On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote: > >> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: >>>> . >>>>> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct >>>>> competition with >>>>> RH >>>>> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers >>>>> installable >>>>> binaries for free. >>>> Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it >>>> is better to pay for real >>>> RH instead of oracle linux.. >>> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that >>> matched >>> their binaries... Personally, I think everyone would be better off >>> today if >>> they had turned their back on anything RH-related the day they >>> stopped >>> permitting redistribution of their binaries among the community >>> that created >>> them and made them usable in the first place. I was too lazy to >>> change and >>> Centos made it look reasonable to leave things approximately the >>> same. But, now >>> that RH is putting the screws on anyone who doesn't pay up it is >>> probably time >>> for anyone who cares about free software to rethink things. >>> >> exactly. Nothing against Centos but I've deployed my last RH based >> box. It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on. > I don't get it, why so radical? > > Why not go SL and maintain the same methodology? > > - aurf > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos because the software i use for myself and my clients...rhel availability is dropping and unbuntu debian is increasing. rhel's various code decisions aren't helping. It's not radical..it's still Linux and still free.