Fedora CDs (was: Product Pricing)

DVD based release of > Fedora, online docs & all, for the usual $6-$15US. Thanks - good to know, though I'll probably just download the ISOs in that case. I'll have to evaluate Fedora anyway, as it'll be interesting to see whether they can keep up with security updates. At the s

RE: Red Hat and Fedora

Yeah, I know that all those packages can be downloaded and installed. I like the way Red Hat integrates them into the OS because, for example, I can find all the configuration files in /etc regardless of the package. Also, I have used KDE, Gnome, CDE, Afterstep and fvwm and I really like the in

Re: [TriLUG] Re: NVidia drivers cause Segmentation Faults in RH9 and Fedora Core beta

My next strategy is to go ahead and reinstall and use the updated drivers from NVidia and see if that works it out. Upon contact with NVidia I learned that with the 4363 drivers there was an incompatibility issue with Red Hat Linux 9, thus probably the reason why Fedora Core bombed too. I will

NVidia drivers cause Segmentation Faults in RH9 and Fedora Core beta

error: Line 697: Segmentation Fault : Aborting XMMS I really could give two craps about but is there anyway to save Open Office I have tried to Reinstall these apps with no luck. The Nvidia driver is version 4363 Now to the Fedora Core Team: With the Beta release of Fedora Core I have the same

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:26:00 -0500, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:02:13PM +0300, Karasik, Vitaly wrote: > > Below is my question to RH and theirs answer: > > Their answer is misleading - The question was confusing, too. The average c

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:02:13PM +0300, Karasik, Vitaly wrote: > Below is my question to RH and theirs answer: Their answer is misleading - here's the response I received when I forwarded your posting to Red Hat for clarification: "That link pointed to the RHN agreement, rather than the RHEL ag

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

Below is my question to RH and theirs answer: Good Morning, Once your current contract expires, it will auto-renew, as stated in Section 6 of the RHN use and Subscription Agreement so you will not need to purchase a new entitlement. Regards, Customer

RE: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

I would like to add that if one reads the reasons for Fedora and reads the section about RH enterprise offerings in the same section. They will notice that Red Hat states the Enterprise releases will be based on Fedora. Again...I believe this is all being blown WAYYYyy

Re: stupid fedora question

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:28:02AM -0400, Marvin Blackburn wrote: > I am not sure exactly how fedora effects the retail version of Red Hat,if at > all. The original Red Hat Linux boxed set as we knew it has been dropped. There will not be a boxed Fedora. However, nobody has said that R

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:44:38PM +0300, Karasik, Vitaly wrote: > >Red Hat's web site clearly states that ftp, anonftp, and wu-ftpd are not > >included on WS (http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/features). > > you're right - there is no ftp server in WS (and of course, ftp [=ftp > client] is in)

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:40:20 -0500, Ed Wilts wrote > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:31:41PM -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > I am trying to plan for what action will need to be done due to the > > demise of RHL. Some have suggested that Fedora will be a logical > > replacement. Othe

stupid fedora question

I am not sure exactly how fedora effects the retail version of Red Hat,if at all. I cant seem to get a grasp. Is RedHat dropping the "retail" version and going to start employing fedora -- without giving any support? -- Marvin Blackburn Systems Administrator Glen Rave

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

>On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:58AM +0300, Karasik, Vitaly wrote: >> I'd like to clarify few things regarding RHEL pricing [and not, I >> don't work for RH :-)]: >> >> - you pay $179 for WS , $349 for ES and $1500 for AS just once and >> not per-year >Can you give us a pointer to this? Everythi

Re: Fedora madness

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:31:48PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: [...] > Effectively, the following lists that were introduced together > with the original Red Hat Linux Project website: > > rhl-list > rhl-devel-list > rhl-beta-list > rhl-docs-list Thanks for the clarification. Learn som

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:59:26 +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo > > > > > > Err - "redhat-list" is still on that page, too, and so are all others. > > > > Uhm, you didn't read my message, did you? Try again,

Re: Fedora madness

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:10:56PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:15:05 +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > > > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? > > > > > > Yes, because all subscribers of the rhl-* lists have been tra

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:34:35 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > [Recycling the reply I posted to redhat-list and fedora-list just a > > few minutes ago. Why the separate cross-post?] > > Because not everyone subscribes to all three l

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:31:41PM -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > I am trying to plan for what action will need to be done due to the > demise of RHL. Some have suggested that Fedora will be a logical > replacement. Others have said that yum/apt might be used in place of > up2date. Still

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:33:46 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:17:36 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > > If I read this exchange correctly, Fedora may not be a RH 10 equivalent for > > those users

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:17:36 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > If I read this exchange correctly, Fedora may not be a RH 10 equivalent for > those users of previous versions of RHL. Not a good sign? Can you explain this question a bit? No part o

Re: Fedora madness

f context, Not out of context at all. Let me quote from the first message of this thread which I replied to: > > > Also, what will happen to this list? I didn't quote that and didn't reply to it either. Ed Wilts had replied to it an hour earlier. > > > Is anyone el

Re: How can I update from Shrike to Fedora ?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:40:23 -0400, Jef Spaleta wrote > Cristian Stefan wrote: > > Hi I am new to RH and i have installed RH9 and managed to update it > > with apt4rpm .So... > > The obvious question is : > > How can I manage to put some repositories to get a dist-upg

Re: Fedora madness

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:27:28 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:04:00 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > > It is simple. All subscribers of the rhl-* lists have NOT been transfered to > > the fedora-*

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:04:00 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > It is simple. All subscribers of the rhl-* lists have NOT been transfered to > the fedora-* lists. I subscribe to both rhl-list and fedora-list and they are > quite different. No.

Re: Fedora madness

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:12:54 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:17:16 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > > > > > > > Is a

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:03:00 -0400, Vince Scimeca wrote: > I subscribed to the fedora-list and I am getting different messages then > on this list so they seem to be different. Of course they are different. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIG

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:17:16 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > > > > > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? > > > > Yes, because all subscri

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:15:05 +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? > > > > Yes, because all subscribers of the rhl-* lists have been transferred > > to the fedora-* lists. E

Re: Fedora madness

On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 22:03, Vince Scimeca wrote: > > I subscribed to the fedora-list and I am getting different messages then > on this list so they seem to be different. > > Vince > > Ditto. Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] h

Re: Fedora madness

On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 21:17, Mike Vanecek wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:40:27 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > > > > > Is anyo

Re: Fedora madness

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:40:27 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > > > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? > > Yes, because all subscribers o

Re: Fedora madness

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 04:40:27PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > > > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? > > Yes, because all subscribers of the rhl-* lists have been transferred > to the fedora-* li

Re: Fedora

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Ed Wilts wrote: > > What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? > > The product that hasn't been announced yet. I'm not at liberty to give > out any details, but from what I've heard, it will be what many people > a

Re: Fedora madness

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:11 -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? Yes, because all subscribers of the rhl-* lists have been transferred to the fedora-* lists. Effectively, the rhl-* lists have been renamed

RE: Fedora madness

Ed Wilts wrote: > Red Hat has never supported upgrades from a production release to a > beta nor from a beta to production. I believe that many people have > made it work, but it's officially unsupported. You know, that was a REALLY stupid question. I had a "DOH!" moment after sending this one

Re: Fedora madness

it work, but it's officially unsupported. > Also, what will happen to this list? Will it strictly be for their > Enterprise offerings? Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? I don't expect redhat-list to go away since we've still got people on here running versions b

Fedora madness

? Or will I have to burn Final ISO's and do yet another upgrade? Also, what will happen to this list? Will it strictly be for their Enterprise offerings? Is anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet? You know, I'm all for change. But I&#x

Re: Fedora

On 2003-09-26, Ian Mortimer wrote: > > I didn't want to start a linux distro war, it's just that I've never > come across it on a server. I know it's popular on desktops. > Of course not, that's not my intention either, I just wanted to share my experience. I really dislike all the flaming betwe

Re: Fedora

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 00:56, Helgi Örn Helgason wrote: > > > How about Mandrake? > > > > On a server? Debian or FreeBSD are likely to be more stable. > > > Perhaps, but Mandrake is probably still more common as server OS than > both of these. I experienced, that FreeBSD is very popular these day

Re: Fedora

> It is in fact a very popular server OS, home users, small corporations > and large intranets alike. If you've ever installed a Mandrake OS you > would know why. I didn't want to start a linux distro war, it's just that I've never come across it on a server. I know it's popular on desktops. >

Re: Fedora

On 2003-09-26, Ian Mortimer wrote: > > I have to admit that my only experience with Mandrake is cleaning > up the mess after staff or students attempt to install it themselves. > And when they try Gentoo, Debian or even worse; *BSD's or MS OS's... > My impression is that Mandrake is a desktop or

Re: Fedora

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:33:38AM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > Why not Mandrake on a server? I haven't used it for that (my only > server runs OpenBSD), but are there any objective reasons not to? I've talked to a couple of Mandrake guys in the past and they're clearly far more interested in m

Re: Fedora

> What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? The product that hasn't been announced yet. I'm not at liberty to give out any details, but from what I've heard, it will be what many people are looking for and more than what I was personally hoping

Re: Fedora

On 2003-09-26, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:18:39AM +1000, Ian Mortimer wrote: > Why not Mandrake on a server? I haven't used it for that (my only > server runs OpenBSD), but are there any objective reasons not to? > Probably not judging by it's popularity, just prejudices i sup

Re: Fedora

On 2003-09-26, Ian Mortimer wrote: > > > > What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? > > > How about Mandrake? > > On a server? Debian or FreeBSD are likely to be more stable. > Perhaps, but Mandrake is probably still more common a

Re: Fedora

> Why not Mandrake on a server? I haven't used it for that (my only > server runs OpenBSD), but are there any objective reasons not to? I have to admit that my only experience with Mandrake is cleaning up the mess after staff or students attempt to install it themselves. My impression is that Ma

Re: Fedora

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:18:39AM +1000, Ian Mortimer wrote: > > > > What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? > > > How about Mandrake? > > On a server? Debian or FreeBSD are likely to be more stable. Why not Mandrake on a server? I h

Re: Fedora

> > What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? > How about Mandrake? On a server? Debian or FreeBSD are likely to be more stable. -- Ian -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: Fedora

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:27:23AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: [...] > 1. You had the free package available for, well, free, and Red Hat > did not provide automatic updates. However, you _could_ get those using > other tools like yum, current, and apt-get. Fedora will stil

Re: Fedora

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:09:06AM -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > What options are left to the SOHO server user if not Fedora or SUSE? I've > never used anything except RH, but would like to start thinking about a fall > back plan in case Fedora is too bleeding edge for my needs. How

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

Buck staggered into view and mumbled: > Hopefully Fedora will pick it up from there. To me, it would make sense > that Fedora picks up the up2date program if for no other reason than to > attract financial support from those of us willing and able to pay the > $50 - 60 per year.

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:02:23 -0700, Mike McMullen wrote: > Does anyone have an idea when the demo accounts are no longer functional? Where did you read that it would happen? - -- Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.

RE: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

Your boss is probably over reacting. What I gather from what I have read and heard, up2date will be available for the current RHL release until 6 months after the next one (Fedora). After that it will transfer to Fedora. That indicates to me that Fedora will be having up2dates as well. However

Re: Fedora

ht be forthcoming this > > > week. Let's be patient for a bit... > > > > > > > Hey Ed, > > > > Care to share your source or to speculate what the announcement might > > entail? Redhat has already said that Fedora will _not_ be supported so &

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

email address. At the end of 2 months, one would fill out a > questionaire to extend the subscription for two more months. That was > discontinued this week. > > As Alan said, its a good thing to support Red Hat anyway. > > Hopefully Fedora will pick it up from there. To me, it

RE: WTF? (was yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora))

Ed Wilts wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:59:39PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote: >> I know it's a lot, but if someone could kernelize it for me, I'd be >> really happy. > > Read the FAQ at http://rhl.redhat.com. > Actually I was just there reading what it said, but it mostly looks to me like typical

Re: WTF? (was yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora))

as to whether or not up2date will be used or not to the point that a Red Hat Sales person apparently said that it would not be, yet other people are saying that it will. In fact, up2date works *today* for Fedora. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Communi

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:37:42 -0400 > "Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Up until Monday Up2Date was free for filling out a questionaire every > > two months. The $60 provided you with convenience and earlier access to > > binary downloads and free binary downloads of RHEL. > > > > Up2Date Dem

RE: WTF? (was yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora))

Okay, I'm a bit behind on this discussion because of the lovely OS that is WinBloze and it's billions of holes. I'd easily say one hole per dollar of Mr. Gates net worth. Let me get this straight, RH started the Fedora project to separate the 'free' ISO builds that a

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

od thing to support Red Hat anyway. > > Hopefully Fedora will pick it up from there. To me, it would make sense > that Fedora picks up the up2date program if for no other reason than to > attract financial support from those of us willing and able to pay the > $50 - 60 per year.

RE: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

of 2 months, one would fill out a questionaire to extend the subscription for two more months. That was discontinued this week. As Alan said, its a good thing to support Red Hat anyway. Hopefully Fedora will pick it up from there. To me, it would make sense that Fedora picks up the up2date

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

Marc Adler wrote: Let me get this straight: I paid RH for update support for a year on two machines when I could've gotten the exact same thing for free? Yes, that's correct. Thanks for helping support Redhat, a company who has done a lot of good work for us all. I did my part by buying a bo

Fedora can get updates from RHN

-Forwarded Message- From: Tom 'spot' Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora Project: Announcing New Direction Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:46:57 -0500 On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 16:58, Richard Ames wrote: > I currently have 14 systems subscr

Fedora

-Forwarded Message- From: "Tom spot Callaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora Project: Announcing New Direction Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:15:27 -0500 On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 15:45, Paul Gear wrote: > Here's my explanation of what

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

IMO) much of the reason for all the discussion about the "gap" between Fedora & RHEL >From RH's own website: "Red Hat's Enterprise Linux family of operating systems is available on a per-system, annual subscription basis. The subscriptions are offered in three

Re: RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:58AM +0300, Karasik, Vitaly wrote: > I'd like to clarify few things regarding RHEL pricing [and not, I > don't work for RH :-)]: > > - you pay $179 for WS , $349 for ES and $1500 for AS just once and > not per-year Can you give us a pointer to this? Everything I've

RHEL pricing [was FEDORA]

I'd like to clarify few things regarding RHEL pricing [and not, I don't work for RH :-)]: - you pay $179 for WS , $349 for ES and $1500 for AS just once and not per-year - RHEN subscription is just $96 per system per year, there are few discounts for multi-servers sites - RHEL WS includes al

Re: Fedora

At 18:35 9/23/2003, you wrote: Tom Callaway of RedHat already said that they'd be open to helping out: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00133.html Tom's a good man, and he makes his point well. Overall, I have been and am happy with Red Hat. Despi

Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:37:02PM -1000, Marc Adler wrote: > I've followed this thread with interest, especially the references to > yum and apt-get. Let me get this straight: I paid RH for update support > for a year on two machines when I could've gotten the exact same thing > for free? Yes. No

yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)

I've followed this thread with interest, especially the references to yum and apt-get. Let me get this straight: I paid RH for update support for a year on two machines when I could've gotten the exact same thing for free? -- Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:33:59 -1000 Linux 2.4.20-20.9 Mutt 1.4.1i (2003-03-

Re: Fedora

milar admins in this sector > (even those with an RHCE!) are likely to start looking at other > distributions (debian is already popular - partly because of knoppix) > or*bsd. > Tom Callaway of RedHat already said that they'd be open to helping out: http://www.redhat.com/archiv

Re: Fedora

A large and potentially larger part of the Linux market is in the education sector. Many schools/colleges/universities don't have budgets to pay for expensive software licenses (one reason many are moving from Windows). Some software vendors offer unsupported non-commercial licenses at discount

Re: RHCE (was Fedora)

> >Could mean a move to debian or freebsd for servers. > > Why? Personally, I see Fedora as being functionally equivalent to RHL 10, > and for small servers I would have run 10 without question. No reason on > Earth for me not to use Fedora for those, since I expect to see

Re: RHCE (was Fedora)

sure about running vital services on Fedora. Could mean a move to debian or freebsd for servers. Why? Personally, I see Fedora as being functionally equivalent to RHL 10, and for small servers I would have run 10 without question. No reason on Earth for me not to use Fedora for those, since I exp

Re: Fedora

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 03:17:30PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > 2. I do not need any support at all... none whatsoever. Just the > updates, ma'am, delivered automatically by some software tool (and we > certainly have more than one that can do the job). Or, to put that another way, w

RE: Fedora

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Buck wrote: > What really has my attention is the contract associated with Red Hat. > > The contract requires a user to buy on server package for each computer > its on. Even though GNU/open source says it can be freely distributed, > Red Hat is negating that. In many cases,

Re: Fedora

i accept your usage. > IIRC, this is more than Fedora but less than RHEL. But for this, I would > be willing to pay $0 < X < $180 per year. > The challenge for RedHat is to provide a product that doesn't step on the toes of its enterprise offering. Sean. -- redhat-list maili

Re: Fedora

99 for WS and $799 for ES. > > Nobody is talking about Telephone support which is what the prices you quoted include. The legitimate concern that i see people voicing is that Fedora does not have an appropriate Support/Updates cycle for business use. While Enterprise doesn't have this prob

Re: Fedora

At 12:40 9/23/2003, you wrote: i'd be impressed if someone here can articulate what they're willing to pay for above Fedora and not willing to pay for (ie. can be removed) from the Enterprise offerings. 1. I would like updates and patches to be issued for longer than 12 months

Re: Fedora

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:54:32 -0700 Rhugga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yea, I have to agree with most on this thread, there is no future in > selling Red Hat/Linux support. It has already been tried anyway on the > west coast with these companies that started competing with > Sun/EMC/HP/Compaq

Re: Fedora

Buck wrote: My answer you quoted below are in response to a statement that WS is only $179 with support and ES is $349 with support. I corrected him by saying that the prices with support are $299 for WS and $799 for ES. Is this whole thread about software support? Who the hell needs softwa

RE: Fedora

Behalf Of Sean Estabrooks Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:31:20 -0400 "Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Support What support? The products you listed are only the > product and up2date for 1

Re: Fedora

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:30:54 -0400 "Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My sentiments exactly. > > But add this. If I can support the product, I get a customer. Along > with that, I would purchase a boxed edition for the customer to put on > his shelf, and at least a minimal support package so

Re: Dumb-ass Question Re: Fedora

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 03:15:37PM -0400, David Hart wrote: > I cannot quite catch up on this thread for lack of time. WTF is > "Fedora?" http://rhl.redhat.com -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- red

RE: Fedora

, I could sell them installation and support their server for a year. Better bargain than MS. Buck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Ihnat Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, Sep

Dumb-ass Question Re: Fedora

I cannot quite catch up on this thread for lack of time. WTF is "Fedora?" Thanks. -- Hart's PGP Key: 0x7BFF655E - http://TQMcube.com/hart_pgp.txt

RE: Fedora

Rodolfo J. Paiz Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Fedora At 11:01 9/23/2003, you wrote: >I think that the real problem is that we once had available the >download of the grand package and updates for $60.00 and now we can >only get a part of the pa

Re: Fedora

ally, the way I read it, we will still be able to get the download of the full package. There will still be a full "rawhide -> beta -> release" cycle. You will be able to download the final version of Fedora Core without having to worry about using a test version. It will be

Re: Fedora

y friend. > Actually you're wrong Buck. Go look. We're not talking about telephone suport. Nobody was getting telephone support for $60 dollars a year. Buck. Please, tell me what it is that you're willing to pay for that is _not_ provided by Fedora? More importantly te

RE: Fedora

those 10 hours as you will for Enterprise RH software and support all together. RH Advanced can use multi-procs. If you need more than 4 procs you need Windows Advanced Server, however, most "small" businesses can use Fedora and run without a hitch. Who needs multi-processors is the q

RE: Fedora

Behalf Of Sean Estabrooks Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:05:28 -0600 "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sean, in the corporate world you may be right, although even then, it > strike

RE: Fedora

Estabrooks Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:43:59 -0500 Dave Ihnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:25:00AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > > Both of these options are reasonably pric

RE: Fedora

ink 4 months is long enough to declare a system reliable. My 1/2 cents worth. Buck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Sisler Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:37 AM To: RedHat List Subject: Re: Fedora Snip I think there needs to be

Re: Fedora

eed a packaged, recognizable product that clients will feel comfortable with, and for which they *can* buy support if they end up needing it. At that price break, I'll get a lot of clients who'll figure "If the costs for RedHat are so high, let's go with Windows--it's at least the dev

Re: Fedora

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 01:26:01PM -0400, Buck wrote: > There is no doubt that RH is in it for the money. Let's be clear here: Red Hat is not a non-profit charity. They're a publicly traded company and to operate at a loss would not be fair to their shareholders. Red Hat has business people

RE: Fedora

Red Hat did not provide automatic updates. However, you _could_ get those using other tools like yum, current, and apt-get. Fedora will still be free, still downloadable, _and_ the community will ensure that apt-get, yum, and current work well. Gained a little, lost nothing. 2. You co

RE: Fedora

0:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora > > 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 ...

RE: Fedora

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 19:19, Buck wrote: > LOL Ok you got me. I guess that because there is no .0 there will be no > official upgrade. Maybe this was in the works longer than RH is letting > on. No, this is a marketing decision to "keep up with the Jones's" or in this case Sun Microsystems. Ve

Re: Fedora

r sell ES? > > I think this would be a good product for RH, and I _know_ I could then > put at least $500/year into their pocket, if not more. How many > thousands of people like me are out there? Care to help me make a little > web page to count votes? Perhaps if RedHat just p

RE: Fedora

:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Estabrooks Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fedora On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:09:06 -0500 "Mike Vanecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Before I go on. I run RH9 at home. I used RH at the last plac

  1   2   >