[CentOS] RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat

[Martyn Drake]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> RHEL is about Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and 5+ year updates, and
> not about milking you dry.  For a $300+ product, you get free support
> and the option to get guaranteed response times.  Red Hat originally
> tried to sell a Red Hat Linux 6.2 E[nterprise] with SLAs.  But SuSE
> Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 came out and showed that the industry
> wanted a "separate enterprise product" and Red Hat followed suit.

When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable 
impression.  However, that's just my opinion.  Others wil no doubt 
have really benefitted from it.  What I really needed was the errata 
and updates rather than support, and an overall better overall 
lifecycle that RHEL promises and indeed, delivers.   I could have gone 
down the Fedora route, but wasn't too thrilled with it's overall 
lifecycle.

I'm a non-commercial user (but neither a charity or educational 
establishment) and that $300 per year is a lot of money to pay for a 
stable and constantly updated OS.  You could argue I could use Debian 
or some other free distribution, but having been a Red Hat Linux user 
for many years it's what I know best and feel the most comfortable around.

Now I didn't actually mind PAYING for RHEL, of course not, but I just 
find they need to find a sweet spot price for those that may not need 
the install/configuration support (like me), or the SLAs, but want the 
lifecycle the product delivers and the stability it offers.  Is $340 
per year worth it for that?

I was paying £65 a year for the RHN for the last available versions of 
the Red Hat Linux and that suited me just fine.  That price is now 
£184, and includes features I don't actually need or want.

Of course CentOS has now came along, and that's meeting my needs just 
fine.  Hence why I'm more than happy to make the odd donation when I can.

> But by paying that money, you fund the largest commercial GPL company
> and collection of GPL projects.  Don't bash Red Hat, they are a very,
> very good company -- 100% GPL-anal to the ultra-power.  The only other
> company that comes close is now SuSE, thanx to Novell's purchase --
> although Novell still a doesn't make their core goods GPL (whereas all
> of Red Hat's developments are always 100% GPL).

I'm not bashing Red Hat.  Bashing Red Hat would be something along the 
lines of "Red Hat sucks; they've done nothing for the community; 
they're just another greedy organisation" which would be wrong on all 
accounts.  Red Hat is also a business and needs to be profitable like 
any other business.  I recognise that. I also recognise what they've 
done for the community as well.  They are a good company.

> And that's a good thing.  But don't feel the need to bash Red Hat just
> because you appreciate the CentOS project.

I'm sorry to have come across 'bashing' Red Hat.  Not my intention, 
most definately.

M.