On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:25:39PM -0400, Douglas Stewart wrote:
From what I've gathered, the split between rhlp and rhel is one of
support, namely: corporate customers desire active support on a RedHat
product, they can invest in RHEL. If they don't care about support and
are comfortable performing their own maintenance, they're free to use
RHLP. Am I right so far?
There are other differences between RHL and RHEL as well, such as
features and release cycle length.
But yes, RHL has no support whatsoever.
So, if that's the case, then (while I see your points), I think
the
issues raised by RedHat employees are bunk. RH isn't going to be
"supporting" RHLP. There's no expectation of such. The calls RH
support desk employees will be fielding will be from RHEL users only
(correct?). And, since it's been admitted that RHEL is similar to, yet
not exactly the same as the intended RHLP distro, then what's the
problem? Leave the dummy installer in RHEL and give those who want the
"expert" mode exactly what they want in RHLP's installer.
I would say yes in general RHL can have a lot of stuff in it that we
aren't expecting to support.
However the issue isn't total bunk since Jeremy does have to maintain
the installer, and there's a limit to how much cruft can go in there.
He also gets bugzilla reports etc.
Some months ago I posted this document on my personal web site:
http://ometer.com/features.html
Basically, it's important to realize that "why not?" isn't a reason to
add stuff, there needs to be an analysis of "why" - if only for simple
sanity of the codebase.
(Note, I wrote the above document in a totally non-Red-Hat context.)
I agree with you that phone support in itself isn't an issue, or
perhaps is an issue only to the extent that the same code will land in
RHEL eventually.
Havoc