On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Brunner, Brian T. <BBrunner at gai-tronics.com> wrote: > centos-bounces at centos.org wrote: >> On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> But if the underlying issue is that Red Hat is intentionally making >> the rebuilds difficult, any derivative is going to be fragile. > > RH fired at Novell and Oracle, but CentOS and SL are hit by the muzzle > blast. > I wonder if RH is aware that we're pretty consistent advertizing for RH. > > Is there another UV we can call TUV? I don't suppose RH would care if > we (CentOS & SL) both disappeared. > > Insert spiffy .sig here: > Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. I think it would bother them. I've repeatedly used CentOS, in a test environment, to then convince companies to purchase RHEL licenses. I've also supported mixed networks of RHEL and CentOS, CentOS on the dev boxes that get all the internal support issues because we do internal abuses to them, and RHEL for production environments. That's probably..... 300 enterprise licenses, just from me, in all those different environments. And CentOS was a *big* step. And with the CentOS licenses, the clients didn't feel bound to use *only* the official upstream published components: they felt free to experiment, more. (Ask about the Musicbrainz port to CentOS 4, then RHEL 4, if you're curious: asking our favorite upstream vendor to do that one would have been very, very painful.)