Reason for the change

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 19:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > don't have to be worried about losing value in Red Hat Linux...
> > 
> > If Red Hat Linux is absolutely stable doesn't that cut into revenues for
> > RHEL?
> 
> There are different kinds of "stable". Enterprise customers react in
> different ways
> 
> 	"It's got seven window managers"   
> Community: Cool!		Enterprise: My god how will I support it
> 
> 	"It comes with xbill"
> 
> Community: Great		Enterprise: how inappropriate
> 
> 	"We are pushing gnome 2.4 updates"
> 
> Community: Whoopeee		Enteprise: Oh my god, what the hell!


And then where I'm from is something in between - academia would
probably say something like:

choice is good but we'll probably only install one for the
windowmanagers

They <shrug> to xbill.

and closer to 'is there a plan for a migration path from gnome 2.2 to
gnome 2.4 for users' for gnome 2.4 updates.


> > Also if people in the RHLP community wanted to extend errata lifespan on
> > their own for RHL - would red hat issue community-driven errata notices?
> 
> Good question. It may be it would be better to formally hand it over. I
> don't think its something with an instant answer.

There has been an ongoing discussion with b/t certain universities about
doing just this. I'll keep an eye open for others discussing this.



> > Would community members be given access to vendorsec notices if they
> > were to be maintaining some package?
> 
> vendor-sec membership is decided by vendor-sec not Red Hat. It has to trade
> the fact the more people know the more it leaks versus the desire to get
> stuff fixed. Currently membership is decided by a process of armwaving
> and consensus with existing members (which include SuSE, Debian, Openwall,
> FreeBSD etc)
> 
> vendor-sec has to make that decision, Red Hat cannot do so.

good to know.
thanks
-sv