Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Announces Product EOL Calendar
BrunoC writes "Looks like Red Hat is getting a little Microsoftish and is quietly introducing its brand new 12-month-only Errata. Quoting The Reg: 'Red Hat's current death list EOLs RH 7.1-8.0 at the end of this year, while 6.2 and 7.0 get theirs as of the end of March.' You can read the whole article here." I don't see how this is "Microsoftish" -- the code Red Hat creates or includes is still GPL, and you can pay anyone willing to fix it. They're not required to support it forever :)
They are a company afterall. You can't expect them to support all their products for an indefinite amount of time. They would go bankrupt!
Pardon me, but if using short product support policies is "microsoftish", then Redhat is more microsoftish than Microsoft itself. Last time I checked, support for Windows 95 was dropped on December 31 and support for Win2000 will be dropped in 2008. That's 8 YEARS per product with a possibility of extening support for corporate customers.
I do not recall Redhat supporting any of their distro releases for 8 years.
noob - "I am having a problem with USB..."
RH person - "What version are you using?"
noob - "Uhh... version 5.0 I think..."
RH person - "FUCK OFF AND UPDATE YOUR SHIT MAN!!! IT IS FREE!!!"
It isn't like anyone was paying for their distros anyway.
The whole concept behind Open Source is that selling service is the way to make money. However, when no one is paying you and demanding your services even still, there's got to come a point where you realize that your "customers" are simply taking advantage of you.
Bravo, Redhat. For finally realizing that money doesn't come from beggars. Now maybe my RHAT shares will be a shit.
I have been pwned because my
Um, seriously. End-of-lifing a product is just a plain good idea, whether you're talking about open source, closed source, or something that isn't even computer software. In the real world, it costs way too much to keep a support infrastructure in place for a product that is only being used by a small amount of the population due to its having become "obsolete" (even if only as a marketing matter). While it sucks to be one of the people who still uses the product and doesn't want to upgrade, there's really no alternative but to cut people off eventually.
One of the virtues of free software is its rapid development/update cycle. Why would should a company based on this development model sell software as if it were never updated?
I don't see how this is "Microsoftish"
Maybe that's because you don't have to admin anything important. An annual upgrade treadmill is a huge burden on IT staffs that have to prototype and test rollouts for upgrades. There is a reasonable support timeframe between zero and indefinite and one year is not it.
No one pays? My employer shells out a few grand a year for enterprise RHN...
"I don't see how this is "Microsoftish" -- the code Red Hat creates or includes is still GPL, and you can pay anyone willing to fix it. They're not required to support it forever :)"
I think the more important question is. Why is everyone so gung ho about seeing every RH action as "Microsoftish"? As many have already argued RH couldn't be another Microsoft. Has Microsoft scared us all so bad that we jump at the slightest movement by a commercial company? What about all the other commercial companies out there? Aren't they doing something "Microsoftish", or is it just RedHat?
Since three years warranty on server hardware seems to be not uncommon, possibly this is the thin air Redhat seem to have plucked this number from?
It's nice to know that when you get your shiny new 8-way Xeon with untold amounts of RAM you'll be able to leave it in production for the span of its warranty without having to worry about re-installing due to the OS release on it being EOL'ed.
Where this falls down is twofold: 1) servers are still useful well past three years, whether they're warrantied or not, and 2) some vendors for extra money will extend warranties up to five or so years (my employer has started buying Dell boxes with five year warranties pretty much as standard).
Come on, Timothy, that was cheap :-) Of course it's "Microsoft-ish" because it forces companies who want support to upgrade. Yeah, sure, you still have the source code, but in a company that doesn't mean anything if you're not getting support. Half the reason why Red Hat is so popular (over the "free beer" Linuxes like Debian) is because when a company puts it on their systems, they can be assured of getting professional support. This is really important for the PHBs of the world - they don't want to hire some in-house hacker with tattoos and spikey hair to "support" their installation.
Of course, even though it is Microsoft-ish, i don't think that's a bad thing. Forcing your clients to upgrade is better all round - it's better for the economy because it's creating sales which lead to more R&D spending, plus you can ensure your clients are running the latest version which should cut down on the bugginess or flakiness of their software. If Microsoft had had a more aggressive "push upgrades onto the client" scheme, all the internet problems we saw last week wouldn't've happened, because everyone would've been running patched SQL Servers anyway.
I got a sig so you would remember me.
Maybe the word 'quietly' is what's microsoftish. But actually Microsoft is quite vocal about end-of-life announcements hoping to spur new sales of the latest product suites. Actually, the poster really should reference Oracle, whom is the master of desupport notices; often on the order of 'this product will self-destruct in ten..nine..'.
I guess Red Hat is being microsoftish by trying to make a profit (maybe someday), or trying to keep the majority of it's users somewhere in the middle of the bell-curve (you spend 90% of your time supporting 10% of your users who refuse to upgrade), or maybe it's the windowsupdate.com like ability to patch over the web.
I think they're more Microsoftish than you may think, and I say 'right on!'.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
One of the major reasons to choose RedHat is their reliability. Thouroughly tested software you can rely to have on your server for at least a year without having to worry about it except for bug- and securityfixes.
Ok, 7.1 is rather old, but discontinuing support for 8.0?
IMO professional distros should always support their latest, and their last major release, so in RedHats case 8.x and 7.3, and not drop support for 7.3 until 9.0 is out.
After all, support is, like, the thing theiy make money in the first place!
my
I think that one of the major beefs against Microsoft is that they require you to PAY to upgrade to the latest version. I don't see that dropping errata support for something that will cost you a grand total of $0 (if you have fast net access) or a few bucks to get new discs from one of the cheapbytes-type places out there.
Personally, I'd rather see them drop the old support in favor of providing a higher level of service to the paying customers. (This isn't a dig on their service, which I think is great - we're paying customers at work, and RHN is a tremendous tool.)
This ISN'T microsoft-ish. Microsoft atleast supports their products for a little while. What this is, is a company screwing the living hell out of the community that's supported it. I've sat here and sold personal version after personal version alot with errata accounts to clients because a) cheaper b) would be supported for quite some time with good security updates and wouldn't always require upgrades to continue to use their other products.
/. apparently didn't like). I've started installing Gentoo on my workstations here already and within the next 4 weeks my redhat boxes will be gone as well.
Now I have to turn around and tell them that Redhat changed it's game plan and convert each one of these clients over, or let them continue to pay me to constantly upgrade their network just to keep them within their errata entitlements. I for one....basically said to hell with redhat about 5 hours ago (incidently right after I submitted my story that
Face it people, the people like "us" have made redhat and they just turned their back on us for the corperate world.
Don't get me wrong, I have NO problem with end of life, but 1 year for what's there now. The woman I spoke with at Redhat (yes I did research it directly with the company not just reading what nimrods say) she said that after this first round, there's going to be another change. Anyone using personal or the "free" version (and probably the professional) will ONLY be eligable for errata during the time that the release they are using is current. As soon as they release another version, errata for the older is gone. In other words, since redhat releases usually twice a year....that would me 2 upgrades a year just to keep yourself up2date. Screw that.
It becomes microsoftish when an upgrade is not a free download away.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
That would make sense except for the fact that it invalidates the very reason for RH's existence, which is to provide precisely that sort of service. People who buy RH are the ones least likely to maintain the code.
"I don't see how this is "Microsoftish" -- the code Red Hat creates or includes is still GPL, and you can pay anyone willing to fix it. They're not required to support it forever :)"
But isn't that what you're paying RedHat for when you buy support from RedHat? By cutting their support, they're cutting the one service that paying customers actually want (unless they buy the software as a donation). MS just patched NT4, which has been out since '95 or so, and you're criticizing MS and excusing RedHat. Give me a break.
Vote for Pedro
Yeah, as the product responsible for Linux I can sure see myself explaining this to my boss (who is very pro-free software): Er, yeah mate. We just hire a bunch of hippies if Red Hat support runs out on the server products we run. I'm sure Oracle will be more then happy to support our home modified kernel sources. Sure a great career move on my side.
Sorry, this is just plain dumb and makes me wonder if Red Hat indeed is a good choice for this company. We are talking of a major divison of one of the biggest logistics companies worldwide.
A one year time frame is just plain unacceptable in a corporate environment.
I think it very much depends how Red Hat handles this on their enterprise level support contracts.
(I read the part about the three year life cycle for their "advanced server" products. Which ,imo are just a scam in the first place).
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Different things.
MS requiring an upgrade is forced because no one else can support or fix bugs or security issues on old Windows or MS-DOS versions.
Red Hat is just stopping their own support for old versions, but anyone else can fix their bugs or security issues, and support it, because they have the source code to it.
No one's forcing an upgrade on Red Hat's half.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
I agree with your post. Honestly, I don't generally like much that MS does on the business side, but product support is one that seems _fairly_ reasonable (at least in the OS realm). Really, '95 support just expired...that's a long time to support a piece of junk.
.spec file. Upgrade yourself, or even better, setup your own local RHN server to roll them out for you. You don't have to patch things like Evolution (not installed on your servers anyway, right??) on a server, just the security related errata!
I also don't think that a year is unreasonable for RedHat to support an OS for...especially considering we're talking about Open Source products here. Really, RHN/up2date is nice, but not a necessary component.
There are two things to consider here.
1) Home users: who cares if they have to D/L a new ISO every 12 months...sure, it'll cut into the pr0n allowance, but no biggie (sorry dial-up users, you'll have to shell out $5+shipping for a disc).
2) Corporate users: upgrading servers is a pain. It's done as little as possible. Open Source is great in this situation. Upgrade on a package by package basis. It's fairly easy to build an RPM...especially when a lot of projects include the
And to top it off, corporations should be using Advanced Server anyway, or have the $$ to pay RedHat for some on-the-side support deal...this happens all the time.
Even a non-RedHat supported RedHat is still a very maintainable system.
-Ben
Why not tie the EOL for redhat desktop products to the vailidity of of the RHCE for it? For corporates, its going to be very hard to get approval for certification training if you know the EOL of the product is less than the period of the certification (I recall the figure of 2 major releases being mentioned by the instructor). This could damage RedHat's rep in the training market (one of their key publicity points in the last few years).
I'm surprised that people are still running RH6.0. It's far less secure than 7.x or 8.0. The desktop (and server environment) are much better as well. Sure there are some libc5 legacy apps but there's really no excuse for a server to be running it. Upgrade or do a fresh install and use the newer features (like journalling, LVM, iptables, 2.4 series kernels etc) because they make an immense difference. RH7.2 really should be a minimum if you are serious.
Way back in December LWN covered this and I think Alan Cox voiced his thought that people (not RedHat) may try and make a business out of support 6.2. Now there's an idea...
I mean, even Linus himself end-of-lifed the fantastic 1.2.13 kernel a long time ago.
But the RHCE program is geared towards this same "consumer" release. Current RHCE is for Redhat 8.x version and you have to get recertified every other (consumer) major release number. So, what good is RHCE? You get certified to run your home Linux box then?
I know some sites are still running Solaris 5.2 (which was de-emphasised about 5 years ago). It takes some companies almost a year to get their software really stable. Forcing them to replace their OS on a yearly basis is going to discourage movement to redhat
From a marketing (as well as technical) point of view, theis seem s like a really bad idea(tm).
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Also, cut it out with the "M$" crap.
Microsoft built its early business on porting its BASIC programming language interpreter to several 8-bit microcomputer platforms and licensing it to the computer manufacturers. In line-numbered BASIC, the name of a variable of type string ends in '$'. A valid program in "Applesoft BASIC" (the BASIC interpreter in the Apple II ROM, developed by Microsoft):
I find using a BASIC expression to refer to a BASIC vendor just as valid as using the pattern *n?x to refer to a family of operating systems whose shells recognize the name of the operating system in that glob pattern.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That would make sense except for the fact that it invalidates the very reason for RH's existence, which is to provide precisely that sort of service. People who buy RH are the ones least likely to maintain the code.
You missed the "or pay anyone you like to maintain it" part.
It turns out (I'm certain) that if you REALLY wanted M$ to support '95 for you, they would. You'd just have to fund the entire effort yourself, plus whatever profit they wanted.
Likewise for Redhat. However, there are a lot of other folks you could convince to support whatever old version you want in the case of Redhat. It's not really feasible to try to get someone else to support M$ software - not the way you'd like, anyway.
I actually worked for a company where this was done. We were paid VERY good money to support a free (as in speech) product. This back in '96 or so.
Perhaps in the real world of beanie-wearing community college graduates, yes. But in the real corporate world, there are testbed servers on which to test upgrades, patches, etc. before rolling them onto the production servers. Often times there are also redundant servers which can be taken down, upgraded, tested, and put live one at a time.
Further - there's no requirement to upgrade once/week, but at the very least keep packages less than one year stale. The Internet as a whole got a kick in the goodies this past weekend by sysadmins who wouldn't patch a software vulnerability that was more than 7 months old (and by the network admins who allowed access to the servers via the public Internet, but I digress).
If you haven't upgraded your Linux systems in 6-12 months, I'd love for you to send me your IP address(es), because I'd like to send you a few packets pertaining to;
Out in the "real world", systems administrators apply patches, fixes, and upgrades to their software regularly to avoid being used as a staging ground for one of our recent many DDoS attacks, or having their corporate data stolen.
It's the lazy, incompetent, certifications-are-king sysadmins out there who give us a bad name. They're the ones who adopt the theory that applying updates is "too hard", and claim that "things could break" which they use to justify their ignorance of best-practises security.
If your company's assets are riding on IT software and you're having trouble keeping up-to-date, talk to your vendor and ask for help. Have them justify the money you fork over to them every year and do something for you. If RedHat is your vendor, ask them for assistance in migrating your server farm from 6.0 to 8.0. If they won't give it to you, inform them that you'll find another vendor, and that you won't be spending $30k on another support contract. If you've already spent it, contact your lawyer.
"Real World" does not, nor should it ever be confused with or used to justify laziness, ignorance, or apathy. It's thinking like that that got us into our present state of dissaray.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
how about: 8/0 is obsolete in less than a year, but 8.1 isn't even out of beta yet!
Unlike Windows, Unix people are often used to running their machine for more than a year without a reboot. When you have to upgrade your OS more often than you would (otherwise) have to reboot it, there's something wrong with the EOL calendar.
My roommate (along with lots of other MS-bound friends) is still running win98. My box dual boots to '95. If this were done on the RH calendar, our OSs would have been EOL'd 5-7 years ago.
NOT going to replace their OS every year. OS boasts aside, things still break in the move. If I weren't a geek I'd have absolutely no interest in going through migration sickness every 10-14 months. As long as this calendar stands, there's no way that I can realisticly encourage friends and clients to move to RedHat. For some of them, it's going to take more than a year to convince them to change over. Providing a moving target simply makes things that much harder.
Can you understand the consternation of a non-geek friend running 7.1 being forced to move to 8.0 (the 8.1 beta refused to recognize his new HD) -- knowing that the OS is going to be obsolete by the end of the year? good reason to go ballistic.
This is one big step away from getting a solid foothold on the desktop.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
I suspect that's why they are releasing Advanced Workstation
It's suprising that some folks are just now finding this out. I noticed this a while back while trying to get a decent fix for the fubar xinetd package Redhat is pushing on its pre-8.0 distros.
I was really suprised by this since a long lifespan is the one thing that RedHat had over Mandrake (Mandrake's product lifespan is 2 years from date of initial release..) I don't know about the rest of you, but I have servers running right now with 2 years of uptime..some are in the same city as me, some are colocated in other cities. I can't upgrade these systems without either flying to the colocation site or having them mailed to me.
I came to precisely the same conclusion as the folks in this article. If you're using Linux on a server, it's stupid to use anything other than Debian. The commercial distros NEED you to upgrade, whether or not there are any compelling new features in their new versions. The Debian developers could care less about you buying a new set of CDs every six months.
It's pretty funny that RedHat seems to be following right in Mandrake's footsteps here. It will be a great boon for virus writers if they really do drop support for all those 7.2 installs out there...but I can't imagine that serious sysadmins will put up with this for very long.
Real businesses, with thousands of servers, can not upgrade every year. Besides the actual time to do the work of upgrading, there is testing that must be done when you have real money at stake, downtime caused by the upgrade, etc.
I work for a real company. I can't use an unsupported operating system. I can't upgrade every machine every year. I can't even upgrade to the latest and greatest (e.g. RedHat 8 and Solaris 9 are out of the question), because it is too untested. These are the business realities, not factors that I or any other individual have control over. A single incident (e.g. a server crashes and whatever sort of failover is in place does not work) can cost more money than my yearly salary. A single hiccup (e.g. a 1 second network outage for a single machine) can cost more than my paycheck.
Sun at least makes guarantees that binaries that worked on previous versions of Solaris will work on new versions. (If they pass a test suite). RedHat makes no such guarantee.
I thought I was making real progress to replacing Solaris servers with Linux servers. But with this announcement, I don't know what to do. If I deploy RedHat, I am adding a substantial (and mostly hidden) cost and risk. RedHat seemed like the logical choice, but my next course of action is going to be to investigate alternate supported Linux distros (IBM, Sun).
You can't? Just guessing here, but I bet you use linux in your dormroom or your bedroom.
In April, a co-worker and I upgraded roughly 15-20 machines from RH 6.1 to RH 7.2. We don't have IT staff as such, we are both scientists in academia who happen to know a fair bit about system admin. We work in an academic environment.
Our 15-20 machines are all slightly different. They all needed to have certain config files backed up and restored. They each have a different person with different skills and different requirements sitting in front of them. So, how did it go?
The first machine probably took 2 hours of fairly close attention to install. Everything had to be documented so we could reproduce it. Then, I used that machine for a few weeks, noting what else needed to be tweaked and installed. Then, one by one, we installed the OS on the other machines. This process took about 2-3 weeks and took say 30-60 minutes of real work per machine including the updates. Then the users got a hold of them. One person notices that program X doesn't exist anymore. Another notices Y doesn't exist. Someone else notices that xvscan doesn't work, so we have to figure out how to use xsane. This continues for a month or more, each time requiring one of us to install more software on the systems and test it out. The first machine (mine) is determined to be completely out of sync due to different choices in the installer, so it is done from scratch.
I highly doubt this is a "rare case." These are just desktop machines, not even mission critical servers (although one was a web/db server).
I sure don't look forward to repeating this excercise in January 2004. If Red Hat's options are a 12-month upgrade cycle or $800/machine, we'll find some other company. But, their promised corporate desktop may be the answer for us if its priced reasonably.
If you're trying to purchase a few dozen (much less a hundred or a thousand) desktop machines for corporate rollout, it's going to take you a few months to get the budget approved. Then you spend a month or two on the RFQ and RFPs, another month or so going through them, and another month or so finalizing the decision. Add on the order time, receiving time, and software installation/configuration time, and you're hitting 9-12 months before they're even hitting a user's desktop.
So you've got a good chance that by the time your users first turn on a RedHat desktop, the support has been dropped.
Congratulations, RedHat, you just knocked yourself out of competition for the corporate desktop. With Mandrake dead, that leaves SuSE as the only real contender for a corporate solution on the desktop.
On the server side, consider that it typically takes at least a year for third-party vendors to certify a distro as "supported" for their products. Sometimes it even matters -- Sybase 12.5 would only run on a certain patch level of RedHat 7.1 last time I tried it (Mandrake 8.1, 8.2, and SuSE 8.0 could not even prepare the storage space for the database without crashing, much less run a server.)
I know that most corps are going to have special contracts set up for support, but that doesn't help those of us on the development or consulting side of things who don't have the budget to pay for full AS licenses just to get a system that doesn't need to be rebuilt annually.
If I want to rebuild systems annually, I'll go back to Microsoft-based development -- there's more work supporting that junk anyhow.
I do buy full distros to support the vendors -- and end up spending far more on Linux distros per year than I ever did on Microsoft products as a result. I have RH 5.2, 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, Mandrake 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, SuSE 8.0 and 8.1 -- all full box sets at $75-100 each. Even when I don't install them, I buy kits just to help keep the companies I believe in afloat.
I sure don't appreciate RH trying to rip me off as payback. Even with RH normal pricing, who in their right mind is going to pay $150 for a full current release of RH, for which you only get a few months update support, vs. buying a generic copy of the disks for $20 plus shipping and paying less than $150 for a full year of RH update support? Such nonsense would be why RH 7.1 was the last distro of theirs I bought or installed -- I don't believe in their model anymore.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You're a fool. You've been bamboozled into believing that everything has to be a commercial solution or it's worthless, dead, or unsuccessful. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: (sing along, kids!)
/. are not buying music and movies. thats why we would rather run anything at all but MS operating systems. And that is why we would rather code opensource than closed. The playing field is a place of crossfire and even friendly fire, so no matter what position you take, somebody will believe (not just think, believe) you to be wrong. Trust me.
Communism sucks for governments, but it works great for groups of people with a common goal!
That's right, kids...opensource is good for you. It lets you give your time to the group, or COMMUNE, and give back the results of your productivity to the masses for equal division! and the great thing about software is, that unlike the finite products that software corporations wish it to be, can be copied effortlessly countless times, with little distribution cost to anyone!
So let's all try a nice big glass of Communism today, and stop worrying about whether Capitalism is going to benefit from our pinko operating system!
but seriously, this whole copyright and software thing is just like the cold war all over again, except this time everyone who has actually researched their stuff realizes that there's far more atrocities on the pro-IP side than the commie rat bastards they want you all to think us OSS people are. I could say generic "when you support..." joke, but its no joke. thats why so many of us here on
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Large clients (e.g. banks) have the clout to ensure that once they select a hardware platform with a large provider like IBM, Dell, or Compaq, they will continue to get identical hardware on subsequent orders, even after the regular consumer can no longer order the components.
The same applies to the software they run. End of life to a large corporation only means that the general public can't get support for the product and is forced to upgrade; corps keep getting support for as long as they are paying enough.
Most corps I've worked for are running software that no one would even think of buying or installing anywhere else. It's all about maintaining compatability, and lock-stepped upgrades of entire farms of corporate systems. Even applying a software patch for the OS requires regression testing of third-party and internally-developed software that the OS vendor often does not have access to.
The last large client I worked for takes about three months to determine if an OS patch can be rolled out. Until then, you live with the problems caused by the OS bug, even if that means getting paged every morning to restart servers, or that users are going to have to put up with periodic dead sessions.
Absolutely nothing is more important to a large corp than data integrity. Not the sanity of the support staff, the profit margins of the vendors, or the "improvements" of a newer OS release. Nothing is allowed to change that might risk the data, and making changes without proper verification and authorization is a firing offense -- no matter whether they eventualy apply the update you forced or not.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.