On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 08/15/2013 03:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 > > > > Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the > > relationship between CentOS and RHEL.C > > > > Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there > > may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to > > CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate > > to call it symbiotic. > > > > Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. > > > > Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux. > > I think that Red Hat understands the benefit that they get from CentOS, > as expressed by Mr, Whitehurst's statement: > > "CentOS is one of the reasons that the RHEL ecosystem is the default. It > helps to give us an ubiquity that RHEL might otherwise not have if we > forced everyone to pay to use Linux. So, in a micro sense we lose some > revenue, but in a broader sense, CentOS plays a very valuable role in > helping to make Red Hat the de facto Linux." > > Spot on. "They understand the symbiotic relationship." Thank you for quoting that, Johnny. > Its obvious the benefit that CentOS gets from Red Hat (without those > sources, publicly released, CentOS would be extremely hard ... almost > impossible). SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there > is no SLES clone because of it. > > We do want people to use CentOS for everything they feel comfortable > using it for (obviously), but we also would recommend that people use > Red Hat Enterprise Linux for things where they want a service level > agreements or the specific certifications (Like Common Criteria EAL, > etc.) that Red Hat has spent tons of money and effort to get. We would > also recommend the Red Hat training and certification program for people > who want to get career training that is applicable to CentOS. > > The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly > symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money, > If anything the journalist deserves the heat and criticism for trying to make clones look/sound bad. After all, bad news sells better than good news, right? [No need to answer.] > and software that is built on the same code base is available for free > as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides for. > I've long had a personal lab based on Fedora, Debian, and CentOS (though my install base has other creatures as well). If I didn't have CentOS, I might run Fedora (it's not too bad on stability for non-critical applications) -- BUT I'd have more of a Debian install base if CentOS wasn't around. *Everyone* that's chimed in has valid points, but they aren't worth arguing about. Probably the only way to make change (if necessary) is for RH employees to back any proposals for change. As Dave pointed out there have been some oddities in what is released (in availability and even the quickness of some updates), but overall I don't think it's anything to get upset about. I suppose that's because I know I have options ... kinda goes along with OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, etc. Look at the bright side! [We have CentOS, we have options.] Have a great weekend everyone. -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 //