Progeny To Offer Support For Red Hat 8.0 and 9 214
zerocool^ writes "In a previous story it was noted that Progeny would offer support to Red Hat 7.2 and 7.3 customers facing an End of Life deadline of 31 December 2003. Progeny has updated their 'transitional software' offerings to include support for Red Hat 8.0 and 9 for $5 per month, per machine. This is great news for IT folks who are faced with the choice of a new OS or abandoned 1-year-old software."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:redhat (Score:5, Funny)
When Redhat EOLs its products after a year, they're doing so to remain competitive in a changing marketplace, or something like that.
When Microsoft EOLs its products after 6 or 7 years, they're doing it to force customers into upgrades.
This is Slashdot, remember...
Re:redhat (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed the point in this article. Whem Microsoft EOLs its products, YOU HAVE NO ALTERNATIVES. When RH EOLs its products, you can turn to any company willing to offer support.
Since the source code isn't available for Windows, you just don't have that option. Therefore, Microsoft has a much higher responsibility with how it handles product lifecycles.
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Home to a million Microsoft astroturfers and trolls, all desperate for their daily fix of Linux news...
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Gimme a break. You know damn well that RedHat wishes they were in Microsoft's place, pressing the boot down on Sun's head just as MSFT is now. This "yay RedHat" crap is all just ignora
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Re:redhat (Score:2, Funny)
Re:redhat (Score:5, Insightful)
You Red Hat apologists are worse than the Mac fanatics. Can you possibly come up with a worse analogy than that? Red Hat 9 is less than 1 year old and will cease to receive security updates as of the end of April! That's like announcing you'll no longer be able to get parts or service for your 2003 Ford Explorer after April. Oh, and your support warranty? Sorry, that's going to be discontinued, but we'll give you a discount on upgrading to one of our new 2004 Ford Expeditions with the extended warranty coverage for your trouble. People that actually buy into Red Hat Enterprise Linux are morons if they think Red Hat won't do this to them again. How will you like your shiny new copy of RHEL 3 when you find out it'll be EOL'd in a year and you'll be forced to upgrade to RHEL 4 if you want to continue to get basic security updates? Even Microsoft is a LOT better than that. Windows 2000 came out in 1999 and still is updated quite frequently. I have some serious decisions I need to make within the next few months. Do I want to continue with this Linux experiment or go back to a tried and proven company that respects their customers like Microsoft. I can't afford to reinstall my OS every year... Sorry Red Hat, but you lose my business.
Re:redhat (Score:2, Insightful)
But you knew this, of course, and just left it out for rhetorical reasons.
Re:redhat (Score:2, Informative)
SuSE is _not_ limited to home user needs, government bodies and city administrations use it. Ever heard of Munich?
Re:redhat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Re:redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
What was there to buy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have loved to have thrown a few hundred dollars a
Re:What was there to buy? (Score:2)
Redhat EOL'd 6.2 in March of this year is hardly suddon there has been 6 releases since 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9 since then.
I would have loved to have thrown a few hundred dollars at redhat over the last few years. They walked away from the table.
Sounds like you walked away first. You said you made t
Re:What was there to buy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat gave me 3 months between the announcement of 6.2 desupport and the up2date cutoff date; I moved most everything to OpenBSD at the end of March.
Feel free to justify Red Hat's actions if
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Watch out! Don't use Fedora for business. Goodness knows where they got their libraries from, but it's not Enterprise worthy. Want stability? Fork over some cash and we'll give you the real deal.
Re:redhat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
Some in the Linus community don't understand why it's not making more headway onto the corporate desktop. The reason is that the vast majority of corporate computer users are like the people they show in those stupid Office 2003 commercials. They wear button-downs w/ ties, they work in big sterile buildings, and they want their software to have an easy-to-use GUI to lead them through their work. And this goes even more for the C-level people who make the IT spendin
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Re:redhat (Score:2)
I'm also not sure why people think Linux should be making any faster inroads into corporate America... Your point on inertia is exactly correct.
Seems to me if you step out of the trees and look at the whole forest, "we're
Re:redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:redhat (Score:2)
you are asking the wrong question. (Score:3, Interesting)
As the current situation proves, what Red Hat sells has value. Because anyone can step up to the plate and make things work, someone will. Because Red Hat has something of value the company will continue to have value, even if the worst things you might say about what they are doing were true.
Of course, they have not really dumped anything. The last two interviews that Slashdot had with Red Hat CEO
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought one of the purported advantages of Linux was to avoid the Microsoft upgrade cycle? It seems that you've just replaced one upgrade cycle with another more agressive upgrade cycle, totally ignoring the fact that there is a cost to upgrading, even if you pay nothing for the OS.
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Rebooted Windows in the past week? What are you talking about? I haven't rebooted my Win2k box for a month now, and never gotten a virus (thou
Re:redhat (Score:2)
Re:What integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
that decided to suddenly drop support for their product not even a year later?
I am trying hard to resist flaming, but you are an idiot. For 50th time since this story broke, RedHat announced there would only be one year of support for 9 when it was released. That's right, when it was released.
I don't care how much you and every other "RedHat sucks, RedHat has no integrity" moron weren't paying attention. They clearly announced their intentions, and started promoting the RHEL line at that time.
You are free to disagree with RedHat's move, but all of this anti-RedHat FUD is really disgusting.
Re:What integrity? (Score:2)
I don't remember any of the particulars (I've only ever installed redhat because people seem to be familiar with it, so if I get hit by a bus someone else can step up to the plate) but how loudly was it announced? Did it say "This product will only be supported for one year" on the box? Or
Re:What integrity? (Score:3, Informative)
You're right - it *is* important. Most companies seek to talk down bad news, but where they owe a duty of care to their customers it pays to make things clear, and I don't think RedHat did that very well.
In particular, while Red Hat did put out the EOL statement reasonably early, they did not say what was going to happen to Red Hat Linux until Nov 3rd this
Re:What integrity? (Score:2)
Well, they were about right then. Still are.
Free version didn't go anywhere and free version has about 12-month "forced" release cycle. Why should people care if it's named "Fedora" or "Red Hat Linux"?
Re:What integrity? (Score:2)
Article Text (Score:4, Informative)
NEW! Support added for Red Hat(R) Linux(R) 8.0 & 9
Beginning January 1, 2004, Progeny will offer software updates for users of Red Hat(R) Linux(R) 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, and 9. This service is based on Progeny's Platform Services technology and will provide a flexible migration path for RHL subscribers.
Progeny Transition Service includes the following features:
* Subscribers have access to a software repository containing security updates.
* Patches will also be available via Novell(R)'s Ximian(R) Red Carpet Enterprise(TM) version 2.0.
* Subscribers will be notified of security vulnerabilities and available patches.
* Pricing is $5 per machine per month; or a flat rate of $2,500 per month for unlimited machines.
* Quotes for custom platform services are available.
* Limited to x86 support.
This service is part of Progeny's Platform Services.
Strength of OSS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2)
The difference is that most of the old stuff that MS has stopped supporting is for home/end users (like Win98).
While the kind of users who may use RH are largely a whole lot more tech savvy than those MSFT users.
This is a big difference, especially given the nature of people you would need to employ to fill these requirements (at Progeny).
Also, if you notice, the site says this -
Quotes for custom platform services are available.
Thats what interests me. I could be wrong, but I think this is a niche
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2)
I think you are quite correct. This is what I have been waiting for, and looking for. I just checked up IPCop, a specialized Linux distro for firewall because I hate having a gig of OS installed for a freaking firewall.
I read a little, and the service they are offering is interesting to me, since I have several RH9 boxes. They do not have the automation like RHN does, or any inter
Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, every time you turn around all the Linux distros have changed version. When you go to the use groups for help on an "old" version the reply is: "I don't know, but it doesn't do that in the new version." or "Yeah that was a known bug. The new version takes care of it." Thank gawd the upgrades are cheap $$. If only they were cheap in time.
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:4, Insightful)
It IS expensive to upgrade. How long does it take to do it? How much time spent is acceptable to the non-Linux fanatic user?
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2)
As if Windows didn't take time to upgrade... *plus* the purchase price. Plus a new user interface... gotta make lots of superficial changes so you think you're getting your money's worth.
The main difference is that "apt-get install apache" is so much faster and easier than procuring and installing the latest IIS. In the very best case you can use Windows Update, at which point
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2)
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2)
If you're just upgrading one or two packages, the upgrade could take as little as a minute or two.
If you're upgrading the entire OS, then it's obviously going to take a good bit longer (a couple of hours).
On the other hand, this time could be compared to how long it takes to do the periodic clean+reinstall that Win-98 seems to reqire for so many people.
The pattern of newer so
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2)
In fact, other OSs(MVS, VMS, HP3000, etc) make their profits over the last few years of life as the tech support goes to minimal amounts and few changes occur.
MS's offering support is no different than what Progeny is trying to do. MS would still be offerin
Re:Careful with the "Strength of OSS" (Score:2)
I used to push Linux big time. I helped over see two medium sized offices switch the vast majority if not all of their desktops to Linu
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2)
How many companies are stepping forward to fully support that product?
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2)
In 1998 the current version of Red Hat was 5.1.
How many companies are stepping forward to fully support that product?
First of all, there are not many customers using RedHat 5.1 mainly because upgrading to later versions didn't cost them as much as Windows. The beauty of open source is that even if there is a minority group of companies using RedHat 5.1, they can hire someone to do support and bug fixes for them.
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Strength of OSS. (Score:2)
Because if not, just because I do not update to a newer version of your OS does not mean that I should stand the risk of being r00ted. Bad idea.
But like I said in my other post, this is a whole different ballgame since in case of RH most of the customers would be organizations rather than dumbo-end users.
Or so I think.
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
There will be no up2date support initially... (Score:3, Informative)
This seems like a pretty big undertaking...I wish them luck with the resources of patching/recompiling all the packages.
Not to be too obvious... (Score:3, Informative)
$5.00/month/machine -- way to go Progeny (Score:3, Interesting)
This and the IBM Linux commercial, among other things make me feel good that these companies actually want to help out Linux.
Google (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Google (Score:2)
Re:Google (Score:2)
Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about Progeny support, but Red Hat support explained the scope of their Advanced Server support
Hope Progeny offers patch support for RHEL 3.0! (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you spend $30,000/year for unlimited patch access and you have a 4000 node linux server farm that has an expected usable life of no more than 3 years.
That's $90,000 for "lifetime" patching of 4000 machines or a $22.50 uplift on purchase price of each individual machine for lifetime patching.
Redcarpet licenses cost a whole lot more than that!
I can't wait for Progeny to offer their patching services for Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.0... oh wait... isn't Redhat Planning on making all of their money from Support?!?
Poor Redhat...
Re:Hope Progeny offers patch support for RHEL 3.0! (Score:2)
Market Opportunity (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Market Opportunity (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, though. There's no reason to use Windows 9x anymore except in very rare, special (in that warm, "special student" kind of way) scenarios.
Re:Market Opportunity (Score:2)
I have one Windows game that runs on win-95. It still runs just fine, so I'm continuing to use win95. It's a network game, so when there aren't enough people playing the game, I expect that I'm just going to reformat the C: partition, and that will be the end of using MS software at home.
Damned if I'm gonna pay $150 for a new OS just to run a $35 game.
One more good reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One more good reason (Score:2)
Re:One more good reason (Score:5, Insightful)
1) RedHat is Not Linux!
2) Debian has support well over five years, hell unstable has been unstable for what seems like five years!
3) If you are interested in staying with your existing RedHat install after the EOL, you can compile your own code or pay for a service that does it for you. When Microsoft EOL's a product, you are SOL!
4) There are quite a few RedHat Enterprise rebuild that you can download for free (Caosity, TaosLinux, WhiteBox) and use that for FREE!
5) Just because Microsoft had five years of support for their older versions of Windows doesn't mean that will continue. They seem to be pushing licensing 6.0, which seems more like leased software and they will use that to cram upgrades down peoples throats.
I could go on for quite a while, OSS has options. Windows does NOT and that is the power of OSS.
Re:One more good reason (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as running software from other companies on RedHat, there is no reason why you can't just run WhiteBox, Caosity or TaosLinux, all free RedHat Enterprise Rebuilds.
That's the point, there are options! Had you found or built or even (God Forbid) paid for your own RedHat Enterprise 2.1 then you wouldn't be having any issues with staying up to date. If you don't want to renew your service agreement after a year, simply down
Re:One more good reason (Score:2)
Re:One more good reason (Score:3, Informative)
It's basically YARHELR (Yet Another RedHat Enterprise Linux Rebuild)
Re:One more good reason (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was that the last AC didn't seem to want to have RedHat Linux for anything other than the purpose of testing some precompiled software that is for RedHat Linux. Not only would it probably run with very little work on another distro, but if you are just using Linux to learn the app there is no reason why you can't firewall and/or disconnect from the net and learn. It's not like RedHat Linux will self destruct come Jan 1st. And it's not like this won't directly apply to RedHat Enterprise or any of the many rebuilds.
Re:One more good reason (Score:2)
Naw, not a Debian geek, but not closed off to the world of Free *NIX outside of RedHat. Mostly a RedHat/OpenBSD'er actually, right tool for the right job.
Personally I opted to rebuild my own RedHat Enterprise Rebuild, have scripted and yumified my own update system for my servers and workstations.
I would have released it, but I was too lazy to sit there and remove RedHat trademarks on software they mark as GPL. Kind of fu
How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:5, Funny)
So, how good is such user support?
Say, I run an important mailing list. A random power failure, severe disk corruption, nobody really knows what works OK and what is broken, week-old backup of data, no system backup, no network, no other computer to move the harddisk, I must work with this broken system. I must get it back up and running with as much of remaining database as possible, possibly fixing any corruption. Is the user support good enough to lead me through such landmine-ridden system?
(if the above doesn't seem disastrous enough for you, think of your favourite "heavy disaster" scenario that still leaves some hope of recovery)
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:2)
When someone pays for support, what they're paying for is expertise more than anything. They want their problems fixed, and quickly. Usually it involves simply installing someone else's fix, on occasion
Not the point. My nighmare. (Score:2)
I think what users of Red Hat 8 and 9 are look
Re:Not the point. My nighmare. (Score:2)
That's OK. I'm not assaulting anyone, but let's get the scenario on.
Support: So, let's run FSCK on the broken partitions. Type
Customer: Segmentation fault.
Support Oops. We need to get FSCK reinstalled, we can't move on without it. Type rpm -i --force ftp://.../fsck-something-.rpm
Customer: Segmentation fault again.
Support: Let's see what we CAN work with then. Try ls, cd, cp, ftp, ssh, wge
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:2)
I doubt calling microsoft in order to recover your important non-backed up data after a power failure curropted the disk will be successful either.
User support tends to cover things like: "my email isn't working", "the machine spews an error message at boot", and "the internet is broken".
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:2)
$5.00 per month gets you access to the downloads, anything else is your problem.
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am trying to get some support on my Linux b
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:2)
Dunno. Maybe ask on one of the Debian lists o
Re:How is commercial Linux User Support? (Score:2)
People who get support at that level from the likes of SUN are usually paying $10,000/month for their support contract.
For a measly $5,000, I'll hunt down a copy of whatever version of Linux you're running on that box, Install it
Re:Linux User support == oxymoron. (Score:2)
Most of nerds will love solving such a challenge task. Only if 1) you can't get through to those nerds, i.e. net is down, or 2) your problem solution is really plain RTFM, you may be in trouble.
behold (Score:4, Insightful)
(I'm talking about debian stable, btw)
On the other hand, I think it's fairly dastardly and unsportsman-like for RedHat to drop support for their older products. Granted, there's a lot of stuff there to support - so why not weed out non-critical applications from the list of "supportable installations"? apache, sql, and other "enterprise-class" software?
Re:behold (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile, who would pay for user support when all you need is
Re:behold (Score:2)
Re:behold (Score:5, Interesting)
Since all heavy-duty nerds (that could handle mostly every kind of problem) have moved from RedHat (newbie distro) to Debian (zealot distro) it's pretty hard to get decent help on harder RedHat problems.
That's completely false.
Meanwhile, who would pay for user support when all you need is /join #debian on irc.debian.org, ask your question and at worst get redirected to the right RTFM.
This support is more about updated packages than someone at the other end of the phone. RedHat's planning to stop releasing security fixes, errata, or new feature (like new hardware support) RPMs for these distributions. You absolutely need those to run it well, whether you buy them from someone or build them yourself. Building them yourself would be a lot of work. Progeny feels there's enough people who want to buy them from someone to make a profitable service out of it. So they're offering one.
Actually, RedHat's CEO said in a recent interview that this was profitable. They just want to focus on the enterprise market, which is where the big bucks are. Progeny's picking up their scraps, I guess.
Re:behold (Score:2)
Let's see, if they have so much, wouldn't it be cheaper and safer for them to employ one-two really skilled hackers who can solve any problems on-site or depend on highly limited scope covered by user support services? Certain kinds of problems are just far too difficult for your average support guy and he can screw things up much worse than they are. Really mission-critical aplications call for expert sysadmins who watch over t
Go Linux!! (Score:3, Informative)
People should jump on this.
I wish the company doing this well.
More power to OSS!!
$5.00 per month? will they make money? (Score:2)
Let's try and clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
No one (except maybe a few deluded individuals) are claiming that Redhats EOL after only a year is a particularly nice thing to have happen. I'm not that happy about it, but I can push on with Fedora which actually works quite nicely, and all will be well. But the short answer is: EOL after a year is a bad thing no matter who does it. Equally, I think Microsoft supporting Windows 98 for 5 years is not a bad effort all things considered (and there will be fewer who will agree with me on that, but hey).
I think the point being made here is NOT that Redhat EOLing after a year is good, or terribly acceptable. The point is that, under this system, in the worst case if the company you are with ups stakes and moves to a different market and leaves you in the cold, you have some recourse.
I think it is great that Microsoft has provided 5 years of support for Windows 98. The catch is, if they were to decide t EOL Server 2003 tomorrow, there's not a whole lot anyone could do about it (especially given the healthy degree of lockin Microsoft has gained). I don't think that Microsoft will do that, but then we don't know. I do recall there was some fuss recently about whether the latest OS X patches were going to available for Jaguar. Had they not been, what would Apple users been left with? Or, to look at it another way, BeOS got seriously EOLd a while ago. There are some fine efforts with OpenBeOS to reconstruct it, but that's no small task, and until they manage something BeOS is effectively dead (well, okay, there's Zeta, but that was a lucky save). This is a demonstration that, in the worst case for a Linux Distro, it's not the end.
So, to reapeat: EOL - bad. Continuing Support - good.
Jedidiah.
Whats to stop... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why pay? RH7.3 - RH9 updates from Fedora Legacy (Score:2)
The only reason I'd see to pay for support is when things break... Kind of like car insurance you can buy after an accident... hmm.
You can't EOL Open Source. (Score:3, Insightful)
RedHat may be EOLing their support for 7.3, but as long as there are enough people still using it who are willing to pay the price, there will be somebody who will make critical (and even not-so-critical) patches available -- even if it has to be done in-house.
For people with (the just recently EOLed [slashdot.org]) Win/98 the options for support are .... well, I might as well just take them out to the barn and shoot them. It's not just difficult for me to provide any meaningfull support for Win'98.. If you believe their EULA, it's pretty much illegal. When MS EOL's XP, you won't even have the option of transferring to a new box/HD if something goes wrong with your hardware, because the OS will just self-destruct, and MS won't want to talk to you about it.
Another example of what happens when you trust yourself to closed soure is what happened to Israel with hebrew support on Mac Office. It's to Microsoft's advantage to get them to move to Windows instead, so they just decided to not support it on the Mac. No ammount of money that Israel offered them is going to get them to change their mind, because Microsoft wants Israel to be a Windows-only country. It has bull squat to do with cutomer service or direct profit. The country of Israel is at the mercy of Microsoft's (larger) business plan.
Isreal's answer is that they're moving to Open Office on the Mac -- but wait! OO isn't supported on OSX! That's OK. Israel can pay for a small skunk-works to get it working, and get OO's hebrew support up to snuff. No forcing anybody to do anything there... they want it, they can afford to pay someone to do it, it gets done.
QED
First Germany, now Israel... next, the world , (bwahahahaha!).
Clever but tricky (Score:2)
They have to make it very clear to their customers what exactly they are offering. Support? How much support and in what way? Will they offer security updates? Bugfixes? Updates? Helpdesk? On site consultants?
Which of them does not really matter, just as long as they communicate clear and fair what their offer comprises. Otherwise they will get a bad rep, no matter their intentio
[Insert Subject Here] (Score:3, Interesting)
I manage about 40 machines, most of which are currently running RHL 7.2 and 7.3. We are in the process of transitioning to a gentoo-based distro. A custom stage 3 tarball has been created that can be plopped onto a server and already contains the extra utilities needed as a base level for our servers (ntpd, screen, etc). I've frozen the portage tree, and are side-porting updated software that has been released as the result of a GLSA. This prevents the server set from being too "bleeding edge", while still being secure.
That being said, it'll take a good deal of time to convert 40 servers over from RHL to gentoo. The Progency announcement is great for us, it gives us a bit of insurance against a flaw coming out that we can't immediately solve. Personally, I'd like nothing more than running RHEL on our servers. RHEL focuses more on stability than new whiz-bang features, and the 5-year support life is a plus. But RHEL costs money, money we can't really justify right now. And unfortunately, our business size (small to medium) is no longer the target customer size for Red Hat's business. They're going after the 1000ish-server and 10000ish-workstation market. Again, annoyed, but at least understandable.
I see Red Hat's biggest mistake being announcing the Fedora project AFTER announcing the EOLs on RHL. If they would have announced Fedora and released Fedora Core 1, say 6 months before even announcing the EOL of RHL products, it would have eased the fears of many people. I have Fedora Core 1 running on a workstation, and it works pretty damn well IMHO. But I would not run it in a production environment yet because it's new and unproven and scary.
Secondly, the argument about RHL 9 being out less than a year before being EOLed: Red Hat DID announce that they would only be supporting RHL 9 for a short time, but they probably should have said it louder than they did. Alternatively, if they would have gotten off the ground with the Fedora project earlier like I mentioned above, RHL 9 should have become Fedora Core 1, and would have played into the above strategy.
So that's my take on this. Red Hat could have done things much differently to avoid annoying the smaller linux sysadmin, but that's all in the past now. Like it or not, Red Hat is moving in a new direction, and I wish them the best of luck. I just wish that my position didn't prevent me from moving along with them. Also, kudos to Progency for stepping up to the plate and providing transition support for these products.
By the way, it's "Red Hat". Not "RedHat". Just because the two words in their company name are short doesn't allow you to merge them together. Pretty soon you'll have people going to Slash Dot to read about AlanCox speaking out against Micro Soft
Re:'IT' folks (Score:2, Informative)
My guess is, the important part of these support contracts is not the tech hotline, but the integration of security patches into the applications, especially if those applications have distro-specific modifications.
Re:1 year old software? (Score:2)
I know you're trying to be funny, but when the software you want to run is things like Oracle that require a certain version of a certain distribution to retain your Oracle support contract then you can't go straying far from the flock. Sure, you might get Oracle installed on Debian or Slackware, but if you have ANY problems they will not support you. The only supported distributions ar
Re:1 year old software? (Score:2)
This is different, though. You can get someone else to support YOUR EXACT VERSION of Linux, which is what Progeny is doing. They aren't selling you a new OS, they are simply giving you bugfixes and security fixes to a stable, tested OS.
I would be really surprised if Oracle objected to this.
Re:1 year old software? (Score:2)
Not many people actually run the rsync server.. for those who do, I doubt that Oracle would complain about me installing the most recent copy of that.
The do_brk vuln is a bit more interesting, but I'm expecting that somebody has patches for that for kernels going a good ways back. From my reading of the story on that, I'm guessing that the patch is actually kinda small. I expect that it shouldn't be too