On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Martin Marques wrote:
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as
well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his
criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His
basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at,
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.html
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have
never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having
a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
The SRPMS for RHEL are freely available, but the binary RPMs, ISOs, and
binary update RPMs are available from RH only by subscription. Red Hat
branding (graphics, etc.) cannot be used except in conjunction with
official RH products. In this sense, RHEL is a "closed binary".
CentOS uses the RHEL SRPMs, but builds its own binary RPMs, ISOs, and
binary update RPMs (without RH branding). Of course, RH does not support
CentOS installations except insofar as updates they release for RHEL are
available (as source) for CentOS to use.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
