Am 26. Sep, 2000 schwäzte Jason so:

> Rod Roark wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Lucas Vogel wrote:
> > > http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=327308
> > > I don't know about you guys, but I think Red Hat deserves credit for their
> > > work. I think it's a great idea.
> > Umm... they're going to give me a "managed stream of innovation"?
> > Dunno what that means, don't think I want to.
> 
> Basically, it means they will be the ones deciding that its critical
> that you get that latest patch to wu ftp, but that you may not

That's my specific beef. Security updates should be free (speech *and*
beer) for all. Type of support contract, number of machines, phase of the
moon and whatever else are irrelevant :).

> necessarily need that ultra-cool patch to sasteroids. Its doubtful

Ah, that's what I see somewhat as value add. For that I would prefer free
at least to non-commercial. Best would be free for all. Support is for if
something breaks. The differences here are hard to determine, so charging
for feature updates isn't so bad. Paying for non-security related bug
fixes sucks, but I will admit that everybody is right and RedHat is a
company needing to pay employees and take care of those other
company-based expenses and it is supposed to actually turn a profit, so
I'll back down some :). I'll also continue to say debian kicks their butt
because all updates are free (on both counts) ;-).

I won't back down, however, from lambasting them if they don't actively
promote making security updates easily obtainable, e.g. now that they've
got a network-based update mechanism it should work for everybody for
security updates.

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
#  der.hans@LuftHans.com   home.pages.de/~lufthans/   www.Opnix.com
#  You can't handle the source! - der.hans