updates

[Michael Young]

On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 09:16, William Hooper wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... I think this bothers me the same as "it's not supported." Tell
> > me there haven't been any updated packages for the beta release, can
> > you?
> 
> Have there been absolutely zero?  No.  Have there been many?  No.  Have
> they been timely?  No.  As someone else pointed out, betas are for
> testing.  Testing a moving target (releasing updates instead of waiting
> for the next ISO) is much harder.
> 

I do understand the term "beta." But, I thought this beta was in feature
freeze already, so it has a specific group of packages. Is my thinking
incorrect? The process of getting packages to RHN is bound to be
automated, so, why would it be so hard to populate the channel? 

> 
> Unfortunately the FAQ isn't accessible right now, but it was there:
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-list/2003-July/msg00004.html
> 
> "Unsupported" means you have no service level agreement, and no one on
> call to help you.  If you need these things, then yes go with RHEL-WS.

So, what has happened to the RHLP website? It was up all of 3-4 days
before it went away. I read something about problems with the server. It
must be a hell of a problem to take this long to restore. If one of my
servers was down this long, I would get fired. :)

> >> Why don't you just let one of your subscriptions run out and have one
> >> machine on the release and one on the newest beta?
> >
> > Because I don't always run betas, and I like having an entitlement for
> > each machine. Not to mention it sends a few $$ a year to Red Hat.
> 
> >From that statement, I don't understand you complaint earlier about
> "wasting money" because there are no updates in RHN for the beta.

Well, "waste" may have been a poor choice of words, but I try not to
make a habbit of giving away my money without getting something in
return. 

-- 
Michael Young <betatest at gnucode.kicks-ass.net>