On Wednesday 13 July 2005 01:28 pm, Steven Jones wrote: > I think (legally) you have to pay for the subscription whether you > patch or not....... That's already been answered; I agree with Ed. > There are RHEL copies like whitebox?, but if your clients are > thinking along these lines I would suggest Debian or Fedora. If someone is looking at Red Hat; if someone is experienced with Red Hat, or even if just the Var/Consultant is familiar with and knows Red Hat, why would you recommend something totally non RH-like (Debian) or something so fast moving you can't keep it updated and secure longer than a year or so, instead of a free-source compile of something you're already familiar with? Perhaps you have a good reason, but it doesn't make sense to me. > Or better yet don't deal with these clients.....I would walk away if > clients asked me that..... So what you say is you'd walk away from clients looking for free open source software? After all, that's what CentOS is, and that's what RHEL should (except for a few files) be. We're very happy to support our clients as long as they don't ask us to do anything illegal. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services 1254 So Waterman Ave., Suite 50, San Bernardino, CA 92408 Our blists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 909 266-9209, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"; -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
