> > That's our point. When you deploy on hundreds of servers, like many of > > the consortium members do, there's no chance in heck that we're going > > to pay a minimum of $179 (on up to $2500 IIRC) *PER* server. I'd much > > prefer to pool resources and distribute the cost. > > RH offers discounts to big quantities of licenses: > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00424.html That speaks to both sides of the argument. Quite honestly, that deal looks really tempting *IF* I actually needed RHWS. What I do need is a stable production OS (which I'm sure RHWS could be tweaked to do if I had the time [1]). I understand, RedHat needs to pay the bills. I personally think they're going about it the wrong way. I'd be happy to pay $1000 for a copy of RHEL that I can deploy to *ONLY* our own customers (with no restriction on the number of customers) without the expectation of *ANY* support from RedHat. I'd even be happy to pay a nominal fee (perhaps $25 or so per month) so I can rsync my own updates archive to deploy to said customers. -Chuck [1] This begs the question, if you don't have the time to tweak RHWS, then how do you have the time to participate in rh-consortium? My response: One has a future, the other doesn't. I'm just placing my effort where I belive it will do the most good. -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
