Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken

• Previous message: John Mahowald: "Re: Problem with the kernel 2.6.13-1.1526_FC4 and PPP"
• In reply to: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Next in thread: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Reply: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:10:14 -0600

On Mon, 2005-03-10 at 09:36 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:21 -0600, Guy Fraser wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-30-09 at 21:02 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 17:42, Guy Fraser wrote:
> > > > > > > Every release of RHL was a
> > > > > > > tremendous step forward until 8.0 since then there has been one
> > > > > > What was wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > It had nothing to do with the 2.6 kernel or frequent updates. It
> > > > had to do with dropping support for many of the command line and
> > > > applications many people used and wanted to continue using. It
> > > > also involved changes to the kernel that made it impossible for
> > > > most people to get some of their applications to compile, which
> > > > is partly why they were dropped by Red Hat. Unfortunately if
> > > > anyone were to build their own kernel, they would then have to
> > > > constantly maintain it, whenever security vulnerabilities were
> > > > discovered. In any case things broke without warning and no
> > > > remedies were provided by Red Hat, the package was just dropped
> > > > in the next release. Many of these packages are still maintained
> > > > and available on other distributions, contrary to many of the
> > > > excuses given at the time.
> > > >
> > > > I can not continue, I feel a rant coming on.
> > >
> > > I can't think of anything offhand that worked on RH7.x that
> > > doesn't work in Centos3.x. Elm, maybe... Examples???
> > >
> > Elm, Pico, Wine, Word Perfect and Gatos Drivers are all I can think of
> > now. Some of these may have been fixed by now but I have replaced
> > hardware and started using terminal services to use the programs I
> > needed to have running in wine. Some of these are available in other
> > repositories now, but that did not help back then. It also didn't help
> > how I felt when I was billed for a one year RHN subscription a month
> > before the announcement that in 6 months RHL 9 would no longer be
> > supported.
> ----
> boy - you sure take $ 60 to the max. I think in all, the sweeping
> changes of dropping RHL and subscriptions for RHL in favor of Fedora
> allowed them to concentrate on the one revenue product - RHEL and this
> has been good for all except those that use Fedora because it was free.
> CentOS gives you the free version of RHEL which totally makes sense and
> is a great ally to RHEL/Fedora.

It was not so much the cost, but the perceived deceit of taking the
money for something they were not intending on providing. I am VERY
happy with my decision. We have had our own local FreeBSD repository
that is rsynced every night ever since we switched, so we have only had
to incur the cost of downloading all the source and updates once. We now
have much faster access to all the files required to build new servers
and update existing ones. There haven't been any big surprises when
applying updates, and the servers have been secure and more reliable,
since the switch. Their is also a lot more software available in the
ports system repository than in any of the RH distributions and the
Extras combined.

> ----
> >
> > It's a little late to be concerned about this now, the reputation was
> > damaged quite a while ago. And the arrogant attitudes that caused the
> > rift, persist to this day. Unless you have pull within RH, I suggest
> > you drop the inquisition, all you are doing is reminding me and many
> > others of problems that upset them from back around that time. If I
> > didn't have customers using RH products I would not be here now. I have
> > moved all our servers to FreeBSD and only keep one FC workstation
> > around for testing.
> ----
> FreeBSD is a great option too.
>
> Fedora seems to be the cutting edge for desktops at the moment but I
> wouldn't want to run a server on it.
>From problems I have had supporting RHEL 4 for customers, I would not
use it either. RH has failed to help the customers in every instance
before I was able to fix the problems. They had all bought into the
Commercially Supported Product stuff when making the decision, over
other distributions and FreeBSD.

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• Previous message: John Mahowald: "Re: Problem with the kernel 2.6.13-1.1526_FC4 and PPP"
• In reply to: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Next in thread: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Reply: Craig White: "Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]