[CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)

[Johnny Hughes]

On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 08:44 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday 04 June 2005 01:27, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 22:26 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > I'd put it this way:
> > > Red Hat makes CentOS possible at all by providing Source RPMs (which they
> > > are not required to do;  source doesn't have to be provided in SRPM form
> > > to meet the GPL-covered packages license requirements).
> 
> > This I disagree with ... to quote the GPL:
> 
> > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> > the executable."
> 
> This is a good point.  But this would not apply to the non-GPL covered works.
> 
> So, they would have to make the SRPMS available to the recipients of the 
> binary code for the GPL covered packages.  Thanks for the correction, Johnny.

And, let me make this point, just in case anyone has taken anything I
have posted on this thread to be negative to Red Hat.

I am not trying to be negative to Red Hat, nor minimize their work.  As
I have stated in other posts on this list, they are absolutely the best
Enterprise related Distribution (for this I mean Mandriva / Novell
(SuSE) / RHEL) at re-distributing their software ... and they could
purposely make it much harder than they do.  They should be praised for
doing it the way they do.

The point that I am trying, but seem unable to make is:

CentOS is it's own distro ... and it would not be that much harder to
deviate from the RHEL source code map (from a development perspective)
as it is to be an exact replica of the RHEL.  In fact, lots of times, it
would be easier to change things to provide better (or needed
functionality) ... like most of the items in extras and centosplus repos
would be part of the distro, for example.

We choose to provide a replica of the upstream sources as our model for
the distro, not because it is easier ... but because that is what we
want to provide as a distro.  We appreciate the upstream distro, think
it (and the company that provide it) are the best Enterprise options,
and want to legally produce an alternative to it BECAUSE we like it.

So, my point is, CentOS is a distro in it's own right, whose goals are
to be as closely compatible to upstream as we can, so as to provide a
Enterprise solution for people who like the upstream product but do not
want or need the upstream support.

Just because we chose that path, that doesn't make CentOS any less a
separate distro than Knoppix, Slackware, Gentoo, Debain, Ubuntu, or any
of the other distros.  We choose to make CentOS track the upstream
versions so that it can be used by the same people ... it is however a
separate distro, and is not at all affiliated with RedHat.

It is not trivial to do a rebuild project ... and on top of just
rebuilding, there is management and distribution of the tree, the ISOs,
and updates.  In these areas, we are absolutely and totally different
from upstream.  Having the greatest rebuild in the world means nothing
if it can't be downloaded ... or if there is no community behind it.

The best part of CentOS is not the technical RPMS and version
numbers ... it is that it performs a certain way because of those things
_AND_ there is an active IRC channel with more than 100 people in it all
the time, a forum and list of FAQs where users can contribute, an active
mailing list and announce list.  The fact that all the CentOS developers
are on IRC for much of the day helping people and listening.  Those are
the reasons I became involved in the CentOS Project ... and the reasons
why it is a separate distro ... and the reasons why it should get your
support.

Hopefully, this is making sense ... at least to someone :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050604/61bc41be/attachment.sig>