If Redhat or anyone else chooses to charge for a service, I can't see the
problem. If they made it hard to get updates manually I would be pretty
upset, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think some folks miss the difference between "free" and "free".
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Martin wrote:
>
> > Someone mentioned that there was an article recently (like yesterday I
> > think, on freshmeat?) saying something about DeadRat plans to charge a
> > subscription fee for updates... I didn't read the article so I'm not sure
> > how serious it was. Anyone else see it? I'll ask my colleague later where he
> > found it..
>
> redhat are now charging for their "automated update service" it comes
> with priority ftp and you can update a gaggle of servers as one... the
> individual rpms will still make it onto ftp sites everywhere, but the
> automation, support and QOS are what RH are now charging for...
>
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
