On 6/3/2011 2:15 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> So what? Red Hat created a community by beeing free in both senses, and
> then decided to go commercial at some point. And that hurt the feelings
> of some minor number of hard-nosed community members. Is that what you
> are talking about?
>>
>> I was around at the time of Red Hat going commercial. I heard about that,
> <snip>
> I'm having some problems with the way the conversation is going. RedHat
> *was* a company; to me, the RHEL was aimed as a wedge, to get into
> corporate America. For that matter, who started offering their distro of
> RHEL around then? Why, the same company that offered this new o/s on their
> brand new product, the IBM PC in 1980: IBM.
Red Hat started with the concept of selling support services, and while
they also sold boxed sets of software (a good thing back when most
people didn't have the bandwidth to download it or CD burners), they did
not restrict redistribution of the software or installing it on multiple
machines.
> RedHat, at least, has not taken the path to the Dark Side, as the Other
> Company did....
That's a matter of opinion, but not so much the point as our dependency
on rebuild projects if we don't switch to something else.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
