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

[Guy Fraser]

William Hooper wrote:

>Guy Fraser said:
>
>  
>
>>If I remember correctly, and I may be mistaken, RHN for RHL does NOT
>>include access to RHEL errata.
>>    
>>
>
>You are mistaken:
>https://rhn.redhat.com/help/rhlmigrationfaq/
>"2) What happens to my paid RHN subscription if it expires after April 30,
>2004, (the end-of-life date for Red Hat Linux 9)?
>
>Customers whose paid RHN subscription expires after April 30 received a
>complimentary evaluation ISO and channel access for Red Hat Enterprise
>Linux ES and WS for the remainder of their subscription."
>
Big woop, stuff I don't need.

>
>  
>
>>RHN for RHEL, again if I remember correctly
>>is more expensive than it was for RHL.
>>    
>>
>
>For some values of RHEL this is correct.
>
>  
>
>>I understand that since you work for RH you are baised, but yes I got
>>patial value for what I paid.
>>    
>>
>
>Love this one, "if you don't agree you must be getting paid by Red Hat so
>you are biased"...
>  
>
I was not replying to you.

>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>You agreed to be automatically build for the service unless you canceled. 
>You had every opportunity to cancel and Red Hat provided the date for RHL
>9's EOL before it was released.
>
I did not know I was going to billed automaticaly, I don't think I was 
billed automaticaly the year before.

>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>You got exactly what you signed up for.  Now if you didn't read what you
>signed up for that is not Red Hat's problem.
>  
>
I'm so... sorry, next time I buy somthing from RH, I will be sure to 
have my lawyer read all the documents on Redhats website to make sure 
there are no hidden addendums.

>  
>
>>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 ?
>>    
>>
>
>You agreed to pay for the chocolate bar, you received the exact amount of
>chocolate you were promised and, just because the company wasn't going to
>make plain chocolate anymore, got a partial chocolate bar with nuts.
>
If you are the nuts.

>
>  
>
>>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 ?
>>    
>>
>
>It seems to me your bad taste came from you not researching what you were
>buying:
>
>a) RH changed the EOL structure and announced it _before RHL 9 was released_
>
I wasn't aware of that, I was not NOTIFIED until after the subscription 
was renewed.

>b) You agreed to automatically renew the RHN service when it expired.
>
Not to my knowledge.

>c) Red Hat is providing you with the new RHEL product to fulfill your RHN
>service at no extra charge.
>
Great, I get access to updates on a product I don't have.

>
>I'm not sure what else you want them to do.
>
Tell you not to speak for them.

>
>--
>William Hooper
>  
>