[Pc_Support] Generic Linux question ....

[Bryan J. Smith]

Whaxiac Patrick <pberry2 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I did not mention, but, should, that I was running RedHat
> 9.0 when the free update and user networks were shut down
> with a short warning.

Red Hat did _not_ "shut down" free access, despite what most
people believe.  Red Hat _continued_ to provide updates
through the Red Hat Network (RHN) through the end-of-life of
Red Hat Linux 9.0.  Further "legacy" updates for Red Hat
Linux 9.0 are now located on a different server.  It takes 1
configuration change to the Up2Date service to target this
new server.

The RHN servers still provide 100% *FREE* updates to current
Fedora Core relases via Up2Date.  YUM is the preferred
method, especially starting with Fedora Core 5 because the
Anaconda installer now allows you to dynamically add Internet
repositories during install.  But Up2Date was and still is
offered for legacy RHN access.

> That served as a notice to the 'free' users, who were the
> beta test group for RH products,

Red Hat has a 2-3 month cycle of each:  
- Rawhide (now known as Development)
- Beta (now known as Test)
- Release

That goes into building a new revision.  The early revisions
that adopt new versions are very unstable and flaky.  The
latter revisions that include more stable versions of the
same relases are definitely less buggy.

So after 2-4 revisions, a "fixed" Enterprise version is spun.

The old golden rule was _never_ atop a ".0" revision of Red
Hat Linux -- trust the first .1 revision.  In similar
fashion, Fedora Core has basically become _never_ atop an
"even" version (e.g., 2, 4) of Fedora Core -- wait for the
next "odd" (e.g., 3, 5) version.

> that we were no longer necessary to the great commercial
> enterprise that Red Hat wanted to become.  

Again, _false_.  Red Hat had been offering an "enterprise"
distro release since Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E".

The second release was Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 (later
known as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1) based on Red Hat Linux
7.2.

The 3rd was RHEL 3 based on Red Hat Linux 9.

The 4th was RHEL 4 based on Fedora Core 3.

Red Hat no longer charges for Red Hat Linux because it was
chump change.  The name change was because of trademark. 
They don't certify applications against the 6 month revisions
because most vendors stopped doing such once Red Hat
Enterprise Linux came out, released every 18 months.

Make no mistake, Red Hat employees who work on Red Hat
Enterprise Linux _also_ work on Fedora Core because there is
a 1:1 package relationship.  Without the creation, regression
testing, integration testing and roll-out of Fedora Core
packages, there are *NO* equivalents in Red Hat Enterprise
Linux.

> A year later, Fedora Core was released.

Huh?  Red Hat Linux 10 became Fedora Core 1 after the first
beta.  It was only 8 months after Red Hat Linux 9's release
-- on target for a 6 month revision, but Red Hat took 2
months

> But, once burned, twice shy.  

Huh?  How were you "burned"???

Red Hat's _formal_ and _official_ policy since Red Hat Linux
7.2 was that Red Hat Linux releases would _only_ be updated
for 12 months.  Red Hat actually had a similar policy since
versions earlier, but during Red Hat Linux 6 and early into
7, they supported a few versions as long as 3 years.

Fedora Core today has a similar policy that results in about
12-15 months of "current" support before going "legacy." 
E.g., Fedora Core 3 is over 13 months old and still supported
as "current" (although that should change within the next
month).

> Thousands of beta testers/contributors to the RH bugtrack
> made the same decision.

Not true!  There is *MORE* support for Fedora than there ever
was with Red Hat Linux!  In fact, Fedora Core _formalized_
how non-Red Hat employees could have a say in Fedora Core's
development.  A number of Debian maintainers are now involved
in Fedora's development.

But make no mistake, although there is a meritocracy-based
leadership steering committee, Fedora Core has and will
always exist to set the technology for the next Red Hat
Enteprise Linux release.

> I was already gone.  And, won't be back.  Too many other
> fantastic options, more closely suiting my personal needs
> in computers. 

That's fine, but just don't get your facts on Red Hat so
_wrong_.

Just because it doesn't have the Red Hat(R) trademark on it
doesn't mean it's not every bit as Red Hat Linux was.

> But, thanks for your definitions, and the descriptions.

I'm just sorry they went so ignored.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)