William Hooper wrote: > > 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. No argument there - except that my assumption (ooh, there's that word) was I'd be moving to RH10. > 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. > Also true. My only issue, such as it is, was that I didn't know until last autumn that EOL for RH9 was also EOL for RHL. This did indeed make me aware of the Fedora Project in the first place, and give me the reason to move. -Don
