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

["Nick Nobbe" <nick fita org>]

Yes, and Free BSD, with all its bells and whistles, is touted as very
secure.

Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert L Sowders" <rsowders usgs gov>
To: <rhn-users redhat com>
Cc: <rhn-users redhat com>; <rhn-users-admin redhat com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [rhn-users] New version on redhat - Fedora + RHN?


> Try FreeBSD.
>
> With the FBSD license they can never go commercial and it's a much easier
> OS to use as far as servers go.  You don't need the GUI with FBSD.
>
> my .02
>
> rls
>
>
>
>
>
> "Edgar" <eosorio sunset com mx>
> Sent by: rhn-users-admin redhat com
> 10/30/2003 05:17 PM
> Please respond to rhn-users
>
>
>         To:     <rhn-users redhat com>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [rhn-users] New version on redhat - Fedora +
RHN?
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhn-users mailing list
> rhn-users redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhn-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhn-users mailing list
> rhn-users redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhn-users