Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:52:54 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Miles,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Miles O'Neal wrote:
> Connie,
>
> |The RedHat difference between AS and ES is a "marketing" difference.
>
> AH. That's not how it was presented to me.
>
> |Different support. Both would work the same as it is the same kernel.
>
> I was led to believe the kernels were different.
>
> |Not sure why you think we would be based on ES. We are based on AS.
>
> I was also led to believe that AS included
> more, proprietary software. If that were
> the case, there would be no way to provide
> a full AS clone built from source without
> violating something, somewhere.
I think all the RedHat Enterprise AS, ES, WS have proprietary software.
Note that RedHat puts these items on a "Extras" disk.
We do not include them as expected.
>
> Thanks for setting things straight.
>
-Connie Sieh
|
|
|