On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 07:35, William Hooper wrote: > >> This has already been disproved, but you seem to like repeating it. > > > > On the box (I was in Best Buy looking at this the other day) it says > > specifically the server utils or something to that effect aren't > > supported. Just because I can download an RPM somewhere doesn't mean > > it's supported. Fedora comes with MySQL and Apache and rudimentary > > utilities to start them up (and in the case of Apache manage them). > > Sigh, again Apache is included. Think beyond the box. If there's a bug in Apache will they fix it, though? And once again, what about Samba, NFS, etc. And when I speak of these things I'm not just talking about them being included, but also the accompanying little widgets that help you manage them. SuSE provides all of this included in Pro for $80. Whether this will be the case in the future is why I switched, but the point is that there are other distros out there such as SuSE, Mandrake that will provide these things AND support them fully in terms of patches and management tools. > MySQL you can download from Red Hat, not some "RPM somewhere". Just once or do they provide updates for every security fix, since that, essentially, is what you pay for when you pay for a distro. At least in my mind. There are plenty of people on staffs at these various companies writing the free software, but there are also plenty of people writing the software, patching bugs, testing and writing documentation that don't get paid a penny. So for my money the reason I buy a distro is to because I get updates. Not just *an* RPM, but supported software where I get updates when updates are needed. > >> > and won't be supported in the future (as far as I know). > >> > >> One year, same as RHL used to be. > >> > >> "Includes one year of Red Hat Network updates" > >> http://www.redhat.com/software/workstation/ > > > > So the cost of running this is at least $100 per year. Sorry. SuSE (for > > now) charges $80 per Pro distro with free updates. I would go back to > > SuSE before I'd pay $100 a year for updates and half supported server > > software. > > So, it seems you *don't* want to pay to support Red Hat. That's fine, > that is what Fedora is for. You just need to get that through your head > rather than just coming up with excuses about why you don't want to pay > them. I'm not coming up with excuses. I'm explaining to you that I don't find find $100 per year to be a reasonable price to pay. Red Hat, once again, is a company and not a charity. And as I've stated earlier I've supported OSS to the tune of hundreds of dollars spent on my personal box alone over the years. I just don't want to be FORCED to pay a price I don't think is reasonable. You can't get that in your head, though. You think that if I don't want to buy RHEL, then I must be some kind of leech, who doesn't want to support OSS. I do. I just don't want to be forced to pay that price to do so. > > Oh please. That's how you see it, huh? Either pay $100 per year for your > > OS or beta test their software? > > You want Fedora to be stable, but you just expect it to be magically that > way? Let me guess, you are one of those people that keep posting things > saying "why wasn't this fixed in the beta before the release" when you > didn't even bother to download the beta. Actually, most of what goes into a distro is tested by the people (remember, the entire OSS world doesn't work for Red Hat, I know that may be hard to believe) who write it and who WANT to be on the bleeding edge long before it ever HAS to go into a distro like Fedora. So no, I don't think there's any reason I personally have to test it, especially when I'm more than willing to send a middle-ground amount of money to Fedora to keep it rocking. > > Sorry. I'll go to another distro before > > I do that. > > It's called a "community based" distro. If you don't like that, Fedora > isn't for you. ???? What does that have to do with this discussion? I'm not part of the community if I'm not beta testing Mozilla 1.6a? Debian is community based as well and they don't "require" or badger their users into running unstable. > > Maybe I'll go back to RH9 and pay Progeny $60 per year for > > updates. Or maybe I'll go back to SuSE. Either route's a better deal > > than that. > > There must be something that made you switch. No one is holding a gun to > your head saying you have to use one distro or another. People like you make using Fedora less attractive, that's for sure. If THIS is what this community is going to be like, then Fedora is doomed. > > Red Hat isn't a charity. > > I agree. > > > If they want my money they're going > > to have to offer me a better deal than a $100 a year Red Hat tax. > > If you aren't willing to pay it, then you aren't in their market. Use > Fedora and quit complaining about how much RHEL costs. Thanks for the lecture, dad. > > At > > least with Microsoft the tax man only comes calling every 5 years when > > the EOL a product. > > Trolling won't help. That's not a troll, that's a fact. If I buy Win2k Pro, for example, I can get it for as low as like $200 OEM. Then they'll probably support it for at least 5 years with free patches. I don't want to run it (and don't run a single piece of Windows software in my house in fact), but the point is that the cost is essentially $200 over 5 years vs. $500 over 5 years. > > I really like Fedora and I support Red Hat and its decision fully, but I > > won't use their software if Fedora becomes beta testing playground and > > there isn't any step between that and a $100 a year tax. Sorry. > > You need to grasp the concept between a beta and a release. The community > needs to test the FC beta's so that the release is a better distro. If > you want a commercially tested and supported distro you need to pay > someone else to do this testing. No, I don't want a commercially tested and supported distro. That's why I was fine with Fedora. It seemed like a nice balance. I could run some testing packages, some "stable" packages, but either way since the entire distro itself wasn't being tested by Red Hat I knew there might be some glitches and so essentially I'd be helping to test the distro and how it's put together. I think it's fine to participate in that manner without having to run Gnome 2.5a and Mozilla 1.6a. I mean, come on. If that's your idea of community supported, guilting people into running bleeding edge software to beta test for Red Hat for free, then I think Fedora is definitely headed in the wrong direction. > Calling it "a tax" is also trolling. As Progeny has shown, no one forces > you to go to Red Hat for updates. If you don't want Red Hat's support, > don't buy it. But you need to stop complaining about wanting support like > it for free. *sigh* Nevermind. Preston
