FC1 on the enterprise?

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:32, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 10:05 1/20/2004, you wrote:
> >Have you read 3. entirely? I don't think they can do that.
> So sue them. If you win, you're right. If not, you're not.

You must think others haven't got more important things to do, right?

> >not sure whether we're, at all, going to keep using RedHat.
> Yay!

Fantastic, I can never get tired of reading people getting happy for
diminishing their community.

> >Tasks like WhiteBox EL will help us ease the task of building our own
> >RHEL a-like distribution.
> >
> >We will likely have to create a small infrastructure for updates &
> >package management.
> 
> And of course, that infrastructure and that rebuild is /cheaper/ than 
> paying for a couple of licenses, right?

If by couple you mean 144000 EUR yearly, then get the hell out of here
and go back to basic math.

Also, you're wrong. It's not licenses. It's BAD 'support contracts'.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040121/0cca3762/attachment-0001.sig>