On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 09:24, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 09:20 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > The problems with an RHEL clone are more to the tune of the fact that > > you are uncertain of how many eyes are auditing it, that bug reports > > At least one more than Red Hat :) ---- of course that assumes that the binaries are the same or virtually the same. ---- > > > don't get back to the providers (Red Hat) and of course, there is no > > accountability (i.e. support). > > The only thing I ever wanted was not having the trouble to maintain > software updates, and just bother with system administration, updating > software, etc... > > So, for fetching N rpms RHEL subscription plans way too expensive. > An yearly subscription to give me access to update download would be > nice, but no... Red Hat preffered to give way too much more than what I > need on a very expensive plan, and keeps disregarding a small market > that would come by addition. > > Pay 1800 EUR/year for getting updates, we would accept. > Pay N*1800 EUR/year for much more than the updates (that we don't need) > for N machines we don't accept. > > Of course... the instructions on WBEL's site have been very useful... ---- clearly a viable option for you and many others. I may use it myself on my own server (now running RH 8) Craig
