Ned Slider wrote:
> On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Digimer wrote:
>>> I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point
>>> of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of
>>> people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed
>>> and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as
>>> CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far
>>> as updates are concerned.
>>>
>>> Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to
>>> assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away
>>> from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions.
>>> Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to
>>> Red Hat.
>>>
>> My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are
>> aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
>>
>> That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much
>> harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
>>
>
> That's nonsense.
>
> Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder,
> they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information
> harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more
> difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal
> customers from Red Hat.
>
> The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL
> packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug
> normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast
> majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
>
What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6?
Ljubomir
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
