On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > However, if Red Hat follows their announced plan, I forsee the community > > producing their own updates. It would be, in most cases, no more > > difficult that recompiling and testing the errata releases for the > > supported platforms.
True enough -- and I provide such services to my clients -- but I do not carry the market clout which Red Hat does; If you are (for the sake of a real example I've faced) a CIO or IS architect for a publicly traded Fortune 500 company, you report to management which have external obligations to shareholders and governmental authorities. This makes it incumbent that you exercise a higher degree of 'due diligence' in protecting the enterprise IS infrastructure than a 20M$ local business. That means a backstop naintenance and support contract with one of the 'big guys' > I'll disagree with this comment. It is difficult - if it really was > trivial, Red Hat wouldn't discontinue it. In most cases, the errata ... there is the additional externality on the seeming early EOL of RHL 8.0 -- it _is_ a .0 release [I do not believe that makes it bad -- but .0 has seemingly been reserved for major binary shifts, which are often more stable later in a major release series]. The rpm issues with rpm-4.1 should be much less with the next release than they have been with RHL 8.0 -- so bite the bullet, and do the right and hard thing of fixing it, take the hit and move on. I don't see an early EOL on RHL 8.0 as a strong negative. But I do anticipate backporting for 7.3 for some time. I _like_ the stability of RHL 7.3 as a server platform. <smile> -- Russ Herrold -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
