On Apr 4, 2005 10:14 PM, Dave Hornford <OSD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Collins Richey wrote:
>
> >> endeavors justify the decsion - ethics, community vs. vendor support,
> >> etc., etc. I've heard many comments to the effect that we CentOS users
> >> are just leaches, since RedHat does the major work. I would like to
> >> know how those of you who use CentOS in commercial
> >
> >
[ snips ]
> I'm sorry if I am unable to follow the question of ethics here. At what
> point did Red Hat's efforts in the open source community become magical
> and change the ethical environment Red Hat lives in for people
> downstream of Red Hat? Your question pre-supposes that because CentOS is
> downstream of Red Hat then somehow it is different than Red Hat being
> downstream of the Linux kernel developers & others (fill in other names
> as you see fit). Red Hat is downstream of well over 99.99% of the 'major
> work'.
>
> Red Hat has built a business around using freely available software.
Actually, as I stated earlier in this thread, my question about ethics
pre-supposes and implies nothing of the sort. I asked the question
because it was brought up by others. I agree with you 100%. Linux is a
GPL product whether distributed by a for-hire vendor or a community
maintainer.
I'm interested in every aspect of the CentOS project and its
relationship to RedHat and its policies. I'm still hoping to convince
my employer that CentOS would be a good choice for at least some of
the servers and desktops I maintain. Most of these are still at the
RH9 level. As a frugal person, I question what the company really gets
much out of a maintenance contract other than expense, most especially
so if you read the companion thread about experiences with paid
support from RedHat.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
--
Collins
When I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them,
it was the start of a new Arab world.... The Berlin Wall has fallen.
- Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt
