Redhat charges now for priority FTP access & anyone that uses Redhat knows
that their public FTP server is generally difficult to get on.

Seems pretty clear that Debian is a committed free venture whereas Redhat is
and apparently always will be a commercial enterprise. Their hope is to
commercialize added value. It may very well be the thing that kills apt.

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Joel Dudley
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 6:48 AM
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: redhat tries apt-get


I am just saying that Debian provides a very robust apt-get soution for
free.  I have no problem with RedHat making money, but charging money for
updates seems weird to me.  I know you can still update manually, but why
charge for this new feature?  I would gladly pay redhat for support, but not
updates.  I mean even M$ doesnt charge for NT service packs.  Am I looking
at this thing the right way?  I am no businessman and I have nothing against
companies like RedHat finding ways to make money and putting out pretty
decent software.  But this still rubs me the wrong way.  Maybe someone could
enlighten me.

- Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucas Vogel
To: 'plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us'
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: redhat tries apt-get


So what's the big deal?
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Dudley [mailto:joel@silverw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 8:13 PM
To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
Subject: redhat tries apt-get


Looks like RH 7.0 is going to make a stab at the whole apt-get idea in 7.0,
but you have to pay for it?  What is up with that??  One more reason for me
to switch to Debian.

- Joel