Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

["Bill Rugolsky Jr." <brugolsky telemetry-investments com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:08:49PM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
> IMO, there is a rather large market segment that Red Hat is not
> addressing.

I agree.  Like many others, I have no desire to free-ride off of
Red Hat.  I used to buy boxed sets, even though I already had
downloaded the distro, and had no need of manuals.  These days
I just purchase RHN subscriptions for RHL, which I generally use only
when I want a package update that has not hit the mirrors yet.

OTOH, I can't justify the expense of RHAS for a dual-Opteron box
that sells for < $3K.  I'd happily pay for ES Basic, but the 4GB
RAM restriction has to go -- AMD64 doesn't keep Ingo up at night.
[The WS page does not list a 4GB restriction ...].

This discussion is perhaps premature, until we see where RHLP
is going.  If Red Hat doesn't fill the gap, others (community
or commercial) will.  After all, for years Yellow Dog Linux
has provided RHL, more or less, on PPC.

To my mind, a Red Hat-branded product that isn't crippled and is
tested for binary-compatible with the most recent release of RHEL
is far preferable, but that is a decision for Red Hat management.

Regards,

	Bill Rugolsky