I just received my copy of RedHat 9.0 from Amazon today after ordering
it this past Tuesday. Paid $37 and got free shipping.
James
-Original Message-
From: Colburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Red Hat 9 -- April 7th
up2date on a 56k (I wish, try 28k out here in the woods with no access
to dsl or cable) dialup for the dozens of updates? Disconnects,
corrupted files, sigh.
I'm going to buy a second hdd and do a clean load. That way I know what
RH9 is doing without any *excuses* based on conflicts with old jun
Either you don't use MySQL, PHP4, wine, VMWare ... or you did not run
up2date in the last couple of weeks.
Marek wrote:
Colburn wrote:
OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
release, RH9 on April 7th.
Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
(I also paid for m
At 02:05 PM 3/29/2003 -0600, you wrote:
So, let me re-phrase the question. What significant difference is there
(if any) between RH8/9 outfitted compltetly open-source and RH secure
server? Is secure server *NOT* open source. Can RH8/9 serve as a secure
enterprise server system just as well as s
On Saturday 29 March 2003 08:02 pm, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 18:11, Guy Fraser wrote:
>
> > I trusted RH not to cause such a huge problem. I personaly do not
do the
> > upgrades, but it was through my encouragement that RH was
installed to
> > reduce overhead costs, when ever
On 29 Mar 2003 22:01:46 -0500, Joe Klemmer wrote
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 11:53, Guy Fraser wrote:
>
> > What about the extra US$60/year for the entitlement, US$60/year x 500 =
> > US$30,000. For each 500 entitlements, a persons salary can be paid for a
> > year.
>
> You have many other op
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:03:41 -0600, you wrote:
>"Red Hat will provide errata maintenance for AT LEAST 12 months [... and]
>may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases[.]"
>
>Yes, up2date MAY go away for your RH release 12 months after it came out,
>but there is no certainty that i
I have placed my order with Amazon in advance. Am on a dial-up out here
in the woods (no other options yet).
May try a download from work and burn to a CD but want a clean and
original CD with docs.
If I do the download I may test it as a server load on an old 200MHz box
-- to replace the M$ 200
Colburn wrote:
OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
release, RH9 on April 7th.
Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
(I also paid for my RH8 release, though considering the hundreds of
wasted hours trying to get it to do what it promised to do I feel as
t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 30 March 2003 02:03 am, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 07:33 PM 3/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Saturday 29 March 2003 06:55 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > > At 04:05 PM 3/25/2003 -0900, you wrote:
> > > >After 12 months, up2date goes away if
At 07:33 PM 3/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On Saturday 29 March 2003 06:55 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 04:05 PM 3/25/2003 -0900, you wrote:
> >After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
>
> Please provide evidence that this is true, as it does not match my
> reading of the ava
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 18:11, Guy Fraser wrote:
> I trusted RH not to cause such a huge problem. I personaly do not do the
> upgrades, but it was through my encouragement that RH was installed to
> reduce overhead costs, when everyone who had upgraded glibc and things
> broke it was put on me to
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:29, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Perhaps the bigger issue here is, why did you roll out a glibc upgrade w/out
> testing it first?
I saw you asked him this already but no answer yet. I can't help but
wonder what Guy was doing 18 of the 19 years he's been a unix sysadmi
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 13:00, Charles wrote:
> I realize I am coming in a bit late, but would someone please expain
> *exactly why* RH should not be run on the enterprise?
The point is that it can.
> There are folk in the local linux user group that assert that RH
> simply cannot be ma
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 11:53, Guy Fraser wrote:
> What about the extra US$60/year for the entitlement, US$60/year x 500 =
> US$30,000. For each 500 entitlements, a persons salary can be paid for a
> year.
You have many other options for this. One that we are using at work is
to setup cu
At 12:00 PM 3/29/2003 -0600, you wrote:
There are folk in the local linux user group that assert that RH simply
cannot be made secure.
I would really appreciate a little enlightenment on this.
There are folks (still!) who assert the world is flat and simply cannot be
made round.
There are folks
On Saturday 29 March 2003 15:11, Guy Fraser uttered:
> Like I said above RH rolled the software out, and I am not responcible
> for updating the technicians workstations. But with the recent changes
> at RH the company has reluctantly purchased some entilements at my
> request. Having given my comp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 29 March 2003 06:55 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 04:05 PM 3/25/2003 -0900, you wrote:
> >After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
>
> Please provide evidence that this is true, as it does not match my
> reading of
At 04:05 PM 3/25/2003 -0900, you wrote:
After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
Please provide evidence that this is true, as it does not match my reading
of the available literature. A URL will suffice.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[E
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 29 March 2003 12:08, Guy Fraser uttered:
Well, well, well. There you go, another pseudo system administrator. I
have been supporting multiple unix platforms since 1984, and RH since
1995. The issues coming up now should be very relevant to RH. If I had
to go to
On Saturday 29 March 2003 12:08, Guy Fraser uttered:
> Well, well, well. There you go, another pseudo system administrator. I
> have been supporting multiple unix platforms since 1984, and RH since
> 1995. The issues coming up now should be very relevant to RH. If I had
> to go to my boss and tell
Marcie Laux wrote:
Message: 13
Subject: Re: Red Hat 9
From: Joe Klemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Mar 2003 22:17:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 18:29, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> While I agree some of the decisions Red Hat has made
Ed Wilts wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:00:24PM -0600, Charles wrote:
I realize I am coming in a bit late, but would someone please expain
*exactly why* RH should not be run on the enterprise?
No on can because the statement is false.
There are folk in the local linux user group that as
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Colburn wrote:
> OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
> release, RH9 on April 7th.
>
> Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
Amazon will sell it to you for 31.49 GBP
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B8Y8KL
or 36.99 dollars
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:53:42AM -0700, Guy Fraser wrote:
> What about the extra US$60/year for the entitlement, US$60/year x 500 =
> US$30,000. For each 500 entitlements, a persons salary can be paid for a
> year.
You're obviously not a business person. I would expect that a good
percentage
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:00:24PM -0600, Charles wrote:
> I realize I am coming in a bit late, but would someone please expain
> *exactly why* RH should not be run on the enterprise?
No on can because the statement is false.
> There are folk in the local linux user group that assert that RH
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 01:24:29PM -0500, Colburn wrote:
> OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
> release, RH9 on April 7th.
>
> Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
Red Hat Linux 9 has not yet been announced. It will be announced on
Monday, and not to
Colburn writes
>
> OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
> release, RH9 on April 7th.
>
> Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
>
> (I also paid for my RH8 release, though considering the hundreds of
> wasted hours trying to get it to do what it prom
OK, RedHat will try to resolve the many flaws in RH8 with their new
release, RH9 on April 7th.
Any idea what they will charge retail for this?
(I also paid for my RH8 release, though considering the hundreds of
wasted hours trying to get it to do what it promised to do I feel as
though I am due
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:00:24PM -0600, Charles wrote:
>
> There are folk in the local linux user group that assert that RH
> simply cannot be made secure.
>
> I would really appreciate a little enlightenment on this.
Enlightenment: Those people are card-carrying idiots. Don't trust
anything
Joe Klemmer wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 18:27, Guy Fraser wrote:
You must be talking about home users without any important data.
Many servers and workstations run until they can not be feasibly
maintained, or there is a compelling reason to upgrade.
Well, since we are discussing RH's Perso
On Saturday 29 March 2003 09:08, Guy Fraser uttered:
> Sounds reasonable if I can get the SRPMS using a regular entitlement.
You can get them for absolutely nothing.
ftp://updates.redhat.com/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/SRPMS
Unless you had to pay $$ for your FTP client (which I doubt) or you count th
Brent Fox wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 16:36, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp,
Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...snip...
By the "products that customers pay more for", I mean the Enterprise
line.
We won't release errata or updates for 7.3 after the End Of Life
Brent Fox wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 18:29, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
You cannot expect a
company or joe user to upgrade their operating system every year
(which is now necessary given the 12 month limit on bug/security
fixes).
You also cannot expect Red Hat to provide errata forever on a
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 17:52, Guy Fraser wrote:
> That is why the company I work for has migrated all but two RH servers
> to FreeBSD.
[..]
> Moving to FreeBSD has been an improvement over OSF/1,True64, Solaris,
> SCO, BSDI and all other Linux Platforms.
Free|Net|OpenBSD are all great op
Hiya,
> Most servers do not run on enterprise class machines and standard or
> proffesional Red Hat Linux
> was just fine.
I have to disagree here. For a small company, meaning less than 150
people maybe. Most companies run servers on server class equipment. In
mine for example is all Dell and
Joe Klemmer wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 18:27, Guy Fraser wrote:
You must be talking about home users without any important data.
Many servers and workstations run until they can not be feasibly
maintained, or there is a compelling reason to upgrade.
Well, since we are discussing RH's
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:49:13AM -0300, Sergio Durand wrote:
> this is only my mess mind! =))
Yes, I think so. What happens if they supply both a 2.2 and 2.4
kernel? Or kernel gets many errata updates. Besides, what difference
does it make? Both are just labels.
--
Hal Burgiss
--
Psyche
red hat 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 ... until.. ???
is this just for market ???
wouldn't better uses kernel version number in place of sequencial
numbers for determine the distro version?
like this:
red hat 2.4.18-27.8.0
or simply:
redhat 2.4.18r1
redhat 2.4.18r2
the sys admin is more intersting about kern
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 18:27, Guy Fraser wrote:
> You must be talking about home users without any important data.
>
> Many servers and workstations run until they can not be feasibly
> maintained, or there is a compelling reason to upgrade.
Well, since we are discussing RH's Personal/Pr
You must be talking about home users without any important data.
Many servers and workstations run until they can not be feasibly
maintained, or there is a
compelling reason to upgrade.
Joe Klemmer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 19:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
Starting with Red Hat 8.0 errata
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 17:25, Tom Diehl wrote:
> Once a product is EOL there are not going to be any new updated packages
> unless someone other than Red Hat makes them.
It's likely that some of the RH engineers will be making rpms
unofficially as individual developers, too.
--
Farewe
This one time, at band camp,
Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're using the Enterprise line, you're not using RHL 9. You're
> using one of the RHEL products (AS, ES, or WS). They are two different
> product lines.
ahh, this is where I was getting lost
> We do make the source availab
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:38:11AM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > We won't release errata or updates for 7.3 after the End Of Life period
> > arrives. With the RHL line, there's no distinction between paying
> > customer
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 17:38, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > We won't release errata or updates for 7.3 after the End Of Life period
> > arrives. With the RHL line, there's no distinction between paying
> > customers and unpaid
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > We won't release errata or updates for 7.3 after the End Of Life period
> > arrives. With the RHL line, there's no distinction between paying
> > customers and unpaid custome
This one time, at band camp,
Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We won't release errata or updates for 7.3 after the End Of Life period
> arrives. With the RHL line, there's no distinction between paying
> customers and unpaid customers once the product goes EOL.
Ok, so if 9.0 goes EOL, I
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nothing stops you from downloading a 8.0 or a 9 .src.rpm and rebuilding it for
> > 7.3. yes the source is there, but there is no guarentee that the end package
> > will wo
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 14:04, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Yes, I can see that. But where would the new, updated, packages be stored?
> If a spec file was changed in another package, it too would need to be
> released under the GPL
Same places they are stored now, in the updates/ directory of Red H
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 16:36, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Creating and releasing errata costs developer time, QA time,
> > documentation time, and RHN/FTP bandwidth. Some people seem to be under
> > the impression that our cost
This one time, at band camp,
Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing stops you from downloading a 8.0 or a 9 .src.rpm and rebuilding it for
> 7.3. yes the source is there, but there is no guarentee that the end package
> will work as designed on 7.3. There are some system changes th
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 16:36, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> I am curious as to how the updates will be released?
> As this is open source, surely the source code must
> be available to all.
> How will this be handled?
>
> eg: If I have a 7.3 installation and the errata stops
> for public release. How th
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 13:36, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> eg: If I have a 7.3 installation and the errata stops
> for public release. How then can updates be limited to
> paying customers only if the source code must be available
> under the GPL?
>
> Kind regards
> Kevin
Nothing stops you from dow
This one time, at band camp,
Brent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Creating and releasing errata costs developer time, QA time,
> documentation time, and RHN/FTP bandwidth. Some people seem to be under
> the impression that our cost of doing errata is zero, but it just isn't
> so. Our resources
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 18:29, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> You cannot expect a
> company or joe user to upgrade their operating system every year
> (which is now necessary given the 12 month limit on bug/security
> fixes).
You also cannot expect Red Hat to provide errata forever on a product
that our
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 07:38, Mike Vanecek uttered:
> Under this new scheme of things, what is contained in rawhide, RH 9?
rawhide is, and always will be, an alpha/beta package dumping grounds,
continuing the development of OSS. These packages may/may not appear in a
later release or errata
Message: 13
Subject: Re: Red Hat 9
From: Joe Klemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Mar 2003 22:17:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 18:29, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> While I agree some of the decisions Red Hat has made have been
> necess
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 07:34, Mike Vanecek uttered:
> My basic subscription for the RH 8 channel does not expire until Feb 2004.
> What will happen to my subscription after 12/31/03?
Entitlements can be passed from one system to another, or from one release to
the next. So if you install R
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:25:05 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote
> On Tuesday 25 March 2003 17:05, Michael Smith uttered:
> > After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
>
> Again, I point you to the "At least 12 months" No where does it say
> you get 12 months, and 12 months _only_ f
On 25 Mar 2003 16:05:09 -0900, Michael Smith wrote
> After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
My basic subscription for the RH 8 channel does not expire until Feb 2004.
What will happen to my subscription after 12/31/03?
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:31:09PM +0100, Andrew Kelly wrote:
>
>
> naugaranch wrote:
> >
> > With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my server
> > (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually considered
> > regressing to 7.2 on my server.
>
> This is
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 05:58:15AM -0600, naugaranch wrote:
> With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my server
> (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually considered
> regressing to 7.2 on my server.
>
> Sounds like Red Hat is doing a MS-type end arou
Daniel T. Drea wrote:
Can large numbers of redhat machines be updated with a single comand from
one box?
That's what RHN is for, basically.
It's slackwares package management that I find make it "easier" to keep
updated with the latest releases of software. Just as you rely on rhn to
supply you up
Gerald Henriksen wrote:
I certainly can't recall messages on any of the Red Hat mailing lists
or any survey asking for Red Hat to price their Linux product at the
same price levels Microsoft charges, yet that is exactly what Red Hat
has done
They *have* been asked to provide a platform that will ha
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 17:05, Michael Smith uttered:
> After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
Again, I point you to the "At least 12 months" No where does it say you get
12 months, and 12 months _only_ for up2date (RHN) services.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
http://g
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 19:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> Starting with Red Hat 8.0 errata are only provided for 12 months after
> release. The only products with errata periods longer than 12 months
> are the products in the Enterprise line.
With the average Joe User of Linux being used to
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 18:29, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> While I agree some of the decisions Red Hat has made have been
> necessary and even good (even if Red Hat has screwed up the
> implementation and public relations aspects of at least some of them)
> they are also apparently ignoring a lot of t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:15:58PM -0500, Justin Zygmont wrote:
> we'll see very soon, at the end of the month 6.2 and 7.0 will expire. I'm
> curious if there will be any package updates, but I somehow doubt there
> will.
6.1 support has been terminated for quite a while. We simply grab the
6.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> So your average person at home now has a choice of Windows XP at $300
> or Red Hat Enterprise Workstation at $300 ($60 a year after the first
> year for access to security fixes). Guess what, XP comes with full
> multimedia capabi
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:33:03 -0800, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 25 March 2003 16:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>> It just won't be provided after 12 months.
>
>Wrong. popular releases will be supported for longer, releases such as 6.2 or
>maybe even 7.3. If you read the fine print, it's "at least 12 m
After 12 months, up2date goes away if you don't use enterprise.
THIS THREAD IS GOING OVERBOARD.
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 15:33, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2003 16:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> > It just won't be provided after 12 months.
>
> Wrong. popular releases will be supporte
we'll see very soon, at the end of the month 6.2 and 7.0 will expire. I'm
curious if there will be any package updates, but I somehow doubt there
will.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2003 16:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> > It just won't be provided after 12 mo
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 16:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> It just won't be provided after 12 months.
Wrong. popular releases will be supported for longer, releases such as 6.2 or
maybe even 7.3. If you read the fine print, it's "at least 12 months" not
"at the most 12 months". Seems to me tha
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:40:11 -0800, you wrote:
>Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
> > So your average person at home now has a choice of Windows XP at $300
> > or Red Hat Enterprise Workstation at $300 ($60 a year after the first
> > year for access to security fixes). Guess what, XP comes with full
> >
Hi,
> I certainly can't recall messages on any of the Red Hat mailing lists
> or any survey asking for Red Hat to price their Linux product at the
> same price levels Microsoft charges, yet that is exactly what Red Hat
> has done (and in at least 1 case when you extend the price over a 3 or
> 4 y
Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> So your average person at home now has a choice of Windows XP at $300
> or Red Hat Enterprise Workstation at $300 ($60 a year after the first
> year for access to security fixes). Guess what, XP comes with full
> multimedia capabilities including MP3 and DVD, as well
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:33:35 -0800, you wrote:
>Comparing Red Hat to MS is ridiculous. As far as I can tell, Red Hats
>latest decisions, for which they've taken so much heat, are all the
>result of actually listening to their customers.
While I agree some of the decisions Red Hat has made have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Daniel T. Drea wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Everyone has what they want, except for those who want the same old
> >>thing If you want the same old thing, run Slack
>Cheers! (Relax...have a homebrew)
>Neil
The wise and immortal words of Charlie Papazion work in almost all situations, don't
they?
Philip
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
Daniel T. Drea wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Everyone has what they want, except for those who want the same old
thing If you want the same old thing, run Slackware. It hasn't
changed in YEARS. As a consequence, it's a damn pain to maintain.
I take offense to tha
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Jason Dale wrote:
> In my part of the world in the southern hemisphere, Linux became
I'm in the same part of the world, and I've been using Red Hat since the
beginning.
> All said and done, I am still somewhat concerned myself as to why Red Hat 9
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Everyone has what they want, except for those who want the same old
> thing If you want the same old thing, run Slackware. It hasn't
> changed in YEARS. As a consequence, it's a damn pain to maintain
Andrew Kelly wrote:
naugaranch wrote:
Sounds like Red Hat is doing a MS-type end around. Abandon the RH 8.x
series and introduce RH 9 because it doesn't have a bad reputation.
When a release puts a better product in the hands of
the consumer it is a good and welcome thing. When a release
Get real,
Complaining about a free operating system pulling a M$ thing? You got
to be joking or smoking or something.
Who cares what happens marketing-wise, it doesn't cost me anything.
Let all of those non-techies worry about marketing. I just use what
works for me whether its RH 7.3, 8, 9 or
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Red Hat 9
In my part of the world in the southern hemisphere, Linux became
an extremely popular server OS at more or less the same time that
the Red Hat 7.x series was out. For us, this was partly why 7.3
was the most popular, but RH 7.3 also *seemed*
l of those point-and-click people out there an avenue of escape, in case
they just can't figure out what do in front of that dreaded command line,
and may be forced to embarrass themselves on a mailing list just like this
one.
All said and done, I am still somewhat concerned myself as to w
scussions/go-rounds on this Red Hat 9 issue can probably be
summed up in that old adage... "You can make some of the people happy all
of the time, all of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make
all of the people happy all of the time".
Some people are unhappy cause
Joe Klemmer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Andrew Kelly wrote:
>
> > It's sad to see how prevalent MSing is becoming in the Linux namespace.
>
> 1) There's no evidence of any Linux company doing anything MS-like.
It's probably just a function of our differing perspectives
and absolutely not
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Andrew Kelly wrote:
> It's sad to see how prevalent MSing is becoming in the Linux namespace.
1) There's no evidence of any Linux company doing anything MS-like.
2) Since the marketing powers of MS are unparalleled, it's hard for any
business to not follow some of their "tri
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, naugaranch wrote:
> With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my
> server (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually
> considered regressing to 7.2 on my server.
I would recommend that, if you are going to fall back to the 7.
naugaranch wrote:
>
> With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my server
> (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually considered
> regressing to 7.2 on my server.
This is exactly what I'm facing and exactly the decision
I've made. Enigma runs perfectl
utorak 25. mart 2003. 12:58, naugaranch:
> With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my
> server (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've
> actually considered regressing to 7.2 on my server.
Well, I think that is why Red Hat introduced enterprise line of
oper
With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my server
(still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually considered
regressing to 7.2 on my server.
Sounds like Red Hat is doing a MS-type end around. Abandon the RH 8.x
series and introduce RH 9 because it doesn't h
93 matches
Mail list logo
