On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 21:04, Ed Wilts wrote: > So...to answer the question about how this compares to RHEL WS, I > believe the answer is simply this: it *IS* RHEL WS - the documentation, > the CDs, everything says it is RHEL WS. The only difference is the level > of support you get. Ironically, when all is said and done, it sounds like RHPW is actually *more expensive* than purchasing WS. Particularly when you consider the maintenance life cycle. Who wants to pay $99/year for one year of patches when you can pay $179 up-front for 5 years of patches? Heck, you might as well go with ES for SMP and server patches for $349. Hmm... -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
