[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[Neill Cox]

Absent pre-compiled updates it doesn't seem terribly useful to me either.

I can evaluate it for free, but I can't legally use it for free after that
evaluation.

In fact it seems that Red Hat's support rep uses the same definitions as
Chris:

Me: "So, essentially we can't run RHEL without a subscription?"
> Her: "If you actually run RHEL you have to have a valid subscription
> period. The machines will not die, but you will be in breach of using
> the agreement of the service. You will stop getting updates after this
> time, no security bug fixes and stuff, but once you renew the
> subscription, it will open again."
>

So at least two people on this list and one RH support rep seem to be using
the same definition of "run" :)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM, James Polley <clug at zhasper.com> wrote:

[SNIP]


> It's not true iff you define "run" as "be able to get pre-compiled
> updates".
> Only one person uses this definition - you.
>
> Under any sensible definition of "run", lana was correct.
>
>  <https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux>
>

Disclaimer:  I really like Red Hat as a company.  They got me started with
Linux and they contribute massively to the FOSS community.  I wish more
companies were as well behaved as them.