FC2 release dates [hijacked thread]
Paul Gear
paul at gear.dyndns.org
Sat Nov 8 05:07:36 UTC 2003
David Kewley wrote:
> ...
> Many folks are going to have to change their local release policies and
> methodology.
It seems a lot of us are in this position, and none of the options are good.
> Our choices seem to be:
>
> * roll out new releases *far* more often than we're used to, based on FC
Can't do that - not enough hours in the day already.
> * fork over some significant cash e.g. for RHEL licenses (which many can't
> afford)
Definitely not affordable. Based on the pricing i've seen (here in
.au), Solaris, Mac OS X, and NetWare are all cheaper, but none of them
thrill me as a good alternative to RHL. For an academic institution, i
can get an *unlimited site license* for NetWare for less than the cost
of two RHEL ES licenses. It's possible that even Micro$oft licensing
would work out cheaper in some scenarios.
> * try to make our own distro based on the RHEL srpm's (which feels like
> cheating RH, but if it works, it could be a practical solution for us)
When they're releasing SRPMS, how can you say you're cheating them? The
process is working as designed.
> * rely on community security updates (so far, too little concreteness to make
> an organization's plans around this!)
A variant on this would be to roll your own security updates from the
upstream sources and the sources in FC1.
> * leave RH and Fedora
Unless the community effort to produce a modified RHEL distribution is
very successful, i see this as being the best of a bunch of bad
alternatives. I'll be looking at Mandrake and possibly SuSE over the
Dec-Jan period. If i switch, i'll be switching my home, work, and
another .edu where i volunteer over to the new distribution - i simply
can't afford the time committment to
> This is a *big* decision for a *lot* of folks.
Is there a way we could get together and try to make some co-ordinated
effort to help RH understand what they've done in alienating the
.edu/.org sector?
And of course, if that fails, making a co-ordinated effort to help each
other by providing a more stable FC or a free RHEL derivative would be a
reasonable alternative.
BTW, has there been any discussion on backporting RHEL features into FC?
Does RH have a policy on this? It seems to me that getting FC to a
state where security errata from RHEL could be applied to it would be a
reasonable compromise.
--
Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net
--
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my email reply *below* the quoted text?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031108/a49a49b0/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list