Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:25:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Neil Aggarwal wrote:
>>> Les:
>>>
>>> Honest question, not intended to be smart assed in any
>>> way:
>>>
>>> Why have you not moved to SL since they have released the
>>> update before CentOS?
>> If I liked changing things on a whim, I wouldn't be using enterprise
>> type distributions in the first place. And since this '5.4' discussion
>> is about the future - it's sad but I don't any more faith in the future
>> of research funding than in volunteer efforts.
>>
>> But philosophically, it just seems wrong that the rebranding work has to
>> be done at all, much less multiple times.
>
> Maybe so. But a much more difficult problem to overcome, and not one
> that's likely to change.
>
> RH has $$, and $$ are a target for lawsuits. RH needs to be able to
> make it clear they are *not* CentOS.
>
> Just the world we live in. Honestly, RH doesn't even have to make it
> as easy as they do (see SLES).
So what would be the down side to just walking away from everything
RH-related now that Ubuntu has a free alternative with long term
support? I thought perhaps when I mentioned it earlier there would be
a flurry of responses pointing out functional deficiencies but so far
there have been none. I would never have started using RH in the early
days if it had not been freely redistributable. Now the clones are
better than nothing, but it still seems wrong.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
