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
-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,
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 transferred
> > > to the fedora-* lists. Ef
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:11:41 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> Now I see that I misread your post. The first three messages posted to this
> thread were concerned about redhat-list. Your comment about rhl-list, being
> correct, but somewhat out of context,
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-* lists. I subscribe to both r
-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. rhl-list is
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 anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet?
-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 SIGNATURE-
Versio
-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 subscribers of the rhl-* lists have been transfer
-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. Effectively, the rhl-* lists have
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]
https://www.redhat.com/mail
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 anyone else subscribing to the fedora list yet?
> >
> > Y
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 of the rhl-* lists have been transferre
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-* lists. Effectively, the rh
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
> are looking for and more than what
-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
to
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
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:30:11AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
> I know most of what we've been discussing here as been tons of
> speculation, but I have a couple more questions that I'd like opinions
> (or facts if you got 'em) on. First, if I install Severn on my box,
> will I be able update to the
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
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
> 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.
>
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
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
> 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 for. I'm
waiting patien
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
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 as server OS than
both of these.
Ch
> 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
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 haven't used it for that (my o
> > 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
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 still be free,
>
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 about Mandrake?
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.
Up2date will be
-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.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: yum/apt-get (was Re: Fedora)
> 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 Demo
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:05, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:33:25AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:24:27 -0500
> > Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've heard rumors that some announcements might be forthcoming this
> > > week. Let's be patie
> 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 Demo was free for 2 months for each installation with a unique
> email address. At th
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
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.
Everything beyond what's at the link above is pure speculation. There
is even confusion as to whether or not up
> 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
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 are downloadable from it's Ente
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 Demo wa
48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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
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
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. Despite all the speculation
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
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-
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:08:58 +1000
Ian Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> Wind
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
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
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,
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:17:30 -0600
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. I would like updates and patches to be issued for longer
> than 12 months, maybe 18 or 24 so I don't have to reinstall
> as often.
Sure, this is a real gap in the product range.
>
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:49:27 -0400
"Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
>
Nobo
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, maybe 18 or
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
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
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
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
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
--
redhat-list mailing lis
,
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
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
Total Qual
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
Buck staggered into view and mumbled:
> 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 package and updates for $349.
>
> Sticker shock to those of us used to free.
Actually, the way I
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 year!
>
> The cost of these two products is actually $799 and $299 respectively.
> Look again my friend.
>
Actually you're wron
To all:
1rst question is: Who do your customers think write the packages they
are using in RH? Comment 1: It isn't Red Hat (well a few are..but only
a few).
2nd question is: How do you explain the price benefits? Comment 2: You
shouldn't be telling anyone that Red Hat is actually fixing all of
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
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
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
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:46:46AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> Not at all. Do you think you DESERVE support for free, do you have any
> place to get the support they offer CHEAPER? Can you provide what they
> provide for a better price ?
I don't need support. I need a packaged, recognizab
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
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 package and updates for $349.
Sticker shock to those of us used to free.
No, you're mixing things here (and I don
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
...
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
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:08:24 -0600
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rodolfo,
I share your sentiment about RedHat.
> How's this for a thought? Make SS available for $99/year. Include
> everything a small business server needs (which I think makes it
> equivalent to ES), offer automat
:[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
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:08:24AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 09:15 9/23/2003, you wrote:
> >Ed mentioned that perhaps such an offering is on the horizon. I'm
> >struggling to imagine how they will differentiate it from Fedora and
> >Enterprise.
>
> How's this for a thought? Make SS avail
At 09:15 9/23/2003, you wrote:
Well, you get a better product for that money but you're right it's not
exactly cheap. I think it's _fair_ but i agree it might be out of range
for some situations.
I don't claim it's highway robbery. I believe it is similar to the real
cost of using Windows, and t
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:33:25AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:24:27 -0500
> Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've heard rumors that some announcements might be forthcoming this
> > week. Let's be patient for a bit...
> >
>
> Hey Ed,
>
> Care to share your
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:25, Buck wrote:
> My thoughts too.
>
> I can just picture the following happening all over the country:
>
> I am a small business manager. I have 5 or more employees using XP at
> home. I want a file server for my network. Since I have a number of
> users that are fami
-Forwarded Message-
From: Michael K. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fedora Project: Announcing New Direction
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:48:18 -0400
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:35:11PM -0400, MJang wrote:
> If I'm hearing
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:25:21 -0400
"Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My thoughts too.
>
> I can just picture the following happening all over the country:
>
> I am a small business manager. I have 5 or more employees using XP at
> home. I want a file server for my network. Since I have a nu
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:19:34AM -0400, Wade Chandler wrote:
> I personally would like to start a project for a centralized desktop
> menu and shortcut install (work like windows menu for any desktop). A
> standardized linux menu and icon repository so that all software can add
> a new menu to a
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
> strikes me that to take market share away from Windows, they should be
> cheaper. Given a two-year cycle of upgrades (not that common), it'
]
On Behalf Of Dave Ihnat
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fedora
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:25:00AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> Both of these options are reasonably priced and give you more value,
> stability, and support for the money than yo
logical from that point of view?
Buck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Johnathan Bailes
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fedora
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:09, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> [snip]
>
At 08:25 9/23/2003, you wrote:
Both of these options are reasonably priced and give you more value,
stability, and support for the money than you're likely to find elsewhere:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/es/ server for $349
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/ws/ workstation for $179
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 priced and give you more value,
> > stability, and support for the money than you're likely to find
> > elsewhere:
>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:25:00AM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> Both of these options are reasonably priced and give you more value,
> stability, and support for the money than you're likely to find elsewhere:
>
> http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/es/ server for $349
> http://www.redhat
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:22, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 07:57 9/23/2003, you wrote:
> >The market has already set the intro price for most OS products and RH
> >Enterprise Workstation exceeds that market price by about $100 US as I
> >noted in my original mail. $179 dollars US is a high price to
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:24:27 -0500
Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've heard rumors that some announcements might 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 sai
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 07:07, Johnathan Bailes wrote:
> I don't know I tend to agree with the original sentiment. In comparison
> to both linux distros and the competition from closed sources the RHE
> price tag seems a bit high and at the same time fedora might seem a bit
> too bleeding edge. Yo
> > 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
...
> > The net result of this resent change may very well lead to
> > more improv
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 place I
> > worked. I do not like the behavior and configuration methods in
> > Suse. SuSeConfig is an evil mess that can wax custom options on the
> > next
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.
I've heard rumors t
At 07:57 9/23/2003, you wrote:
The market has already set the intro price for most OS products and RH
Enterprise Workstation exceeds that market price by about $100 US as I
noted in my original mail. $179 dollars US is a high price to pay for
the bottom line workstation install of a OS in comparis
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:09, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> [snip]
>
> 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.
Thank you Mike. Tha
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:57:01 -0400, Johnathan Bailes wrote
> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 09:18, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> > Hi Johnathan,
> >
> > It looks like not enough people voted with dollars and cents to ensure
> > that RedHat could provide the services you're looking for. I see no
> > reason to
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 09:18, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> Hi Johnathan,
>
> It looks like not enough people voted with dollars and cents to ensure
> that RedHat could provide the services you're looking for. I see no
> reason to believe that Fedora will be less stable than RHL 10. If you
> need su
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:07:33 -0400
Johnathan Bailes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know I tend to agree with the original sentiment. In comparison
> to both linux distros and the competition from closed sources the RHE
> price tag seems a bit high and at the same time fedora might seem a bi
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 06:28, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:25:15 -0600
> "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, Benjamin has a point: another change (d) is that the free version
> > will not be "branded" Red Hat, as I also mentioned earlier. This _could_
> > beli
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ed Wilts
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fedora
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:19:41PM -0400, Buck wrote:
> I guess that because there is no .0 there will be no
> official upgrade.
How you came to that co
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
