On 26.12.2020 23:49, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:11 AM Jean-Marc Liger <jean-marc.liger@parisdescartes.fr mailto:jean-marc.liger@parisdescartes.fr> wrote:
There would have been no downstream build sponsored by Red Hat, CentOS Linux would have kill other clones this way, as it already did for Scientific Linux 8, the CentOS Community would have been happy to help to get a better RHEL in the Stream process, and Red Hat folks could have put all the value of their brand and specificities in their final products, backed with a strong ecosystem they could have controlled. I eared you no answer about this proposal, could you tell me why if it's not all about grabbing more money from the CentOS Community ? -Jean-MarcI ask for a fourth time this proposal which still remains unanswered, but as we say in French, "who doesn't say word consents",therefore it is obviously a question of recovering money from the CentOS community with the subscriptionsRed Hat coming soon. Jean-MarcHow many operating systems do you think we need to be building. In your little text diagram above, its not clear to me what usefulness CentOS Linux is to RHEL. I understand why you'd want it (free RHEL). Why do you think we should produce it? What usefulness is it to us?
That brings an obvious question: have RH obtained CentOS stuff with the only actual purpose to shut down "free RHEL"?
We don't want to "recover money" from the CentOS community just like our other communities. But as a business, since you're not providing Red Hat with profit (none of our communities are), what are you providing that would result in continued sponsorship of a downstream rebuild?
How nice.
Does advertising RH paid services and gaining you new customers count for one? I suspect I am not the only one who did that for years.
(of course I won't do that any more and will personally apologize to those unlucky who've subscribed to RH services)