FWIW, I don't think CentOS needs RedHat's name to prove that CentOS is
a viable option for the Enterprise (or small business or home user).
I think we need to do a better job at promoting CentOS. I think our
group already gives better support than RedHat, especially since
RedHat's stance is like MS, they only support their apps or their OS.
Whereas our group will try to help out anyone with any problem.
BTW, as long as my new digital camera arrives today, I should have
some photos tomorrow of LinuxWorld Expo where we have a booth.
--
Matt Shields
http://masnetworks.biz
http://sexydates4u.com
http://shieldslinux.com
http://shieldsmedia.com (currently under construction)
http://shieldsproductions.com (currently under construction)
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:59:04 -0500, Scott Sharkey
<ssharkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think RH's going a bit overboard, as there really was no confusion as to
> >>whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.
> >
> >
> > Well, I would not necessarily draw that conclusion. People not accustomed
> > with terminology or the Internet can make wrong assumptions. I regularly
> > get a mail asking how they can update their RHEL distribution using my
> > repositories (when they specifically mean updates).
>
> ...
>
> > That's why I think an official legal complaint should indicate what clear
> > actions they want. Maybe a few specific examples that they think indicate
> > the problem. They should be required to specifically tell what the problem
> > is instead of some vague legal terms that I will never know whether I
> > comply with or not.
>
> ...
>
> > It would be nice to know exactly what is required in this situation. The
> > secrecy is causing FUD about the whole subject and is damaging Red Hat's
> > reputation indirectly too.
>
> They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your
> product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products.
> Unfortunately, for them, the GPL prevents them from actually trying to
> make that happen, so they resort to vague threats, and threats they know
> are unenforceable (like restricting linking - which I seriously doubt
> would hold up in any court anywhere, since they have "published" this
> info into a public forum (the internet)). They are hoping you will
> think it's more trouble to comply, and fold your shop.
>
> I no longer recommend that company to my clients for any Linux work,
> because they are completely out of touch with the Linux movement, and
> Linux' core values. I now happily recommend any of their competitors
> when my clients ask me what distros. I do recommend CentOS for most
> everyone.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
