On 2004-04-04 at 08:12:30-0600 "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 03:38 4/4/2004, James wrote: > > > 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 [...] 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. > > An excellent point, and well-put. Of course RH is not obligated to > do this, but it seems to be a fantastic idea, and one which would > help not only you but lots of other people as well. Surely you are > not the only person (nor the only paying customer) in this > situation. Extending RHL-9 support until 5/30 (or even 6/30 if > release of FC2 slips) would probably gain RH a lot of goodwill, help > smooth out migration issues for thousands of machines, and help keep > its customers loyal and happy. > > May I suggest that you attempt to make Red Hat aware of the benefits > of this via your support contracts or sales reps? That's a good suggestion: I'd encourage anyone else who has purchased services (e.g., subscriptions) from Red Hat and would like to see RHL9 supported long enough for people to transition directly to FC2 to contact their sales reps et. al. and make their desires known. (I already notified our sales rep.) James
