On Tuesday 28 January 2003 07:34, Denice uttered: > Yes I read the page. I suppose that they mean 'the last point release' > when they refer to 'certain popular releases'. So why not just say it and > allay peoples fears (real or imagined)? I'm pretty sure that it would > correspond to the real-life situation anyway. I don't think anyone > expects Red Hat to support versions for as long as they supported 5.2, for > example. But two years for the last point release would be reasonable. Yes, but the way it's worded protects Red Hat from lawsuits if they ever go out of business. By stating that they would absolutly support foo, for bar years, they would be stuck with it, even if they ran out of money and everything, and they would be open to all kinds of lawsuits. I've talked with a few Red Hat emps, and they _had_ to drop the length of support down, because it was just getting impossible to try to support 6 different releases, across a few different archs, all while trying to make new releases, etc, etc, etc. Maybe if more people bought RHN subscriptions, or boxed sets, they could afford to bring more people in, and have the man power to support say 7.3 for a while. I also don't think anybody would be upset to see 7.3 supported, but say once 8.1 and 8.2 come out, 8.0 support being dropped. How many people continued to use 7.0 once 7.1 and 7.2 came out? -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE For Web Services and Linux Consulting, Visit --> j2Solutions.net Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
