Re: Questioning RH's decisions to remain PLUS A BIT...

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva redhat com>]

On Nov  5, 2003, Mark Hutchinson <rhce cybersurf com> wrote:

> I think that when he says "Red Hat cuts RH 9 support short"
> He probably means short compared to what long term users have come to expect
> from RedHat.

Maybe the expectations needed a reality check, provided by the kind
reminder than RHN sent the other day?  The following pages are all
about 9 months old!

http://web.archive.org/web/20030206082133/www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/index.html

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:QYh_77Z6j9YJ:www.owlriver.com/support/rh-eol.pdf+Red+Hat+Linux+8.0+EOL&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/27/239231&mode=thread&tid=110

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29053.html

> I was still updating 7.1 servers up till not long ago.  It is what,
> 2 years or more since 7 came out?  9 is not longer supported as of
> April 2004?  I think that is shorter.

Yeah, but that's old news.  Why all the fuss now?

> but the 80$ box sets need to stay and have the guarantee of a year
> or 2 of updates.

Looks like you just found a nice niche for a Fedora support start-up
:-)  Red Hat doesn't plan on doing it, but if there is such a need
that you claim, others will.  It's a free market, after all.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva {redhat com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva {lsd ic unicamp br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer