RHEL 3.0 or Fedora for a 'production environment' ?

[Marcus White]

How should an organization provide support for a program that can be
downloaded for free (not including connection charges) and remain in
business? How many people/organizations actually took up RedHat's offer
for support for a mere $5.00 USD per month (charged annually) or even
bought RHL from a store? How many us opted for the "demo" support?
Guilty, I am... Personally I don't know how RedHat managed to make it
financially... So now they are going after the deeper corporate pockets
that can afford the RHEL versions with a version that has longer support
cycle and which is certified by the various ISV's and gov't agencies.
I'll step down off my soapbox now... But there is the "RHL Professional
Workstation" version.

Marcus O.


 On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 17:26, Res wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> > Support is one thing.  You could always count on your internal guys for
> > support.  But what about software backports?  Were your internal guys
> > rolling their own updates and pushing them out to your production servers?
> > Think about it....
> 
> And this is why I know of a few data centers already considering the move
> to slackware for all new boxes and gradual replacements over time, I
> think RH have lost a lot of friends with this move, the days of RH
> populating data centers are gone, with a support of only a few months
> fedora will never see its way in there, can you imagine a center with
> hundreds and hundreds of boxes runing around replaceing it every 3
> months?
> I cant, some of our servers are still running 7.3, cause we knew RH will
> put out errata if its seriou enough, general updates who cares, get the
> tarball, looks like thats how we'll be updateing untill we decide which
> way to go, update by tarballs in future, or move onto slackware or suse.
> Time will tell...
-- 
Marcus White <1midniterider at comcast.net>