----- Original Message -----
> From: "Johnny Hughes" <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 2:12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: redhat vs centos
>
> On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen
> > <rkampen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Tony Mountifield wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>> Brian Mathis <brian.mathis+centos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they
> >>>> were
> >>>> trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who
> >>>> were
> >>>> providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have
> >>>> never
> >>>> said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have
> >>>> helped
> >>>> CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the
> >>>> core
> >>>> developers).
> >>>>
> >>>> Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market
> >>>> share,
> >>>> and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues
> >>>> CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war
> >>>> against the other big companies who are trying to provide
> >>>> services by
> >>>> cheating.
> >>>
> >>> Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
> >>>
> >>>> I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make
> >>>> sure we
> >>>> **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can
> >>>> also
> >>>> tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to
> >>>> meet the
> >>>> restrictions as they were explained to us.
> >>>
> >>> which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed
> >>> at
> >>> CentOS too.
> >>
> >> This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers,
> >> remember this all
> >> comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers.
> >> To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction,
> >> they will
> >> need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this
> >> new
> >> clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc.
> >> As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed
> >> attempt at
> >> intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
> >
> >
> > I know it's more fun to blame the evil lawyers for everything, but
> > it
> > sounds more like they respect the project and took special effort
> > to
> > reach out and make sure they were aware and fully understood the
> > changes. That is far more likely given the history and widespread
> > usage of CentOS.
> >
>
> ================================
> I said they made sure we were aware of the AUP and explained what the
> new AUP meant. I never said anything about anyone being threatening
> or
> being threatened.
>
> The CentOS Project is very appreciative for the openness of the
> upstream
> provider.
>
> It has always been our policy to stay within the upstream provider's
> guidelines and AUP's. We will continue to do so when the guidelines
> and
> AUP's change.
> =================================
> We have created the CR repo ... it has not REPLACED updates, it is
> just
> an additional repo. Its purpose is to allow us to release the
> packages
> that will eventually be in the NEXT point release in stages as we get
> them done. You can get these changes if you chose ... or you can
> wait
> until we get everything done and released as 6.1.
>
> We will eventually get a 6.1 release out ... in the meantime, the CR
> repo will have MOST of the updates (the ones that are done now) while
> we
> fix the problem updates.
> =================================
My apologies if this has been addressed before. What are the plans if upstream releases 6.2 and CentOS 6.1 has not been released? Will CR just continue to get updates from 6.2? I actually love the CR and if such a scenario occurs would like that the CR to have the latest packages no matter how far behind the official release of CentOS is.
> We provide CentOS as is, to the best of our ability, for your use.
> If
> CentOS meets you needs, well then we certainly want you to use it.
> If
> you need it faster, or more like RHEL, then we HIGHLY recommend that
> you
> just buy RHEL. If Red Hat does not make money from RHEL then they
> will
> stop releasing it all together. CentOS can not exist without those
> sources. I would like to stress that we want you to use RHEL and buy
> RHN subscriptions for projects that require that kind of support.
>
I always tell clients to use RHEL for internet facing computers/services so they can get the security patches as soon as they are available. Also use RHEL for mission critical services were they do not have the expertise of deep Linux troubleshooting and need a vendor to lean on. For internal services that should not or does not need immediate security patching use CentOS.
As always, I appreciate and thank the CentOS team for providing such a wonderful free tool.
David.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
