Ned Slider wrote: > On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >> Digimer wrote: >>> I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point >>> of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of >>> people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed >>> and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as >>> CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far >>> as updates are concerned. >>> >>> Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to >>> assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away >>> from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. >>> Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to >>> Red Hat. >>> >> My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are >> aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source. >> >> That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much >> harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change. >> > > That's nonsense. > > Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder, > they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information > harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more > difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal > customers from Red Hat. > > The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL > packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug > normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast > majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue. > What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6? Ljubomir