[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora and the System Administrator



> > That's our point. When you deploy on hundreds of servers, like many of
> > the consortium members do, there's no chance in heck that we're going
> > to pay a minimum of $179 (on up to $2500 IIRC) *PER* server. I'd much
> > prefer to pool resources and distribute the cost.
> 
> RH offers discounts to big quantities of licenses:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00424.html

That speaks to both sides of the argument. Quite honestly, that deal looks
really tempting *IF* I actually needed RHWS. What I do need is a stable
production OS (which I'm sure RHWS could be tweaked to do if I had the
time [1]). I understand, RedHat needs to pay the bills. I personally think
they're going about it the wrong way. I'd be happy to pay $1000 for a copy
of RHEL that I can deploy to *ONLY* our own customers (with no restriction
on the number of customers) without the expectation of *ANY* support from
RedHat. I'd even be happy to pay a nominal fee (perhaps $25 or so per
month) so I can rsync my own updates archive to deploy to said customers.

-Chuck


[1] This begs the question, if you don't have the time to tweak RHWS, then 
how do you have the time to participate in rh-consortium? My response: One 
has a future, the other doesn't. I'm just placing my effort where I belive 
it will do the most good.

-- 
Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology
   * Education			| -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=-
   * Integration		| http://www.quantumlinux.com
   * Support			| chuckw quantumlinux com




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]