RE: Red Hat Network ...

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[Scott Taylor]

At 04:11 AM 3/04/03, Shaw, Marco wrote:
>OK, so I'm a RHCE, and haven't used many other distribs.

Oh!  How M$ of you to get a piece of paper saying so.

>  This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason to thrash anyone.

What?  The fact that you got a piece of paper?

>As long as RH still makes patches available for their products,

RH makes patches?  Patches for which product?

>  charging for RHN is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Businesses charging for services, hmm, I think that's the only thing you 
said here that makes and sense.

> >     and yet another reason NOT to depend on RH ...

Well put Terry, depend only on yourself.  Still, there is nothing wrong 
with RH, other than they are looking more and more like M$ every day.  Oh 
well, someone has to make money off this thing, and RH has put a lot into 
it, they deserve to get some back, as do others that back and support Linux.

So, now for all the time RHN saves me in searching for downloads to keep my 
one out ten servers up-to-date, I'm not going to whine about filling out a 
simple little survey.  I might fudge anything personal and give them my 
freemail.com address that I never check, but what can it hurt to give them 
2-3 minutes, even 10 minutes, of your time every 60 days.  Compared to the 
time I'm saving right now, as I respond to this silliness and RH updates my 
server for me, and the time it took to grab that next coffee and fill out 
some survey, it is nothing.

<snippet from previous link>
The carrots? There are implied sticks to most of these. Paid
subscribers will get instant access to ISOs as soon as they're out,
which means "no more long downloads from ftp sites, driving to the
store, or waiting for your friends to finish with their copy."
</snippet>

That doesn't sound so bad to me.  If I was running 20 RH servers, this 
would be a blessing.  Back in the days of SCO Open Server I was paying a 
large amount of money for their yearly support and updates products, not to 
mention their per-user license.  Now I do more work, serve more users on 
more servers, for next to nothing, and I even have options to go it alone, 
or choose something to save on time; excuse the cliche, time is money to me.

No, I'm not a RedHat Advocate, but I do believe in the Linux movement and 
anything that makes it easier brings more people to the cause, that's a 
good thing to me.

After reading that article on The Register: I think John Lettice has some 
valid points.  Even though, it never even crossed my mind to pay RH for 
anything other than the odd media once in a blue moon.  I doubt I would use 
anything that I didn't build as a workstation, but keeping servers 
up-to-date can be a bit of a chore and I wouldn't mind the up-to-date media 
that the author mentions to help minimize this chore.  I'd take his 
"Carrots". :)

Scott.

Re: Red Hat Network ...

[Leonid Mamchenkov]

Dear Scott Taylor,

Once you wrote about "RE: Red Hat Network ...":
ST> >>     and yet another reason NOT to depend on RH ...
ST> 
ST> Well put Terry, depend only on yourself.  

Agreed. :)

ST> Still, there is nothing wrong with RH, other than they are looking 
ST> more and more like M$ every day.  Oh well, someone has to make money
ST> off this thing, and RH has put a lot into it, they deserve to get 
ST> some back, as do others that back and support Linux.

While I can understand the feeling some people have about RedHat these
days, I certainly disagree.  RedHat is a profit-oriented company and is
very well expected to charge for something.  RedHat's product is
service.  RedHat Network is one of them.  You want a service, you pay
the money.  As simple as that.  If you just need the updates, then you
can easily get them from ftp://updates.redhat.com using either wget or
any of the numerious scripts from http://freshmeat.net .  Updates are
_FREE_, and you have the _SOURCE_ for all of them.  That's something M$
has a lot of troubles with. ;)

ST> So, now for all the time RHN saves me in searching for downloads to keep my 
ST> one out ten servers up-to-date, I'm not going to whine about filling out a 
ST> simple little survey.  I might fudge anything personal and give them my 
ST> freemail.com address that I never check, but what can it hurt to give them 
ST> 2-3 minutes, even 10 minutes, of your time every 60 days.  Compared to the 
ST> time I'm saving right now, as I respond to this silliness and RH updates my 
ST> server for me, and the time it took to grab that next coffee and fill out 
ST> some survey, it is nothing.

Actually, all comes down to money anyway.  RedHat offers a "Basic
subscription" which is only 60$ per year (
https://rhn.redhat.com/info/purchase_info.pxt ).  Now, count 10 minutes
every 60 days in the year, you get roughly 1 hour.  If you make less
then 60$ an hour, you are better of with the survey, otherwise just buy
the damn thing. :)

ST> <snippet from previous link>
ST> The carrots? There are implied sticks to most of these. Paid
ST> subscribers will get instant access to ISOs as soon as they're out,
ST> which means "no more long downloads from ftp sites, driving to the
ST> store, or waiting for your friends to finish with their copy."
ST> </snippet>
ST> That doesn't sound so bad to me.  If I was running 20 RH servers, this 
ST> would be a blessing.  Back in the days of SCO Open Server I was paying a 
ST> large amount of money for their yearly support and updates products, not to 
ST> mention their per-user license.  Now I do more work, serve more users on 

-- 
Best regards,
  Leonid Mamtchenkov, RHCE
  System Administrator
  Francoudi & Stephanou Ltd.

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[Scott Taylor]

Truly Marco,

I am very sorry for you.  I did not intend to offended you in any way, it 
was only meant as a tease, a little spark, not a big flame.  Please come 
back to us, I'm sure you have a lot to offer with or without any piece of 
paper to prove it.  I only tease you about it because I am not a big enough 
man to go out of my way, time, and money, to get my own.  I have nothing to 
prove to anyone but myself, I'm just a lone wolf.  So you see, I mean 
nothing, just to have fun.

At 07:55 AM 3/04/03, Shaw, Marco wrote:
>Top-posting again...

Yes, you are.

>Bragging?  I simply stated a fact, so that everyone understood my point of 
>view: typically RedHat oriented, mostly because of experience.

So you did.  That fact means very little except to a Resume.  Sorry, again.

>I am not a "paper-RHCE"...

Ho hum, the certificate is paper, I would never assume you were.

It still wasn't about you, you just happened to get there before me and I 
couldn't resist. ;)

Scott.

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[Scott Taylor]

At 07:41 AM 3/04/03, you wrote:
>I'm am sorry I ever subscribed to this list, posted any messages, or tried 
>to help people.  This is a linux-admin list, not a forum for complaining.
>
>As it is, I barely have spare time to try to help, and showing how much I 
>feel appreciated at this time...  Well I just feel spectacular!
>
>I'll put my few words in, as my next message will be to unsubscribe.  Any 
>further ramblings on this thread should be emailed to me personally and I 
>will reply off the list sparing others of wasted bandwidth (just like this 
>message is).
>
>GROW UP!

Oh my gosh, Marco,

You top posted, off topic, bragging about having a piece of paper; you 
really shouldn't take a little jabbing so personally.  Read the rest of the 
message, it was about RHN not you.  Sorry you take it so personally.

Scott.

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[Shaw, Marco]

I'm am sorry I ever subscribed to this list, posted any messages, or tried to help people.  This is a linux-admin list, not a forum for complaining.

As it is, I barely have spare time to try to help, and showing how much I feel appreciated at this time...  Well I just feel spectacular!

I'll put my few words in, as my next message will be to unsubscribe.  Any further ramblings on this thread should be emailed to me personally and I will reply off the list sparing others of wasted bandwidth (just like this message is).

GROW UP!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Taylor [mailto:scott@dctchambers.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: linux-admin
> Subject: RE: Red Hat Network ...
> 
> 
> At 04:11 AM 3/04/03, Shaw, Marco wrote:
> >OK, so I'm a RHCE, and haven't used many other distribs.
> 
> Oh!  How M$ of you to get a piece of paper saying so.
> 
> >  This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason to thrash anyone.
> 
> What?  The fact that you got a piece of paper?
> 
> >As long as RH still makes patches available for their products,
> 
> RH makes patches?  Patches for which product?
> 
> >  charging for RHN is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Businesses charging for services, hmm, I think that's the 
> only thing you 
> said here that makes and sense.
> 
> > >     and yet another reason NOT to depend on RH ...
> 
> Well put Terry, depend only on yourself.  Still, there is 
> nothing wrong 
> with RH, other than they are looking more and more like M$ 
> every day.  Oh 
> well, someone has to make money off this thing, and RH has 
> put a lot into 
> it, they deserve to get some back, as do others that back and 
> support Linux.
> 
> So, now for all the time RHN saves me in searching for 
> downloads to keep my 
> one out ten servers up-to-date, I'm not going to whine about 
> filling out a 
> simple little survey.  I might fudge anything personal and 
> give them my 
> freemail.com address that I never check, but what can it hurt 
> to give them 
> 2-3 minutes, even 10 minutes, of your time every 60 days.  
> Compared to the 
> time I'm saving right now, as I respond to this silliness and 
> RH updates my 
> server for me, and the time it took to grab that next coffee 
> and fill out 
> some survey, it is nothing.
> 
> <snippet from previous link>
> The carrots? There are implied sticks to most of these. Paid 
> subscribers will get instant access to ISOs as soon as 
> they're out, which means "no more long downloads from ftp 
> sites, driving to the store, or waiting for your friends to 
> finish with their copy." </snippet>
> 
> That doesn't sound so bad to me.  If I was running 20 RH 
> servers, this 
> would be a blessing.  Back in the days of SCO Open Server I 
> was paying a 
> large amount of money for their yearly support and updates 
> products, not to 
> mention their per-user license.  Now I do more work, serve 
> more users on 
> more servers, for next to nothing, and I even have options to 
> go it alone, 
> or choose something to save on time; excuse the cliche, time 
> is money to me.
> 
> No, I'm not a RedHat Advocate, but I do believe in the Linux 
> movement and 
> anything that makes it easier brings more people to the 
> cause, that's a 
> good thing to me.
> 
> After reading that article on The Register: I think John 
> Lettice has some 
> valid points.  Even though, it never even crossed my mind to 
> pay RH for 
> anything other than the odd media once in a blue moon.  I 
> doubt I would use 
> anything that I didn't build as a workstation, but keeping servers 
> up-to-date can be a bit of a chore and I wouldn't mind the 
> up-to-date media 
> that the author mentions to help minimize this chore.  I'd take his 
> "Carrots". :)
> 
> Scott.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-admin" in the body of a message to 
> majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[Shaw, Marco]

OK, so I'm a RHCE, and haven't used many other distribs.  This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason to thrash anyone.  As long as RH still makes patches available for their products, charging for RHN is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Marco

> -----Original Message-----
> From: terry white [mailto:twhite@aniota.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:20 AM
> To: linux-admin
> Subject: Red Hat Network ...
> 
> 
> 
> ... from today's register:
> 
>     "Getting Red Hat Network support for free just got harder
>      Surveyware? Egad...
>         http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29542.html"
> 
>     and yet another reason NOT to depend on RH ...
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ... i'm a man, but i can change,
>     if i have to , i guess ...
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-admin" in the body of a message to 
> majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Red Hat Network ...

[terry white]

on "3-4-2003" "Shaw, Marco" writ:

: This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason to thrash anyone.  As long
: as RH still makes patches available for their products, charging for
: RHN is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

... if you, in your opinion, choose to characterize that as a
'thrushing', so be it.  that, however, does not affect any change in my
position.

    and not to make too fine a point of it, RH does NOT make patches
available for 'their' products.  which if you'll recall, was my original
objection to dependancy on RH ...


-- 
... i'm a man, but i can change,
    if i have to , i guess ...

Red Hat Network ...

[terry white]

... from today's register:

    "Getting Red Hat Network support for free just got harder
     Surveyware? Egad...
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29542.html"

    and yet another reason NOT to depend on RH ...



-- 
... i'm a man, but i can change,
    if i have to , i guess ...