From: Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com
Righto ... no JRE redistributes in CentOS ... that is not allowed :) They also have mp3 stuff ... also not allowed :)
If you want an example of what I consider "ignorance," that's it right there. Someone who asks, "why doesn't Red Hat include X," won't get grief. But people who say, "I use Y because it includes X and Red Hat does not," sorry, that's starting to play into that game.
I have a rule at my clients: "No Linux CDs are allowed into the building until they are approved -- especially _not_ Knoppix." Why? Because I have to verify they are "pure" Linux and not an indemnification nightmare.
For CentOS-3.x you can get GFS (and RH ClusterSuite) here: http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/ (there is no GFS/RHCS for RHEL-4 (or CentOS-4) yet)
BTW, I haven't looked yet, is Netscape Directory Server available for CentOS? You can get it from the RHN (as well as the "technology preview"), just wondering if it's available for CentOS from another source.
OpenAFS: I'll have to look at the license that it is released under ... that might be able to be in Extras ... someone want to maintain it :)
IBM's IPL, yet another GPL-incompatible license along with IBM's CPL. People claim I have an "agenda" against IBM. No, but I _do_ have an "agenda" to get people to realize that they should hold IBM up against the same standard (and "agenda") they have against Sun.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Now the last time I checked, Red Hat did include the OpenAFS client in the kernel -- at least GPL portions (the history of AFS is a little interest). The OpenAFS server is user-space, so there is not a licensing issue there.
I typically just download and build the full IPL licensed client/server from OpenAFS, despite the licensing issues. If it's for private use, you can do this per the GPL -- you just can't redistribute anything that isn't GPL compatible linked against GPL (which is what I make my clients aware of).
BTW. If people think "ignorance" is a "harsh word," understand when you are "ignorant" as a consulting engineer with a Professional Engineering license, the term becomes "Professsional Negligence" with the same, _liability_ as an MD. ;->
So I tend to avoid "ignorance" and care about little details. ;->
Correct ... Pine is non-free license, won't be built for CentOS-4 :)
But remember, it's Red Hat's fault. ;->
-- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 20:37 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
From: Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com
BTW, I haven't looked yet, is Netscape Directory Server available for CentOS? You can get it from the RHN (as well as the "technology preview"), just wondering if it's available for CentOS from another source.
No, Not yet. They are changing / have changed the name to Red Hat Directory Services ... and when it is released for RHEL-4 it will be built for CentOS-4 as well.
OpenAFS: I'll have to look at the license that it is released under ... that might be able to be in Extras ... someone want to maintain it :)
IBM's IPL, yet another GPL-incompatible license along with IBM's CPL. People claim I have an "agenda" against IBM. No, but I _do_ have an "agenda" to get people to realize that they should hold IBM up against the same standard (and "agenda") they have against Sun.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :(
Now the last time I checked, Red Hat did include the OpenAFS client in the kernel -- at least GPL portions (the history of AFS is a little interest). The OpenAFS server is user-space, so there is not a licensing issue there.
I typically just download and build the full IPL licensed client/server from OpenAFS, despite the licensing issues. If it's for private use, you can do this per the GPL -- you just can't redistribute anything that isn't GPL compatible linked against GPL (which is what I make my clients aware of).
BTW. If people think "ignorance" is a "harsh word," understand when you are "ignorant" as a consulting engineer with a Professional Engineering license, the term becomes "Professsional Negligence" with the same, _liability_ as an MD. ;->
So I tend to avoid "ignorance" and care about little details. ;->
Correct ... Pine is non-free license, won't be built for CentOS-4 :)
But remember, it's Red Hat's fault. ;->
On 5/28/05, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
But remember, it's Red Hat's fault. ;->
That's unnecessary sarcasm. No one that I know would suggest that RedHat should ship code that is not properly licensed.
But, sarcasm or not, there's a grain of truth in that statement.
The essential truth underlying all of this angry discussion and others like it on other lists is this:
It is 100% true that RedHat has abandoned a large portion of their prior market for business reasons. They still offer a good product for the money, but they have scaled back their offering to support only the largest customers who are willing to accept the limitations of the new offering because of the SLA and because of continued rock solid (for the most part) releases. This leaves a great many shipwrecked souls on the coastline who in the past chose to run RedHat for solid support in a number of areas that have now been abandoned as unprofitable and/or not easily maintainable. Such ex customers are understandably bitter, You may consider their complaints to be ignorance, but many are merely expressing their natural concerns about being left behind.
It is unquestionably RedHat's fault that this (granted not especially profitable) portion of their prior customer base has been left high and dry. RedHat did it, and they would do it again tomorrow. Ignorance comes into play because those who are complaining have not yet realized the full extent of their abandonment. The RedHat that they knew and loved is gone never to return, but they keep wishing it back. The RedHat of today and tomorrow is a business enterprise with the bottom line firmly in sight, and only those customers with a lot of clout will be able to influence the roadmap. Please don't misinterpret: this is not to say that RedHat does not make a lot of worthwhile contributions to Linux in general, perhaps more than any other vendor.
It's just too bad that there is really nothing on offer for these former customers. Please don't suggest Fedora. The customers who are complaining the loudest are not interested in experimental versions.
None of this has really very much to do with CentOS. They are doing a damn good job maintaining a community version of the RedHat enterprise offering. Unfortunately, some of those abandoned customers appear to have believed that CentOS, as a community endeavor, might fill the gap, but that's a misunderstanding (ignorance as you would call it) of the CentOS mission.
-
Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> -
Collins Richey -
Johnny Hughes