On 2004-04-04 at 10:54:14-04 William Hooper <whooperhsd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arguably the most popular release was 7.3, and it's support wasn't > extended. I would suspect Red Hat's reasoning was that people could still upgrade to RHL9. > If you start extending it, then you just have a vocal group saying > "well, you extended it once..." And the proper answer is, "We extended security errata support long enough to allow a smooth transition to not only RHEL, but FC2 as well. We do not plan to extend support again." > Either a) go with Fedora Legacy or b) convince another third party > to support it (like some are doing for 7.3). Three words: embargoed security vulnerabilities. Red Hat has knowledge of what security vulnerabilities have been discovered but not yet made public. As a result, Red Hat has time to prepare relevant security errata and release them on the same day that the vulnerabilities are made public. To my knowledge, no current third-party support mechanism (e.g., Fedora Legacy) have access to embargoed security vulnerabilities. (I've been building RPMs for years, so I don't personally need Fedora Legacy (et. al.). But I don't relish the mad patch/build/test scramble that I would have to perform every time a new vulnerability is discovered.) Thus, Red Hat providing extended security errata support for RHL9 is superior to any other solution. James
