On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 18:30, William Hooper wrote: > Just before the 11/3/2003 deadline. > The November date was arbitrarily chosen to try to prove a point. It could have been June 1, 2003. > As explained in the FAQ, you have access to RHEL for the remaining months. > Yes I could, but at what cost. It was not clear early into the debate what was the impact to users of RedHat Linux of RH's decision to no longer provide this package. Don't get me wrong I FULLY support Redhat's move on this, however I saw and continue to see a lot of confusion about what it means to long time Redhat supporters who aren't on 4-5 mailing lists keeping on top of the situation. > > Unfortunately some of the links aren't working, but the Fedora Project > (and the RHLP before it) were announced I believe around July 2003, during > the beta process for Severn (RHL 9 was released in April). Anyone looking > for "the next RHL" would have found Fedora. > > http://software.newsforge.com/software/03/10/01/1417208.shtml > Yes RH9 was released in April, however the decision to move to Fedora and not have RH10 was made much later in the year and that is what caught a lot of people by surprise. What I was trying to show is that RedHat marketing should have done good faith renewals or refunds to anyone having been automatically renewed when less than 12 months were left on the product's life. Most people signed up to RHN when there was no plans to discontinue producing RHL. That is all I was trying to get across. Luc Bouchard
