On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 21:48, Tom Diehl wrote: > On 26 May 2003, seth vidal wrote: > > > If someone at red hat is interested I'd love to talk more about it. > > it would mean existent repositories could be useful with r-c-p and > > mirror-admins wouldn't need to have multiple types of data eating up > > space for holding the package-info. > > While I would love to see yum included I cannot see it happening (someone > please prove me wrong). Last time I checked RedHat had this nice thing they call > Satelite server. I have heard that it costs approx $36,000.00 USD just for > the software. That does not include hardware or an Oracle license. I just cannot > come up with a set of conditions where Red Hat would include something like Yum > which can be setup to do basically the same thing for free. Having recently sat > through one of Red Hat's marketing sessions for "Satelite Server" the whole time > I was there I kept thinking why would anyone buy this when things like yum are > available tor free. The only reason I could come up with was that big corporate > customers like big $$$$ solutions. > So maybe I'm crazy but... the Red Hat Linux line is now considered for "home users and hobbyists" according to the info on the webpage. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for production/server/etc use. So why shouldn't devel of RHL be more influenced by the demands of the end user - the hobbyist - the more common OSS developer? Red Hat won't gain much revenue from the hobbyist user in RHL anyway - at least not through up2date/rhn. So why not include a third party updater? it also would mean the following: 1. less bandwidth used by the demo rhn/up2date users 2. easier load distribution over mirrors (newer versions of yum will be supporting neat mirroring/failover things) People don't buy RHEL just for RHN - they buy it for stable and continual security updates and a slower devel churn. -sv
