On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Bryan J Smith wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Expecting us to define that definition when it is clear that even
> Red Hat has no rock solid definition is preposterous.
Red Hat has _always_ had a rock solid definition of AS/AP. Even
today, the version 6 entitlements map to AS/AP. There's no reason to
end those, not after 10 years of lineage. But some want to. And some
have stated their reasons. And I have pointed them out.
Back this up.
If you can list for us what actual channels are the equivalent of the old
AS/AP then we have something else that we can try to use to define logically
which channels should not be overlapped with. If you've found this
information somewhere then giving it to us will be a valuable addition to
the conversation. Otherwise, we'll have to continue to assume that there
isn't an actual understanding of what that is and we'll have to continue to
try to define it ourselves with a somewhat arbitrary division.
But in the process, you have to realize who is being considered the
At the moment, you are :-) You need to present less case studies and more
facts. You're criticizing the ongoing effort to fix this without critiquing
it. You're not adding constructive information that can help us to make
a better division; only adding impossible or vague demands of what the
solution should look like.
We're far more worried about giving the least subsidizing Red
Hat customers everything they need, instead of also considering how
much that will conflict with Red Hat's biggest, subsidizing customers.
Your "we" must mainly just be you ;-). It's certainly not me or, from my
reading of their thoughts, smooge or nirik or inode0. (And if the smiley
doesn't reflect it, I know that the "we" you used above was actually misuse
of the first person plural. From your previous posts it seems apparent that
you actually meant the second person plural there.)