going to have to divert my
> interests to another distribution that isn't going to follow in the
> footsteps of the larger looming monsters such as Microsoft and IBM.
> Bouncing versions like this, especially after pushing the version 8.1
> idea for so long, is more than poorly done - it's as though the
> principle behind the versioning scheme has been thrown out of the window
> altogether without thinking of the long term effects on the people that
> have come to depend on them - and in thinking that users/sellers of
> systems with 7.2/7.3 versions are going to be literally out on the
> streets with this version change, they're making for some really bad
> business karma.
> 
> I fear that RedHat, IF this move goes through, which I'm sure it is now,
> is going to cause quite a ripple throughout the overall RedHat
> community; and if the entire ploy is aimed at "Big Business" and
> commercial services, they're certainly going to find out that some folks
> are going to opt for a different distribution instead of fighting the
> "version is now outdated" trap.
> 
> IMHO this is - but I'm not going to chuck more money down the drain for
> a distro I've started to not like or trust. And it really sucks that
> after all these years, I'm starting to "not trust" RedHat.
> 
> -- 
> Tue Mar 25 08:20:00 EST 2003
>  08:20:00 up 3 days, 19:07,  4 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.15
> --
> |____  | kuhn media australia|
> |   / ,, /| |'-.   | http://kma.0catch.com   |
> |  .\__/ || |   |  |=|
> |   _ /  `._ \|_|_.-'  | stephen kuhn|
> |  | /  \__.`=._) (_   |  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> |  |/ ._/  |"| |  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> |  |'.  `\ | | |icq: 5483808 |
> |  ;"""/ / | | | |
> |  smk  ) /_/| |.---.| | mobile: 0410-728-389|
> |  '  `-`' " " | Berkeley, New South Wales, AU   |
> --
>  linux user:267497 * MDK 9.1 * PC/Mac/Linux/Networking/Consulting
>  machine no:194239 * RH 7.3 * Sales - Service - Support - Tutor
> --
> ** This messages was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer **
> 
> People who develop the habit of thinking of themselves as world
> citizens are fulfilling the first requirement of sanity in our time.
>   -- Norman Cousins
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> > While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> > do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> > Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> > tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
> > they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
> > at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
> > going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
> > can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
> > Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
> > consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
> > base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
> > RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  
> 
> Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
> user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
> think?

Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
.0 release, you are likely, in the general case, to avoid 9.0 for the
same reason.

If memory serves, there are people on this very list that acknowledge
they tend away from X.0 releaes. Many suggest staying away from X.0
releases as well. I would think it more dramatic for these people to
suddenly be pro-9.0.

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:13:21PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> As for the RHCE, I'm going for
> the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
> change. I hope not, I am all for distro-neutral certification.

IMHO a distro-neutral certification is a computing science degree.  I've
seen way too many people fight between differences in Unices that I
personally don't believe a distro-neutral certification is worth it.
HPUX admins struggle on Solaris and vice-versa.  Linux admins struggle
on Solaris and HPUX (where the heck is bash anyway? :-)).

Perhaps I'm showing my bias but I don't like *any* certifications.  Show
me somebody who's got the theory and the braincells and I'll teach him
the syntax.  If you know what you're trying to do rather than just
regurgitating what you learned, then it doesn't matter if it's Linux or
VMS.

.../Ed (B.Sc. but no other certifications)
-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:35:34PM -0500, Jared Brick wrote:
> I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
> Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
> enterprise environment.

In an enterprise environment, Red Hat is targeting Red Hat Enterprise
Linux - Advanced Server, Edge Server, and Advanced Workstation.
Please go visit http://www.redhat.com/software and see who the target
audience is for the "Community Products".

> How on Earth does this look in the least bit professional? Was 8.0 the
> beta for 9.0? Six months for a major version number? This comes off as a
> poor management decision, it makes Red Hat appear unstable. Between
> their release of a bunch of "enterprise" distributions, the recent cut
> off of rhn and two major releases in six months, Red Hat looks desperate
> for sources of income. Big corporations won't base their infrastructure
> on a company that doesn't look like it's going to be around next year.

Red Hat is merely positioning their products better.  The way I see it,
8.x and 9.x are targeted to the "bleeding edge" community - those who
want the latest features and don't care if they have to upgrade every
year.  I see daily postings from people who want the latest version of
package x.  This is typically in direct competition with those who want
long-term stability.  You can not be leading edge and stable at the same
time.  8.x and 9.x are more likely the beta for Enterprise Linux. 

Big corporations don't want 8.x or 9.x.  They want Enterprise Linux with
a longer lifecycle and better support.  It's what I'm in the process of
buying at my office.

Did you see enterprises going to Solaris 9 shortly after it shipped?
How about Windows XP - do you see that on every business desktop?  Heck,
many big organizations are still on NT 4.0 (we're still in the process
of migrating to Win2K).

I've been managing enterprise servers for about 20 years (yes, I predate
the Internet if you can believe it!).  I have *no* certifications other
than a computing science degree but I know what I'm doing and my systems
are stable.  The motto on my office door (back when I had a door :-))
said "when downtime is not an option".  I've seen big companies big
(Wang, Data General, Digital) die and small companies wither away.  Many
smaller companies have popped up and grown into big companies.  I'll be
still around when other big companies will also die off (Sun IMHO).  I
see Red Hat doing some smart things and I'll go on record as saying that
Red Hat will outlive Sun (and if you're going to flame me, do it via
e-mail, not via this list - I won't respond).

> Why would I want to support another distribution? I was only now
> starting to place 8.0 in non critical systems, now you expect me to
> support 7.X, 8.X, and 9.X. And don't give me the "they have AS for that"
> argument, show me the company that will pay for AS for a nameserver and
> I'll show you a company going out of business next week. Red Hat can
> leverage administrators familiarity with their product to sell the AS
> product line for mission critical systems such as Oracle Databases, but
> if Red Hat decides to shoot itself in the foot like Caldera did, don't
> think I won't switch distributions in a second.

Go ahead and switch distributions in a second.  I can go to my
collection of Linux distributions that I picked up at Linuxworld in NYC
in 2000 and trim that down by about 75% to those are still in business.
There are probably a hundred or so Linux distributions - those that I'd
even consider running my business on are less than a handful and Red Hat
is at the top of that list.

I can easily justify Edge Server to run my nameservers at work.  The
effort it takes to plan and upgrade a server easily costs more than it
does to put in ES, apply regular security updates, and essentially leave 
it alone for a few years.  Our nameservers are still running 6.2 so you
can tell how leading edge we really want to be.  Do I want to fight my
stability requirements with those that are demanding KDE 3.1 and Gnome
2.2 plus the latest xmms updates?  Not bloody likely.  Do I care about
the bleading edge enhancements to IDE in the 2.5.x kernels?  Nope.  Do I
even care about USB?  Nope - USB belongs on the desktop, not in the data
center.  Do I even care about nVidia drivers?  Not at work.  I'll pop in
ES and let 'em work for a while.  

> Linux distributions often just don't seem to get it, RH will never be
> Microsoft, they won't even be Sun, Red Hat is in a prime position to
> take the lion's share of enterprise Linux, and make some decent money in
> doing so, I fail to see the point of shenanigans like this.

Have you considered the possibility that you may not get it?  Red Hat
has been in business for 10 years.  Most Linux distributors - whom you
seem to think probably "got it" - are long gone.  Red Hat probably
doesn't want to be another Microsoft.  They don't need to be to be
profitable and remai

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Joe Polk

I see your point and it was kind of my point. This appears to be a step
in the wrong direction. I'm with you, if more of this type of unusual
behavior occurs, it will only hurt them.  As for the RHCE, I'm going for
the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
change. I hope not, I am all for distro-neutral certification.

<>

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 20:35, Jared Brick wrote:
> I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
> Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
> enterprise environment.
> 
> Why should third parties develop for an ever changing platform? Already
> it's hard enough to convince them that there is a large enough user
> base, now try and explain to them that there will be a major version
> change at seemingly random times.
> 
> How on Earth does this look in the least bit professional? Was 8.0 the
> beta for 9.0? Six months for a major version number? This comes off as a
> poor management decision, it makes Red Hat appear unstable. Between
> their release of a bunch of "enterprise" distributions, the recent cut
> off of rhn and two major releases in six months, Red Hat looks desperate
> for sources of income. Big corporations won't base their infrastructure
> on a company that doesn't look like it's going to be around next year.
> 
> Why would I want to support another distribution? I was only now
> starting to place 8.0 in non critical systems, now you expect me to
> support 7.X, 8.X, and 9.X. And don't give me the "they have AS for that"
> argument, show me the company that will pay for AS for a nameserver and
> I'll show you a company going out of business next week. Red Hat can
> leverage administrators familiarity with their product to sell the AS
> product line for mission critical systems such as Oracle Databases, but
> if Red Hat decides to shoot itself in the foot like Caldera did, don't
> think I won't switch distributions in a second.
> 
> I was planning on becoming a RHCE, but this is seriously giving me
> second thoughts. Even if Red Hat extends the length of their
> certification what's the point? "I'm certified on Red Hat 9.0", "oh well
> we're using Red Hat 12.0 here so that doesn't mean much" And don't
> laugh, the guys that actually give weight to certifications are the same
> guys that think like this.
> 
> Linux distributions often just don't seem to get it, RH will never be
> Microsoft, they won't even be Sun, Red Hat is in a prime position to
> take the lion's share of enterprise Linux, and make some decent money in
> doing so, I fail to see the point of shenanigans like this.
> 
> Jared
> 
> On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 19:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> > > While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> > > do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> > > Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> > > tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
> > > they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
> > > at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
> > > going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
> > > can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
> > > Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
> > > consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
> > > user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
> > > base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
> > > RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  
> > 
> > Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> > now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
> > think?
> > 
> > Let's step back and put it all into perspective.  Red Hat sent out an
> > e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
> > generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
> > annoyed they're jumping distributions?  Take a deep breath, pop a valium 
> > and slowly back away from the keyboard.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Jared Brick

I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
enterprise environment.

Why should third parties develop for an ever changing platform? Already
it's hard enough to convince them that there is a large enough user
base, now try and explain to them that there will be a major version
change at seemingly random times.

How on Earth does this look in the least bit professional? Was 8.0 the
beta for 9.0? Six months for a major version number? This comes off as a
poor management decision, it makes Red Hat appear unstable. Between
their release of a bunch of "enterprise" distributions, the recent cut
off of rhn and two major releases in six months, Red Hat looks desperate
for sources of income. Big corporations won't base their infrastructure
on a company that doesn't look like it's going to be around next year.

Why would I want to support another distribution? I was only now
starting to place 8.0 in non critical systems, now you expect me to
support 7.X, 8.X, and 9.X. And don't give me the "they have AS for that"
argument, show me the company that will pay for AS for a nameserver and
I'll show you a company going out of business next week. Red Hat can
leverage administrators familiarity with their product to sell the AS
product line for mission critical systems such as Oracle Databases, but
if Red Hat decides to shoot itself in the foot like Caldera did, don't
think I won't switch distributions in a second.

I was planning on becoming a RHCE, but this is seriously giving me
second thoughts. Even if Red Hat extends the length of their
certification what's the point? "I'm certified on Red Hat 9.0", "oh well
we're using Red Hat 12.0 here so that doesn't mean much" And don't
laugh, the guys that actually give weight to certifications are the same
guys that think like this.

Linux distributions often just don't seem to get it, RH will never be
Microsoft, they won't even be Sun, Red Hat is in a prime position to
take the lion's share of enterprise Linux, and make some decent money in
doing so, I fail to see the point of shenanigans like this.

Jared

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 19:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> > While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> > do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> > Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> > tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
> > they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
> > at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
> > going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
> > can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
> > Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
> > consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
> > base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
> > RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  
> 
> Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
> user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
> think?
> 
> Let's step back and put it all into perspective.  Red Hat sent out an
> e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
> generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
> annoyed they're jumping distributions?  Take a deep breath, pop a valium 
> and slowly back away from the keyboard.
> 
> -- 
> Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Joe Polk

That's a perspective and I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going
to stop using RH. All I am suggesting is that this "appears" to be a
step, or perhaps a trend. Perhaps one day they will "become" something I
disagree with, but right now I just don't have a good feeling about it.
I'm not, however, at the point where I'll stop using RH or suggesting
it. They still have a way to go before becoming Caldera! 

<>

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 19:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> > While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> > do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> > Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> > tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
> > they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
> > at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
> > going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
> > can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
> > Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
> > consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
> > base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
> > RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  
> 
> Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
> user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
> think?
> 
> Let's step back and put it all into perspective.  Red Hat sent out an
> e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
> generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
> annoyed they're jumping distributions?  Take a deep breath, pop a valium 
> and slowly back away from the keyboard.
> 
> -- 
> Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
> they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
> at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
> going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
> can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
> Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
> consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
> user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
> base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
> RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  

Wow.  Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat?  A disgruntled
user base that simply goes elsewhere?  A little dramatic don't you
think?

Let's step back and put it all into perspective.  Red Hat sent out an
e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
annoyed they're jumping distributions?  Take a deep breath, pop a valium 
and slowly back away from the keyboard.

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Emmanuel Seyman

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:29:48AM +1100, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
> 
> Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
> the whole "new" direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
> ten years of "sticking" to RedHat, I'm going to have to divert my
> interests to another distribution that isn't going to follow in the
> footsteps of the larger looming monsters such as Microsoft and IBM.

Okay, that does it.

What THE HELL does jumping directly from 8.0 to 9.0 have to with
either Microsoft or IBM?
Version numbering of Microsoft apps have nothing to do with binary
compatibility (or anything else, for that matter) and IBM version
numbers tend to reflect feature additions more than anything else.
Please explain this. I'm really scratching my head on this one.

While I'm as surprised as everybody on the list, I realize it's
courageous of Red Hat to clearly reflect that the coming distribution
isn't binary compatible with the previous one and that this is going
to cause them a lot of animosity. 
Try to imagine what people whould have felt if they had labelled it
8.1 without keeping the compatibility.

Emmanuel

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Michael Schwendt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:52:02 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   and, more to the point, that posting was pure spam.  it
> provided no information, answered no questions -- just 
> announced RHN for red hat 9, and "click here" to join
> and give us some of your money.

With links that point to *.chtah.com and which contain encoded
information that allow evaluating who clicked on them.

>   the disclaimer insisted that i got it because i had
> "opted in" to get info.  i don't recall ever opting in,
> unless they're talking about the official red hat mailing
> list, and i joined that one because i wanted to get real
> information.  that posting didn't even vaguely qualify.
> 
>   this whole thing was really poorly done.

Yep. Most important, it doesn't mention the partnership between Red
Hat and CheetahMail. It should do that somewhere at the top or
bottom.

- -- 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+f5Es0iMVcrivHFQRAt/iAJsFjAYRhvyP3hZtcty2AsCBJ938aQCdEfaN
X+Byr+1uEQMMRSEIFgau1jo=
=PSib
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed

2003-03-24 Thread Joe Polk

While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
they didn't seem interested in the end user, unless you were an end user
at a big company.  I'm not saying this is the direction that RH is
going, but they have taken some steps down that road. Let's hope they
can see where at leads WITHOUT having to tread the entire length. 
Again, they can do what they please but that doesn't mean there aren't
consequences. The consequences here could very well be a disgruntled
user base that simply goes elsewhere. While they won't hurt the existing
base of corporate users right now, it will keep people from suggesting
RH in the future which ultimately will hurt them.  This may be the
marketing dept's fault. Perhaps that's what makes it so sour. Marketing
reps are the business version of lawyers. The more you hang around them,
the more dirty you feel.  Video killed the radio star and marketing reps
spoiled our little party we call Information Technology. On the other
hand, they also indirectly feed and clothe us. 

<>

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 16:29, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> >   this whole thing was really poorly done.
> > 
> > rday
> 
> Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
> the whole "new" direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
> ten years of "sticking" to RedHat, I'm going to have to divert my
> interests to another distribution that isn't going to follow in the
> footsteps of the larger looming monsters such as Microsoft and IBM.
> Bouncing versions like this, especially after pushing the version 8.1
> idea for so long, is more than poorly done - it's as though the
> principle behind the versioning scheme has been thrown out of the window
> altogether without thinking of the long term effects on the people that
> have come to depend on them - and in thinking that users/sellers of
> systems with 7.2/7.3 versions are going to be literally out on the
> streets with this version change, they're making for some really bad
> business karma.
> 
> I fear that RedHat, IF this move goes through, which I'm sure it is now,
> is going to cause quite a ripple throughout the overall RedHat
> community; and if the entire ploy is aimed at "Big Business" and
> commercial services, they're certainly going to find out that some folks
> are going to opt for a different distribution instead of fighting the
> "version is now outdated" trap.
> 
> IMHO this is - but I'm not going to chuck more money down the drain for
> a distro I've started to not like or trust. And it really sucks that
> after all these years, I'm starting to "not trust" RedHat.
> 
> -- 
> Tue Mar 25 08:20:00 EST 2003
>  08:20:00 up 3 days, 19:07,  4 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.15
> --
> |____  | kuhn media australia|
> |   / ,, /| |'-.   | http://kma.0catch.com   |
> |  .\__/ || |   |  |=|
> |   _ /  `._ \|_|_.-'  | stephen kuhn|
> |  | /  \__.`=._) (_   |  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> |  |/ ._/  |"| |  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> |  |'.  `\ | | |icq: 5483808 |
> |  ;"""/ / | | | |
> |  smk  ) /_/| |.---.| | mobile: 0410-728-389|
> |  '  `-`' " " | Berkeley, New South Wales, AU   |
> --
>  linux user:267497 * MDK 9.1 * PC/Mac/Linux/Networking/Consulting
>  machine no:194239 * RH 7.3 * Sales - Service - Support - Tutor
> --
> ** This messages was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer **
> 
> People who develop the habit of thinking of themselves as world
> citizens are fulfilling the first requirement of sanity in our time.
>   -- Norman Cousins
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed