[Cumbria] Red Hat shoots itself in foot?

[Chris Plant]

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 18:56, Paul Broomfield wrote:
> 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.
Whats up with debian, it can do all of what you're asking for there ?
> 
> 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. 
> 

Because people like "us" (I use that term very loosely) faff around
saying linux should be a desktop OS.

> 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cumbria mailing list
> Cumbria@mailman.lug.org.uk
> http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cumbria
-- 
Chris Plant <chris@monkeyircd.org>
Personal