Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:56:31PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> 
> > OTOH, I can't justify the expense of RHAS for a dual-Opteron box
> > that sells for < $3K.  I'd happily pay for ES Basic, but the 4GB
> > RAM restriction has to go -- AMD64 doesn't keep Ingo up at night.
> > [The WS page does not list a 4GB restriction ...].
> 
> Since I'm not building crippled kernel packages, I suspect
> the memory and cpu limits are just _support_ limitations.

I don't doubt that it would work fine; I was questioning whether it was
a violation of the license under which the product (software+support)
is sold to use it in a configuration that exceeds the supported limits.
Of course, I would not expect support for such a configuration.  OTOH,
if I can reproduce a problem after removing some memory sticks or
booting with mem=4G, I'd like support if I've purchased WS or ES at the
Standard level.  ["I" in this context denoting my role in recommending and
deploying technology for corporate use, not my personal workstations and
servers, though like most, I like to run what I recommend to others ...]
This is no different than what one expects when using self-compiled
kernels or modules, etc.

When I said "crippled", I was referring specifically to divergence
between RHLP and RHEL; I hope that, e.g., the kernels that show up in
RHLP don't have too many interesting bits missing relative to the RHEL
kernels.

In any case, I'm content to see how the relationship between RHLP and
RHEL evolves before leaping to any conclusions.

Regards,

	Bill Rugolsky


--
Taroon-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list