On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 16:41, William Hooper wrote: > It seems to me your bad taste came from you not researching what you were > buying: > > a) RH changed the EOL structure and announced it _before RHL 9 was released_. > b) You agreed to automatically renew the RHN service when it expired. > c) Red Hat is providing you with the new RHEL product to fulfill your RHN > service at no extra charge. > > I'm not sure what else you want them to do. > Just to play devil's advocate here for a second. If I did know the EOL for RH9 and had subscribed to RHN and my renewall date was Nov 1, 2003. I would have expected RH to renew my subscription to RHN automatically but not for a 12 month period, but up to the EOL date which would have billed me for 7 months. That would be fair practice. However, if everyone know the EOL date for RH9 how could RH have in good conscious billed people for 12 months of RHN if there was less than 12 months till end of life? I really think that's what it boils down to. The assumption that most people made was that RH Linux would be around for the long run and were caught unaware when RH decided that RH9 would be the last. I can't see how that business decision could have been a surprise to the marketing folks that manages the RHN subscriptions. My $0.02 Luc Bouchard
