[Centos] OT -- Inexpensive CentOS dedicated servers?

[Johnny Hughes]

> I have mixed emotions about this concept. Frankly, RH has made small
> companies
> and individuals feel they really aren't worth their trouble. Their
> licensing
> scheme is, in my opinion, not very "community" oriented. They've decided
> to
> pattern it more after Microsoft. They don't want money from end users.
> They
> cancelled their end user desktop to focus on corporate users. The primary
> reason I don't ru RH officially is due to this attitude. I appreciate the
> Centos dev team for putting Centos together and would much rather donate
> to them.
>
> --
> <<JAV>>

Well, everything you said is true ... but if RedHat didn't make their
SRPMS so readily (and rapidly) available to the general public ... and if
they didn't have such an easy to comply with trademark policy, then
distros like CentOS would not exist at all.  RedHat is also supporting
Fedora, which is basically their Desktop product (they provide all the
bandwidth and machines, and provide support via the bugzilla.  RedHat is
very pro open source.

I would say the deciding factor should be whether or not you need support.
 If you do, use RHEL ... if you don't, use CentOS.  RedHat doesn't charge
for the OS, only for support.  If you aren't going to use the support, it
would be silly to pay for it.

>
>> Buying webspace from a company using CentOS supports nobody but the
>> company hosting your account.  They paid no funds to further the
>> development of CentOS;  Red Hat  and its customers do.  By spending
>> your money on a company that uses RHEL, you're helping to ensure
>> that RHEL is successful.  So long as RHEL is successful (barring any
>> changes in policy from Red Hat), CentOS can continue to derive their
>> releases from RHEL.
>
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at caosity.org
> http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>