[Cumbria] Red Hat shoots itself in foot?

[Paul Broomfield]

To be honest I am also rethinking my OS strategy at the moment. Almost
all the production environment runs redhat and I am getting a bit sick
of the upgrade treadmill. I have also had yet another up2date -u turn
into a reboot request. I am now seriously looking again at BSD this time
FreeBSD. ( I did develop on OpenBSD and gave up because I had to emulate
everything ). I am beginning to see the benefit in actually paying for
an OS though I still think that $1000 is just way over the top. For me I
just need a nice clean base OS that has some form of package management
and where it is easy to update things when they go wrong. FreeBSD was
quite an easy install, and so far I have managed to get all the console
toys installed without any fuss at all ( color ls and all that ). I have
done an install without any X at all ( just the way I like it ) and the
whole thing takes up less than 600M. I am going to have a go at
battering it a little bit and see how we get on.

What I want to know is why oh why is Redhat and others focusing on the
Desktop side of things? I would pay for a version of Linux that had
automatic patches and nothing what so ever to do with X. I can dream. 

Paul Broomfield

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cumbria-admin@mailman.lug.org.uk 
>[mailto:cumbria-admin@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ken Hough
>Sent: 28 January 2003 18:05
>To: cumbria@mailman.lug.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Cumbria] Red Hat shoots itself in foot?
>
>
>
>
>Schwuk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Not quite sure how I feel about this one...
>> 
>> Apparently [1] Red Hat are introducing a one life span to their 
>> consumer OSes (i.e. anything free). After this one year, no 
>new errata 
>> or updates will be produced, although existing ones will remain 
>> available. This is, as pointed out in the articles linked below [2] 
>> [3], obviously done to push people (or rather companies) 
>towards their 
>> advanced products.
>
>They must be joking! 
>That's even worse than Microsoft!
>
>Ken
>
>
>> 
>> Oh, and to save Ken the trouble: Yes this does relate to 
>running Linux 
>> on big boxes (although it will also impact all usage of linux), and 
>> yes we all know that SuSE (and UnitedLinux in this case) are worthy 
>> alternatives...
>
>I wouldn't dream of rubbing salt into wounds!
>Seriously, it does seem daft when there are so many alternatives.
>
>Ken
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cumbria mailing list
>Cumbria@mailman.lug.org.uk 
>http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cumbria
>