Jack Bowling wrote: > ... >>The argument that RH are now going to be financially viable because they >>are not developing RHL any more really isn't convincing. There is >>something else happening here to which those of us outside are not privy >>that is controlling this decision. > > Such an argument would be specious which is probably why I haven't seen > it brought forth anywhere in these forums before. I wonder what messages > you have been reading that I haven't? Nearly everyone who has tried to justify it has done so by saying that RHL was not a profitable product, and assumed that the boxed set and OS were tied to each other. > The argument that is incontestible is that RH needed to concentrate > on the bottom line before it was too late. If you say so. I think it's funny that Red Hat often took the time previously to say that they were profitable (certainly every time i went to a presentation i heard this), and now they're saying that they weren't then but they will be now... > And I think you will see that RH wants to play nice with the > "freeloaders" as well as the enterprise people. True, and i'm glad they are. :-) The issue for me (and many other people) as that i'm not either. > Give Fedora some time. I'm not talking about Fedora's quality, i'm talking about its target market and stated objectives (http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html). I'm sure Fedora will do just fine - i just don't think it's appropriate for the markets to which i'm referring (which coincidentally happen to be the ones in which i currently use Red Hat Linux). It doesn't matter how much time i give it - my problems with it will be related to its objectives. Criticising Fedora for not having a 12-18 month release cycle and not offering the right support options would be like criticising a bicycle for not being a 4-door sedan. -- Paul http://paulgear.webhop.net A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
Description: PGP signature