I think the problem here is that CentOS isn't designed for personal use, nor do many of us feel that a binary only application should be included when a perfectly fine open source version is available. Also, I personally feel that the full version is more crippled than the open source version.<br>
<br>Maybe there should be a separate package for the full edition, though. I can't see any harm coming from that.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Brian McKenna<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 3, 2008 10:54 PM, Johnny Hughes <<a href="mailto:johnny@centos.org">johnny@centos.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Is there any need for CentOS to build and distribute the OSE version of<br>VirtualBox?<br><br>
The differences between the versions are here:<br><br><a href="http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions" target="_blank">http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions</a><br><br>The reason I ask is that the Full version is free for personal use and<br>
the restrictions (especially no USB or RDP) make the OSE version fairly<br>crippled, so I am not sure there is enough benefit to design and keep<br>updated the OSE RPM packages.<br><br>What does everyone think?<br><br>Thanks,<br>
<font color="#888888">Johnny Hughes<br><br></font><br>_______________________________________________<br>CentOS-virt mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org">CentOS-virt@centos.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>