On 17/01/14 11:12 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> I view this as a takeover. I view this as a few who kept how to rebuild RHEL
> a state secret benefiting financially. I don't see how a community benefits
> when we cannot recreate for ourselves what is being done here. I don't see
> how we benefit when a large company comes in and buys their way into the
> board and pays off all members. Where is the Community's say in this? This
> is a payoff. Will we get releases sooner? Will we know how to rebuild the
> build environment for ourselves? What if Redhat slowly makes using CentOS
> painful to incentivize using RHEL? If Redhat had good intentions why don't
> they give unsupported RHEL for free themselves. Granted the probably want to
> keep OEL and the like from being able to freely rebuild and plagiarize and
> charge money for their stuff, but we , the Community, the masses of users,
> are stuck now between behemoths and their lackeys taking payouts throwing us
> whatever table scraps they want and we are powerless to change this.
>
> There is no makeworld or emerge world here, just binaries that magically get
> produced and peppered on an ftp whenever someone gets around to it.
One of the beautiful things about open source is the ability to fork,
create a new project, etc.
CentOS was never under any requirement to release their build methods.
Whether that was a good or bad choice is not very relevant now.
If you (and others) feel that the build process needed to create a
binary compatible is a worthy goal, you can start a project to do just that.
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
