[WBEL-users] RH Desktop

[Bernie Hoefer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kirby Bohling wrote:
- ---
> out of RedHat 9 to a supported platform.  Fedora's nice, but it's
> intentionally designed to be so bleeding edge that you're insane to
> use it as a platform for production use.  I also am unwilling to
- ---
     Although I know what you're getting at, I wouldn't word it quite
the way you did.  "...intentionally designed..." makes it sound like the
Fedora leadership planned a way to thwart people from using it in
production use.  However, if one reads the Fedora Project's objectives,
<http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html>, (especially objective
#5, and non-objectives #1 and #2), one will see Fedora Core just isn't
meant for production use.  In other words, it is not that they are
thwarting people, it just not the right tool for the job.  No one is to
blame for that.

- ---
> rebuild my home machines every 6-12 months once security upgrades
> stop coming out.  I've got better things to do with my time.
- ---
     Yes, that is the same situation I'm in.  That, and I do want to run
at home something as close to possible as what I would find in corporate
use.  That way I can always setup machines at home and 'play' around,
keeping my technical skills up to date.  (White Box Enterprise Linux
fits this bill perfectly!)

- ---
> no sanely priced option for personal use.  Sorry, but I'm not going
> to pay RedHat $100-$150/year/machine for a crappy non-server edition
> of Linux.  I'm surely not going $250-750/year/machine to use on my
- ---
     Aw, now let's be nice.  :-)  I wouldn't call RHEL 3.0 WS "crappy"
just because it is intended to be a workstation instead of a server.
     Still, I know what you mean.  For home or small business use (under
50 employees), there is not a strong enough reason to shell out the
money for RHEL products.  Especially when the license agreement provides
for Red Hat to come on site and inspect your business to make sure you
are in compliance with the agreement.  If I want a Business Software
Alliance-type raid, I'll buy Microsoft!  :-)

- ---
> support, no way to contribute to the company.  I'd buy a copy of
> their new versions if their were binary updates publically available
> (even if only from mirrors, so they didn't have to pay for the
> bandwidth, or via RHN subscription fee), and if there were a
> non-support version for something on the order of $100-$300.  I know
- ---
     As would I.  I don't need the phone or web support, just the
security updates.  I know of a couple of individuals and one small
business that switched to SuSE because of this.  Personally, I think Red
Hat will come around to offering a security-update only service.  I just
wonder if it will be too late.

     If I may say so, you do sound a little bitter about what Red Hat
has done.  I see the reasons why, and don't blame you for those
feelings.  I was like that, too, but I softened up recently after
reading a little more about Red Hat's decision.  I still don't agree
100% with it, but at least I can empathize with their situation.
     If you can grab a copy of issue #1 of Red Hat's _Wide Open
Magazine_, check out the "The Fedora Project:  True Confessions"
article.  It does a good job of explaining the situations that lead up
to Red Hat sponsoring the Fedora Project and offering only
enterprise-grade software.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQJgVXHJBpqlEam+TEQI7oQCfZ+xOtVojosnyX5DHWvi0GTxO4Y4AnA9G
OWL1zLV1nkLBNNl8gcZXPDxM
=3Uua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Bernie Hoefer
PGP e-mail is welcome!  Get my 1024 bit signature key from:
<http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x446A6F93>.
"The more I know, the more I realize how much I do not understand."