On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 03/20/2011 05:02 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? > > Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released > their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either. I am not sure what you are trying > to > accomplish here. You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like RHEL. So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL might be more similar in tool set then Ubuntu. - aurf