Guy Fraser said: >>Love this one, "if you don't agree you must be getting paid by Red Hat so >>you are biased"... >> >> > I was not replying to you. Since the non @redhat.com person you were replying to has commented, I won't further. >> >>>Had I been notified that my subscription was >>>expiring and given the option to renew, I would have then been able >>>to make a judgement call. >>> >>> >> >>You agreed to be automatically build for the service unless you canceled. >>You had every opportunity to cancel and Red Hat provided the date for RHL >>9's EOL before it was released. >> > I did not know I was going to billed automaticaly, I don't think I was > billed automaticaly the year before. I'm pretty sure it was there in black and white, but I have no way of showing that. >>>Since I was not given that option, and was >>>informed that I would not get a refund if I decided not to use RHN I am >>>justified in feeling ripped off. I was billed for a year of updates for >>> a >>>product that would not be available for the full year. >>> >>> >> >>You got exactly what you signed up for. Now if you didn't read what you >>signed up for that is not Red Hat's problem. >> >> > I'm so... sorry, next time I buy somthing from RH, I will be sure to > have my lawyer read all the documents on Redhats website to make sure > there are no hidden addendums. Do you need a lawyer to understand the following? It is a direct quote from a RH mail dated 12/19/2002: "Therefore, starting with Red Hat Linux 8.0, we have updated the errata support policy and will now provide errata support for all releases of the base OS for at least 12 months from the date of the initial release." >>>If someone gave you a chocolate bar and billed you with out asking, and >>>you discovered that part of the chocolate bar was missing, would you not >>>feel ripped off when you discovered you could not get a refund ? >>> >>> >> >>You agreed to pay for the chocolate bar, you received the exact amount of >>chocolate you were promised and, just because the company wasn't going to >>make plain chocolate anymore, got a partial chocolate bar with nuts. >> > If you are the nuts. Wow, what an intelligent reply. >> >>>Would you care if the part of the chocolate bar that was left was still >>>good or would you still be left with a bad taste ? >>> >>> >> >>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_ >> > I wasn't aware of that, I was not NOTIFIED until after the subscription > was renewed. What hole were you in? Errata policy updates and product end of life (12/19/2002) https://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-watch-list/2002-December/msg00008.html Red Hat intros 12 month only support on ?consumer? OSes (1/27/2003) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/27/red_hat_intros_12_month/ Red Hat 'End of Life' Decision Explained by Red Hat (1/28/2003) http://software.newsforge.com/software/03/01/28/2149203.shtml End of Life: Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7 (4/2/2003) https://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-watch-list/2003-April/msg00004.html Red Hat tells customers, 'No more freebies!" (11/3/2003) http://www.newsforge.com/software/03/11/03/1657205.shtml End of Life for Red Hat Linux 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 (12/15/2003) http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/12/15/179217.shtml Do I need to look for more? >>b) You agreed to automatically renew the RHN service when it expired. >> > Not to my knowledge. > >>c) Red Hat is providing you with the new RHEL product to fulfill your RHN >>service at no extra charge. >> > Great, I get access to updates on a product I don't have. Is it really that hard to download the ISOs? -- William Hooper
