Don Levey said: > fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Don Levey said: >>> Williak Hooper wrote: [snip] >>>> Anyone that says (and what >>>> started my involvement in this thread) that they didn't know RHL >>>> 9's EOL was coming up has had their head in the sand for longer >>>> than RHL 9 has been out. >>>> >>> Must be me, then. I knew that previous releases of RHL were EOL-ing; >> >> So when Red Hat said that RHL releases were going to have 12 months of >> support, you didn't think that applied to RHL 9? >> > I think you missed my point. The EOL of RH9 is a *different* issue from > the EOL of RHL as a product line. Yes, I knew that RH9 would EOL. No, I > hadn't realised that RHL *itself* was going away. No I responded to the point you stated. Maybe I snipped too much: "I was able to assume that RH9 would do so too at some poont in time." "Some point in time" was well defined when RHL 9 was released. I agree that ending the RHL line and RHL 9's EOL are two different issues. The point being that RHL 9 was going EOL so you have to move to _something_ if you want errata, whether it is RHEL, Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, etc. Knowing that, an announcement in Nov. 2003 that it won't be RHL 10 isn't that big of an issue. You still have 6 months to decide what to move to and test how it will work. Waiting until April and saying "the sky is falling, Red Hat is EOLing RHL 9" is just plain dumb. -- William Hooper
