On 2004-04-02 at 19:59:13-0500 William Hooper <whooperhsd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > EOL has been posted since RHL 9 came out. That's certainly true. But http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/ used to state: "At certain times, Red Hat may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases of the [Red Hat Linux] operating system." This statement has since been removed, but I see no reason why it should not still apply. (As the last RHL release, I'd be vastly surprised if RHL 9 didn't count as a "popular release".) On 2004-04-03 at 03:12:02+0200 Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@xxxxxx> wrote: > http://fedoralegacy.org/ > I _think_ they will also do RH9. Personally, I don't think this is necessary; just a month or so of overlapping support for both RHL9 and FC2 should be sufficient. On 2004-04-02 at 21:22:01-0600 Mike Klinke <lsomike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The other way to look at is that RH has given six or seven months > overlap from the release of FC1 until the expiration of RH9. Plenty > of time for folks to have thought about alternatives. Thinking about alternatives isn't the issue. *Having* alternatives--in particular, feasible alternatives--is the issue. For our organization, the decision as to what to run on our server machines was easy: RHEL. I moved most of our server machines to RHEL months ago (many shortly after RHEL 3 was released, in fact). There are a few RHL 9 machines left, but I'll get them long before 2004-04-30. But the issue as to what to do with developer machines was a lot more difficult. While I know that these mailing lists contain a lot of Fedora cheerleaders, to be blunt, I think a lot of people stayed on the sidelines to see whether the "Fedora Core" concept could prove itself. (FC1 had a lot of rough edges and a lot of unanswered questions.) For our organization, I was leaning towards using FC on developer machines instead of RHEL WS, but I didn't decide for sure until about the time that FC2 test1 was released. (Going with RHEL WS and letting others go play on the bleeding edge was very tempting.) FC2 is a month away (give or take, depending on schedule slippage). Even if we were to overlook the showstopper-class issues we have with FC1 that are fixed by FC2, it would be a huge waste of effort on our part to upgrade our development machines to FC1 only to upgrade them again (to FC2) in another month. This is why we are going to run RHL9 on our development machines until FC2 is released, and then upgrade our RHL9 development machines to FC2. And this is why I would really like to see Red Hat continue to provide security errata support for RHL9 until FC2 has been out a month or so. Does Red Hat have to do this? No, of course not. But speaking as a paying customer (150 subscriptions to RHEL and counting), we'd really appreciate it. James
