David Kewley wrote: > ... > Many folks are going to have to change their local release policies and > methodology. It seems a lot of us are in this position, and none of the options are good. > Our choices seem to be: > > * roll out new releases *far* more often than we're used to, based on FC Can't do that - not enough hours in the day already. > * fork over some significant cash e.g. for RHEL licenses (which many can't > afford) Definitely not affordable. Based on the pricing i've seen (here in .au), Solaris, Mac OS X, and NetWare are all cheaper, but none of them thrill me as a good alternative to RHL. For an academic institution, i can get an *unlimited site license* for NetWare for less than the cost of two RHEL ES licenses. It's possible that even Micro$oft licensing would work out cheaper in some scenarios. > * try to make our own distro based on the RHEL srpm's (which feels like > cheating RH, but if it works, it could be a practical solution for us) When they're releasing SRPMS, how can you say you're cheating them? The process is working as designed. > * rely on community security updates (so far, too little concreteness to make > an organization's plans around this!) A variant on this would be to roll your own security updates from the upstream sources and the sources in FC1. > * leave RH and Fedora Unless the community effort to produce a modified RHEL distribution is very successful, i see this as being the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. I'll be looking at Mandrake and possibly SuSE over the Dec-Jan period. If i switch, i'll be switching my home, work, and another .edu where i volunteer over to the new distribution - i simply can't afford the time committment to > This is a *big* decision for a *lot* of folks. Is there a way we could get together and try to make some co-ordinated effort to help RH understand what they've done in alienating the .edu/.org sector? And of course, if that fails, making a co-ordinated effort to help each other by providing a more stable FC or a free RHEL derivative would be a reasonable alternative. BTW, has there been any discussion on backporting RHEL features into FC? Does RH have a policy on this? It seems to me that getting FC to a state where security errata from RHEL could be applied to it would be a reasonable compromise. -- Paul http://paulgear.webhop.net -- A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my email reply *below* the quoted text?
Description: PGP signature