[Sussex] Access to RHEL updates without subscription

[Paul Tansom]

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 08:32 +0100, Jon Fautley wrote:
> On Monday 30 May 2005 01:14, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > Since this LUG list seems to be more Red Hat friendly that others I'm on
> > it seems to be the most productive to ask this question on :)
> 
> :)
> 
> I'm sure you guessed that I was going to pipe up :)

I sort of figure you might do, but you may have decided to keep your
head down ;)

> > Is it possible to access RHEL WS 3 updates without a subscription. Don't
> > get me wrong here, I'm not looking to circumvent licensing and access to
> > the update resources that require payment, but I am beginning to see a
> > major draw back with their model compared to Windows (I can almost hear
> > the gasps at this point!). I need to access updates that were available
> > when the subscription was valid, but weren't downloaded or installed.
> 
> Whatever the reason, it is not possible to access any form of binary update 
> packages without a subscription to the Red Hat Network w/Update entitlements.

That's what I pretty much came down to. I did try ringing the RH support
line, cursed them for closing 20 minutes early and then realised that
the clock on the system I was using was an hour slow! At this point it
really sunk in that I have a major downer on Red Hat. I do try to be
open minded, but ever since I started working on RHEL WS 3 it has
irritated me. Initially I decided it must be familiarity with RH, since
I'm fine with version 5 through 7 (from previous experience), but not
worked much with anything newer. Now I think my major issue is likely to
be repeated in many commercial distributions - the packages are more
restricted and access to updates is limited to subscribers only. A
necessity for a commercial setup (with this particular business model),
but a shock after something like Debian!

> > This appears to indicate that without a subscription to the RH network a
> > copy of RH is worthless since you can't keep it secure, or more
> > specifically in this case, change hardware.
> >> [stuff about TCO snipped]
> 
> You are able to change hardware, as all the modules for supported hardware 
> will be installed on the system. The problem comes when you need to compile 
> 3rd party drivers, which is not supported by Red Hat, and doing so could 
> potentially invalidate your support agreement with Red Hat, Inc. (although 
> it's not really an issue in this case ;) )

Well the support agreement has never been worth anything as these
installations have never been on supported hardware. This is one of my
beefs with the RH support. They seem to have a list of supported
pre-built systems and an unwillingness to even talk about anything else.
As a system builder Red Hat has nothing to offer unless I find some way
to certify the hardware specs (way too expensive I suspect), and even
with the tier 2 system builders like Dell, or tier 1 like HP, they
change their hardware specs such that some of the listed supported
systems are no longer available. My personal view (which is always open
to re-evaluation!) is that with this support policy Red Hat shouldn't be
selling boxed versions of their products and only make their
distribution available through the supported hardware manufacturers.
This way they won't be seen as trying to sell support to people that
they will not be able to use because their hardware is not listed.

> > Anyway, putting down RH wasn't the aim here (it just sort of happens
> > unfortunately). What I need to do is keep this machine running, and
> > without the updates, just access to the software that was available when
> > the subscription was still valid.
> 
> Red Hat have a very different model to the likes of Microsoft and other F/OSS 
> Operating Systems. If you're after a system without support, then you should 
> look at using Fedora. When you purchase a RHEL subscription, you're NOT 
> purchasing the software, or a license to use the software, you're purchasing 
> a support agreement. It sounds from your post that you've got a 30-day 
> complimentary subscription, which has now expired. Once the subscription has 
> expired, then you're no longer entitled to recieve updates, and should remove 
> the software from your system(s).

Well my recommended desktop platform has not been specified yet (I
really should sort it out), but these particular packages were bought on
the basis that it was Linux with support from a big name vendor. What I
don't think was fully understood as that the support didn't apply to the
hardware it was purchased to run on. Most people are used to Microsoft
where you get support for anything simply because you can either talk to
the hardware vendor or a support bod (if you're lucky a Microsoft one,
or otherwise one with access to their support themselves - the reality
may be somewhat different, but there you go!).

I'm quite well aware of the difference between the Red Hat model with
subscription to updates and the Microsoft model of purchasing the
software. The thing I find interesting is that this model, which is
widely held up as the way to go for open source software, is exactly the
model that Microsoft would like to move to - well almost.

Your last sentence worries me slightly as this brings the Red Hat model
as good as in line with the Microsoft ideal. Microsoft would like you to
rent the use of the software from them, so that they have a continuous
revenue from you using their software (I think this is still true, and I
don't think that it includes much support!). Your last sentence seems to
imply that you should remove the software when you are no longer
entitled to updates - I hope this is said with the fact that you can no
longer keep your system secure in mind :) Ignoring the GPL nature of the
software, I'm not aware that the RH license only allows (or can allow)
use of its distribution only while you have a valid RHN subscription.

Of course the difficult area of this is that, having purchased the
software (in the loosest possible terms, as in the convenience of having
it pre-compiled on an easy to install CD!), if you don't have a valid
subscription then you are not entitled to fixes to bugs that pre-existed
in the software. Perhaps Red Hat should provide some means of letting
you have access to the updates as at the time your subscription expired
- through a download of the changed packages for burning to CD, or
sending out a CD at the contract end if it is not renewed.

A mine field this one, and in some ways I'm surprised that Microsoft
haven't picked up on it - you really are on your own with Linux unless
you have an on going contract with a commercial vendor (I don't think
there are any that sell the install CD with access to bug fixes, unless
you include packaged copies of Debian, Gentoo and the like, which are
not commercial ventures and don't provide direct commercial support).

Still, the same can be said of Windows (bar Windows update), no end user
is likely to get much help from Microsoft themselves - and I still
prefer Linux, and for the fact that I'm on my own, and more importantly
it is easier to manage on your own (given a certain amount of technical
interest) :)

-- 
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/