Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

[John <spam debian merseine nu>]

On Saturday 30 August 2003 03:41, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
> While I agree with you, I think the point of the Enterprise Linux is to
> provide higher support, reliability, etc.  In order to do that they have to
> generate $$ from it, and the only way to really do that is through services
> and support.  So if you want the benefits of Enterprise, then you have to
> pay.  At least that's my reasoning behind it.  I'm sure you'll see places
> on the net downloading the src.rpm's and recompiling them..can't imagine
> someone isn't doing that already...


The original author said he didn't want ES, because it's disproportianatley 
expensive for the service he wants.

OTOH, the cheap service, the "consumer" service is too mickey-mouse.

His is a view with which I concur: the _only_ service I need is a steady 
stream of updates for a decent period. I will not countenance taking my 
machines down for an annual shake-up if I can find a sane alternative, and 
sane alternatives exist.

When updates to my system occur, I want it to happen only with my explicit 
concurrence for that event: if it fails, I want to be on-hand so as to fix 
it.

That means updates occur when I'm at the console to see what happens, to 
evaluate the results.

Red Hat can't do that for my machines, and if some critical component dies, 
asn RHN just did, then there's no way for RH to fix my system short of flying 
someone to my machine wherever in the world it is.

If I'm competant to do these things, and I am, then I will do it. If " can't 
do those things, and understand their importance, I will hire someone local, 
whose neck I can break if it's done badly.



-- 
My bits for Taroon: http://debian.merseine.nu/taroon/