RH rips again Was: extend EOL for Red Hat Linux 9?

[William Hooper]

Mark A. Hoover said:
>  >> While not the original poster, I would argue that depending on your
>  >> use of RedHat 9 (or earlier) that RHWS is not an upgrade as the last
>  >> time I looked at the RHWS package list it did not include Apache,
>  >> Bind, or many of the other common server daemons.
>  >
>  > Includes apache, sendmail, samba, nfs.  Does not include
>
> I didn't see apache when I looked, but it may have very well been there.

It's there.

>  > amanda-server, arptables_jf, bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp,
>  > freeradius, inews, inn, krb5-server, netdump-server, openldap-servers,
>  > pxe, quagga, radvd, rarpd, redhat-config-bind, redhat-config-netboot,
>  > tftp-server, tux, vsftpd, ypserv.
>
>  > Some things are just plain gone (mailman, some *-devel packages, and
>  > some others), and some have been moved to the Extras channel (SQL
>  > servers, e.g.).
>
>  > Most of the not-included ones are not really necessary for a
>  > workstation (although I'd miss bind and caching-nameserver on my
>  > laptop).
>
> I personally would miss bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp, vsftpd,

The Whitebox versions work well.  Can't see what you would need some of
these on every workstation for.

> and mysql.

In the extras channel.

>
>  > If you want server capability and you don't want to pay RHES prices or
>  > get RHES service (and you're not an academic), then you want Fedora
>  > Core or Whitebox or one of the other RHEL clones.
>
> The point was that for those who paid for RH9 service that moving to
> RHWS isn't truly an upgrade if you're using any of the missing features.

IIRC, Red Hat also offers RHEL ES to the people with longer subscriptions,
but I might just be remembering the half-price deal.

-- 
William Hooper