On Friday 03 June 2005 08:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I am a little touchy on this subject ... being that I hear it so often.
Yes, I understand that.
> Using your logic, The only people who would get credit are the
> programmers who write the code for the parent projects. Or the Fedora
> Core volunteers who actually package and test probably 95% of the stuff
> that get into RHEL.
No. People should get credit in an amount proportionate to the amount of work
they put in. If I'm evaluating a distro, I look at all the people who made
the distro. And because I'm voting for a distro, I don't take into account
the upstream programmers because their work goes into all the other distros
so that's not a differentiating factor. So basically the people who made
CentOS are: Red Hat and CentOS and Fedora volunteers. I don't know the
percentage, but I'm fairly sure Red Hat gets most of the credit.
But the basic point is that CentOS is not a fork. It does not give added value
over RHEL in the distro itself. It *is* RHEL, with a community and removed
trademarks. So CentOS volunteers should get credit for the community and
removing trademarks and Red Hat should get credit for everything else (ie.
what we're voting for).
> So no, I don't think that you should vote for RHEL in a place where
> CentOS is also listed ... any more than I think you should vote for
> Debian if you use Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is a fork of Debian with added value, not a rebranding.
> That is, of course, only my opinion. You have yours. We are both
> entitled to our own. Neither is right or wrong.
Sure, this is only friendly discussion.
