---------- Original Message ----------- > I'm not sure that I'd be willing to recommend CentOS to anyone if I > am at the same time bashing the very company who makes it possible. > I happen to like Red Hat and use not only RHEL, but Fedora and > CentOS -- both of which obtain sustenance from the bosom of Red Hat. > > Why don't you recommend a recompilation of SuSE, instead? Oh, I > forgot. There isn't one (at least of which I am aware). > > BK > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ------- End of Original Message ------- I disagree. I have no problem bashing RH especially due to this. This is rediculous. RH has adopted nearly all of the tactics that pitched the community against Microsoft. I contend that they only distribute source because they have to. They may very well 'give' to the community but they get a lot too. This response was sent by their lawyers. I would imagine that if heat comes down, they can back away and say, "well legal got a little aggressive blah blah blah" and simply retract. But if it works and it keeps people from adopting Centos or others from saying, "This distro is based on RH" then hey, they get some cake. I stopped sending RH money because they basically told end users, "Unless you're coming with a huge contract go run Fedora." Fine, I'll take my money elsewhere. I went to SuSe. I came to CentOS because I like the update model and I like RH's code. As a company, they are becoming unethical and beasty. I have no time for that. It's tactics like this that make me almost wish they'd go belly up. They need the chip knocked off their shoulder. You can make money without becoming an ass about it. I'm becoming more convinced they are looking for more respect from Sun and Microsoft than from their customers. And if you think they're concerned about what the community thinks, you're nuts. I think they feel they have enough developers that the community is becoming a nuesance to them. They adhere to the GPL only to the letter. If they weren't "trapped" by it, they'd adopted a new license in a heartbeat. In short, they seem to be a blend of Caldera and Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I know CentOS depends on their source, but don't go defending them as a company. They would hold that back if they could. -- <<JAV>>