Fedora and the System Administrator -- there are a lot of variables here ...

[David Holden]

On Thursday 02 Oct 2003 10:05 pm, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:17, David Holden wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 Oct 2003 4:48 pm, William Hooper wrote:
> > > David Holden said:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > When fedora is release will I beable to say to my boss, yes we can
> > > > install fedora version "x" and be able to rely on redhat providing
> > > > security updates
> > > > for the next 2-3 years for that version,
> > >
> > > Repeat after me, Fedora is not Red Hat.  If the Fedora Legacy project
> > > can get you 2-3 years then it will be the Fedora Legacy project doing
> > > it, not Red Hat.
> >
> > I've no need to repeat this, I'm well aware of the difference thanks. The
> > above was making precisely the point that redhat won't be providing
> > security updates to Fedora.


ok, let me rei-write that sentence 

"The above was making precisely the point that redhat won't be providing
 security updates to Fedora *version "x"*  covering the following 2-3 years of 
its release"

 is this correct?

Most of what you say below re-enforces the above sentence no?


Personally the most important thing for me is security updates thats what I 
subscribe to rhn for.

 Dave.



>
> Then your point is invalid. RH *will* be doing so. However, the time
> period is shorter, and there is no SLA on it. See below.
>
> It seems this is related to the confusion between *support* and
> *maintenance*.
>
> This is in part required. RH will *not* be maintaining all the packages
> that go into Fedora Core. The software/package maintainers will be. For
> a goodly portion of them, those will not be packaged by RH for FC.
>
> """
> Security updates, bugfix updates, and new feature updates will all be
> available, through Red Hat and third parties. Updates may be staged
> (first made available for public qualification, then later for general
> consumption) when appropriate. In drastic cases, we may remove a package
> from The Fedora Project if we judge that a necessary security update is
> too problematic/disruptive to the larger goals of the project.
> Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for
> anything other than continued development and innovation of the code
> base.
>
> Red Hat will not be providing an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for
> resolution times for updates for The Fedora Project. Security updates
> will take priority. For packages maintained by external parties, Red Hat
> may respond to security holes by deprecating packages if the external
> maintainers do not provide updates in a reasonable time. Users who want
> support, or maintenance according to an SLA, may purchase the
> appropriate Red Hat Enterprise Linux product for their use.
> """ --http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/
>
> So your claim is incorrect.

-- 
Dr. David Holden. (Systems Developer)
Crystallography Journals Online: <http://journals.iucr.org>

Thanks in advance:-
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See: <http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>

UK Privacy (R.I.P)  : http://www.stand.org.uk/commentary.php3
Public GPG key available on request.
-------------------------------------------------------------