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

[Guy Fraser]

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

> At 14:02 4/12/2004, you wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> The original poster (Guy Fraser) said he got "ripped off" because RH 
> discontinued 9. I said that he would have an OS available for the life 
> of his subscription, and that (despite having notified of the EOL 
> previously) RH had attempted to compensate him for said EOL by 
> providing access (for no additional cost) to an OS which *they* 
> perceive to be better than what he had before since it has an EOL 
> approximately in 2008.
>
> Whether you or I see it as an upgrade is *not* the point. Guy said he 
> got ripped off, I say he didn't... he got something of value 
> throughout the life of his subscription. 

What I said was, I felt ripped off because Knowing That RHL 9 was to be discontinued in April, RH automaicaly renewed my RHN subscription for 
RHL 9. To add further insult to injury, when I called to figure out what my alternative options were, I was told that RHL would continue to have 
security updates beyond the EOL until my RHN expired and that alternatively I could update to PWS at half price. After believing that to be false in March, I called again and was told that the PWS offer was no longer available, but that Security updates would continue until the end of my RHN. When I replied to this thread, I had been discovered that to be false and that EOL means no more updates at all.

If I remember correctly, and I may be mistaken, RHN for RHL does NOT include access to RHEL errata. RHN for RHEL, again if I remember correctly is more expensive than it was for RHL.

I understand that since you work for RH you are baised, but yes I got patial value for what I paid. Had I been notified that my subscription was expiring and given the option to renew, I would have then been able 
to make a judgement call. Since I was not given that option, and was informed that I would not get a refund if I decided not to use RHN I am justified in feeling ripped off. I was billed for a year of updates for a product that would not be available for the full year.

If someone gave you a chocolate bar and billed you with out asking, and you discovered that part of the chocolate bar was missing, would you not feel ripped off when you discovered you could not get a refund ?

Would you care if the part of the chocolate bar that was left was still good or would you still be left with a bad taste ?