On Thursday 02 Oct 2003 10:05 pm, Bill Anderson wrote: > On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:17, David Holden wrote: > > On Thursday 02 Oct 2003 4:48 pm, William Hooper wrote: > > > David Holden said: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > When fedora is release will I beable to say to my boss, yes we can > > > > install fedora version "x" and be able to rely on redhat providing > > > > security updates > > > > for the next 2-3 years for that version, > > > > > > Repeat after me, Fedora is not Red Hat. If the Fedora Legacy project > > > can get you 2-3 years then it will be the Fedora Legacy project doing > > > it, not Red Hat. > > > > I've no need to repeat this, I'm well aware of the difference thanks. The > > above was making precisely the point that redhat won't be providing > > security updates to Fedora. ok, let me rei-write that sentence "The above was making precisely the point that redhat won't be providing security updates to Fedora *version "x"* covering the following 2-3 years of its release" is this correct? Most of what you say below re-enforces the above sentence no? Personally the most important thing for me is security updates thats what I subscribe to rhn for. Dave. > > Then your point is invalid. RH *will* be doing so. However, the time > period is shorter, and there is no SLA on it. See below. > > It seems this is related to the confusion between *support* and > *maintenance*. > > This is in part required. RH will *not* be maintaining all the packages > that go into Fedora Core. The software/package maintainers will be. For > a goodly portion of them, those will not be packaged by RH for FC. > > """ > Security updates, bugfix updates, and new feature updates will all be > available, through Red Hat and third parties. Updates may be staged > (first made available for public qualification, then later for general > consumption) when appropriate. In drastic cases, we may remove a package > from The Fedora Project if we judge that a necessary security update is > too problematic/disruptive to the larger goals of the project. > Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for > anything other than continued development and innovation of the code > base. > > Red Hat will not be providing an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for > resolution times for updates for The Fedora Project. Security updates > will take priority. For packages maintained by external parties, Red Hat > may respond to security holes by deprecating packages if the external > maintainers do not provide updates in a reasonable time. Users who want > support, or maintenance according to an SLA, may purchase the > appropriate Red Hat Enterprise Linux product for their use. > """ --http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/ > > So your claim is incorrect. -- Dr. David Holden. (Systems Developer) Crystallography Journals Online: <http://journals.iucr.org> Thanks in advance:- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See: <http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html> UK Privacy (R.I.P) : http://www.stand.org.uk/commentary.php3 Public GPG key available on request. -------------------------------------------------------------
