Re: [rhn-users] New version on redhat - Fedora + RHN?

["Edgar" <eosorio sunset com mx>]

I'm totally disappointed of the new trends that RH is taking. As lot of
people here has said, paying 1K+ for every server in your orgaization per
year is becoming really dificult to present in budget mettings as the first
question that raise is. Why paying same price licence every year?. I was
paying to redhat about 6K, but now as they are removing RH9 I have 200 units
, how in the hell I'm going to say that we'll pay every year 170 (170 x 200
= 34K) bucks just for updates....I don't want to sound sarcastic but for a
moment i remembered my old times dealing with OEM licences from
Microsoft....as someone said here, with that amount of money i can hire
someone to make the updates manually, not as elegant and reliable as RHN but
it would work...

As almost everyone is saying here I'd love to stay as a customer from RH but
they are leaving us...sad their products are great, but I think i'm going to
see other choises in the near future...maybe SUSE.....



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Snider" <ksnider flarn com>
To: <rhn-users redhat com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [rhn-users] New version on redhat - Fedora + RHN?


> Michael Gargiullo wrote:
>
> > Neither do we.  I mean I understand they need to make money.  We
> > purchased several dozen enterprise entitlements, and didn't renew them
> > when we got the news that the regular product line is being
> > discontinued.
>
> We aren't renewing either.. and this is the reason:
>
> *every* RH product now comes with RHN. From RHEL AS, all the way down to
> their boxes workstation product.
>
> And now, with them not supporting Fedora, there's no product that doesn't
> come with an RHN subscription any longer.
>
> In short, the "Update" RHN entitlement is now totally worthless. I'm sure
> they'll "upsell" you the Management or Monitoring package, but I haven't
> even seen that as an option.. Looks like if you want to go from "Update"
to
> "Management", you pay the full price. A poor choice on the part of Red
Hat.
>
> Their "Monitoring" product confuses the hell out of me. I was *totally*
> gung-ho to sell it to our execs, but you need *hardware* to monitor the
> systems? We have 20 co-located facilities! I'm not paying for 20 dedicated
> "monitoring" appliances, that's nuts!
>
> Between me and Michael, I'll bet RH is losing somewhere from $8-10K a year
> in RHN entitlements. They don't *want* this money?!
>
> So, here's the deal. I need RHN. I need reliable updates. But their prices
> are insane, and I'm not prepared to to buy 75 copies of RHEL *per year*.
Not
> even WS. Even WS nearly *triples* the cost (compared to ~$60/yr for RHN
> "Update" service).
>
> And that doesn't even cover the other huge problem we have. Opterons. We
> need them, we want them. Red Hat wants $1992 *per year* for the software.
> Devel costs, right? *wrong*. A cmp was done on several RH9 rpms recompiled
> on Taroon (RHEL3 beta for AMD64), against the available RHEL3 recompiled
> RPMS. Guess what the results were? over *250* of those rpms were
> *identical*. That means over 250 packages *did not change* from RH9. At
all.
>   combine this with the fact that "most" applications are 64-bit aware
> already anyway (for Solaris), and there's *no way* $2k/year is justified.
> That's half the cost of the SERVER, per YEAR! Here's hoping Fedora makes a
> version.
>
> My plan? I'll be buying *one* copy of RHEL. I can't use the updates from
RHN
> to redeploy on my other boxes, but I *can* recompile the SRPMS myself,
which
> I intend to do.
>
> So, I'll be rebuilding the entirety of RHEL3 on my "entitled" box, and use
> those SRPMS to build a "new" set of install ISO's, which I will use to
> install RHEL3 on all of our servers. Red hat gets $179 from us, per year.
> That's it. And the sad part is, we were prepared to pay them $6K/year
already.
>
> For reference, there are several projects underway to provide this very
> service (rebuilt, license-free versions of RHEL from the source RPMS):
>
> http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild-l.html
> http://caosity.org/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=53&op=page
>
> And a note to Red Hat: It's not that I don't want to be a customer - it's
> that you are not providing me an option I can reasonably present to our
> CTO/CFO. Please, reconsider your product offerings. Either support Fedora
in
> RHN, or gives us a RHEL build that costs less than *triple* the cost of
RHN
> per year, at minimum. And please, offer a "WS Basic" version of RHEL for
AMD64!
>
> -- 
> Ken Snider
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhn-users mailing list
> rhn-users redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhn-users