On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", it really means that you can add something that adds restrictions.
I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat baited us with
so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason
I have my reason. You don't have to like it.
On 15/08/2013 23:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", it really means that you can add something that adds restrictions.
I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat baited us with
so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason
I have my reason. You don't have to like it.
For me Redhat and CentOS have their place, together in the same environment:
RedHat --> Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control environment.
CentOS --> QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical infrastructure, community support, more roll-your-own fixes and workarounds. Less change control.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Giles Coochey giles@coochey.net wrote:
On 15/08/2013 23:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", it really means that you can add something that adds restrictions.
I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead
of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat baited us with
so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason
I have my reason. You don't have to like it.
For me Redhat and CentOS have their place, together in the same
environment:
RedHat --> Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control environment.
CentOS --> QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical infrastructure, community support, more roll-your-own fixes and workarounds. Less change control.
You can also purchase production support for CentOS through OpenLogic. Roll your own bug fixes aren't necessarily bad, especially when you are able to send them upstream so they benefit everyone.
On 16/08/2013 12:34, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat --> Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control environment.
CentOS --> QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical infrastructure, community support, more roll-your-own fixes and workarounds. Less change control.
You can also purchase production support for CentOS through OpenLogic. Roll your own bug fixes aren't necessarily bad, especially when you are able to send them upstream so they benefit everyone. _______________________________________________
While I agree that CentOS will always have support while it is community driven, and has an upstream - without RedHat, no Centos... the truth of the matter (when it comes to $$$):
CEO's and CTO's like to hear that their critical software is supported by a company with a $10bn market cap. That is their indicator that they're not relying on some fly by night, dead-end technology. They also like to hear that our non-essential infrastructure is run on software that is 'free' and mirrors the company they run their critical software on. I'm sure companies like OpenLogic do a good job, but it is difficult to convince upper management that these companies are still going to be around in 5-10 years time.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Giles Coochey giles@coochey.net wrote:
On 16/08/2013 12:34, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat --> Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control environment.
CentOS --> QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical infrastructure, community support, more roll-your-own fixes and workarounds. Less change control.
You can also purchase production support for CentOS through OpenLogic. Roll your own bug fixes aren't necessarily bad, especially when you are able to send them upstream so they benefit everyone. ______________________________**_________________
While I agree that CentOS will always have support while it is community
driven, and has an upstream - without RedHat, no Centos... the truth of the matter (when it comes to $$$):
It wouldn't be impossible to continue CentOS without RedHat, the community would be capable of pushing it forward. That's not to say that RedHat isn't doing a great job, but if they were to stop the CentOS project could and probably would go on IMHO.
CEO's and CTO's like to hear that their critical software is supported by a company with a $10bn market cap. That is their indicator that they're not relying on some fly by night, dead-end technology. They also like to hear that our non-essential infrastructure is run on software that is 'free' and mirrors the company they run their critical software on. I'm sure companies like OpenLogic do a good job, but it is difficult to convince upper management that these companies are still going to be around in 5-10 years time.
CEOs and CTOs like to hear that their critical applications are properly supported and that the call is answered and the issue resolved within their SLA when support is utilized. Having a $10b market cap doesn't mean you will get quality support, look at Oracle Enterprise Linux. I had tickets open for over 6 months when the company I worked for used their "enterprise" distro.
It probably wouldn't be a difficult sell when you show the cost difference, also depending on the skill level of the engineers in-house of course. I didn't mean to say that OpenLogic fits in all scenarios, but it should be evaluated as an option like any other vendor when the decision is being made.
On 2013-08-16 @11:25 UTC, Giles Coochey wrote:
For me Redhat and CentOS have their place, together in the same environment:
RedHat --> Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control environment.
CentOS --> QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical infrastructure, community support, more roll-your-own fixes and workarounds. Less change control.
Anyone/anything tracking and totaling +1's on this reply?
:-)
-
Andrew Wyatt -
Darr247 -
Giles Coochey -
Les Mikesell