CentOS - May 2005 - Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com>
> I roll my eyes when I hear how good and great and all-virtuous
> RedHat is,
On GPL.  That's all.  On GPL.
IBM is praised while HP, Red Hat and Sun are demonized.
Companies have their agendas, and we need to be _cautious_.

But one thing remains:  Stallman's Moral Delima
Which means that the only thing that matters in the end is GPL.
As long as Red Hat is a 100% GPL company, nothing else matters.

Same deal with IBM.  If they go 100% GPL, I'll love them too.
Heck, I'd just be happy if they'd drop the CPL and IPL on their
donations.
They virtually have no GPL, at least Sun can claim some major ones.
> and I roll my eyes when I hear some of the complaints about
> RedHat. As is always (at least since the time of ancient Greece) the
> case, somewhere in the middle lies truth. I'm just thankful that
> CentOS makes the RedHat software with all its benefits AND warts
> available to a wider audience.
Agreed.  Did I ever disagree with that?
> I'm essentially a believer in FOSS.
I prefer to use the term Freedomware, which doesn't need a definition to
those
not familiar.  ;->
> I would never purchase a shrink-wrapped RedHat were it still available,
> nor do I have any need for an SLA,
As is your choice.  No one at Red Hat is forcing you to do so.  Tiemann
basically
said in not so few words that they don't want you as a consumer, only
possibly
a user of Fedora Core if you wish.
> but I'm very thankful that RedHat fully subscribes to the GPL and makes
its
> SRPM's available.
Which is why, taking everything else away because it's
"subjective" to many
people from different views, is why Red Hat is a "friend" and not so
much of
a "partner."
> As a wiser person than I said in another post, it doesn't help much to
> tell someone who is used to having a particular feature that he can't
> have that any more and why.
Of course it does.  If they would have looked at early Fedora Core 2
development,
they would have known what to expect.  Then they would have known what to
tell their clients, and how to come up with a solution that minimizes risk to
existing
operations.

Blaming Red Hat for something outside their control does nothing.  Or should I
put
it this way, if you _complain_ about something, there is nothing wrong with
someone else explaining why you shouldn't.  You can't complain about me
trying
to explain things any more than someone who is just complaining in the first
place.
> Even less does it help to tell that person that he is an ignorant fool
I reserved the word "ignorant" until it got to the point that they
just didn't care
why, how or how to accommodate such very likely and similar changes in the
future.
At some point, if you choose to be ignorant, you are only hurting yourself.
> and better off without that feature.
I _never_ said he was "better off without that feature."  I *NEVER*
SAID THAT!
At least 2 _other_ people did, as well as the Red Hat rationales.  I never said
either
way whether CIPE was good or bad -- I _purposely_avoided_ doing so!

This is what I really _hate_ about these lists.  All of the sudden, _anything_
negative said by _anyone_ in a thread is attributed only to me -- and I'm
the
focal point for 100% of what people don't like.

REGARDLESS IF I SAID IT OR NOT!  100% GETS PUT ON MY NAME!

At this point, you are not bothering to accurate listen to what I actually said.
There is a "method to my madness" and I'm pretty darn ethical in
my approach.
And that includes _reserving_opinion_ of whether or not something should or
should not be included.

And just trying to understand why decision are made by others.

It's funny, people say I don't try to look at something from someone
else's
viewpoint.  I'm quite the opposite.  Whether it's a client, vendor or
individual,
I step into their shoes.  In fact, one of the reasons I try to explain things is
so people don't fall into the same assumptions again.

Because assumptions are the biggest problems of all.  And I really think some
people would rather hate than to stop and be tolerant of people and projects
who typically don't have the same focus as they.


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> This is what I really _hate_ about these lists.  All of the sudden,
_anything_
> negative said by _anyone_ in a thread is attributed only to me -- and
I'm the
> focal point for 100% of what people don't like.
> 
> REGARDLESS IF I SAID IT OR NOT!  100% GETS PUT ON MY NAME!
Bryan, stop generalising and dramatising. It's not you against the world.
Much of the commotion is related to the manner you communicate and 
interprete what people say, regardless of some good points you make. Your 
above statement is a perfect example of that.

BTW I'm not saying this to attack you, but to help you. I tried being 
diplomatic in private and in public, but it did not help much.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]