CentOS - May 2005 - Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ...

From:  Dag Wieers 
> Sorry to interrupt but he was describing how you appeared in previous 
> postings. And I have to say that I felt the same way reading some of 
your postings.

Really?  Then I'll re-read them since there's been a second
confirmation.

Just know that I wasn't trying to make it about good/bad.
I'm just trying to make the point that companies aren't just
evil/greedy,
and sometimes your friend can be your worse enemy (even SCO knows that one ;-).
> Maybe it's best to move these topics to another channel.
I just wish people didn't feel the need to make comments about Red Hat and
SCO.
> Can we leave the insults out, please ?
> It serves no purpose here.
Sorry.  I'm just still a little disturbed about the "crap"
statement,
and everything that went with it.
I find that many people just don't believe me sometimes.

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 20:58 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> From:  Dag Wieers 
> > Sorry to interrupt but he was describing how you appeared in previous 
> > postings. And I have to say that I felt the same way reading some of 
> your postings.
> 
> Really?  Then I'll re-read them since there's been a second
confirmation.
> 
> Just know that I wasn't trying to make it about good/bad.
> I'm just trying to make the point that companies aren't just
evil/greedy,
> and sometimes your friend can be your worse enemy (even SCO knows that one
;-).
> 
> > Maybe it's best to move these topics to another channel.
> 
> I just wish people didn't feel the need to make comments about Red Hat
and SCO.
> 
The SCO that exists currently ... the one that is suing IBM right now,
in the lawsuit as it currently exists, is an enemy to all Linux, IBM and
Red Hat customers.  That is absolutely clear.  I would call them a bad
company.  Were they always that, no.  Did IBM screw some people in the
past, yes.  Will they again in the future, probably.  Same is true for
Sun, Red Hat, Novell, SuSE, Mandr(ake/riva), etc.

Red Hat made a business decision that left many people out in the cold
(the RHL / RHEL line decision) ... CentOS fills that gap.  Some CentOS
users are very upset with Red Hat because of that decision.  That does
not make them shallow, they have the right to their opinion. It also
does not change the fact that Red Hat is also the best when it comes to
distributing their source code (of all the major enterprise providers).

I personally don't have a problem with the Red Hat business decision ...
but I understand why some people do.

Fedora Core just doesn't do it for me ... if it works for you, great.
There is nothing wrong with FC, it just doesn't have the lifetime
support I am looking for.

CentOS, on the other hand, has exactly the options I am looking for.  A
vibrant community that actively answers questions via IRC, forums and
active mailing lists.  It is available for free (though donations SHOULD
be made ... especially if you are using CentOS to make money), has rapid
security updates, and it has a long lifetime.  So, this is while you
will find me for quite some time.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050521/517cfb84/attachment-0004.sig>

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 21:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> The SCO that exists currently ... the one that is suing IBM right now,
> in the lawsuit as it currently exists, is an enemy to all Linux, IBM and
> Red Hat customers.
You need to separate the SCO v. IBM aspects from the SCO
"smokescreen."
The original March 2003 filing was not about Linux, but a "contract
dispute."  Not my words, but those of Linus, ESR and many others.

But because people took rabid offense to the wording in that lawsuit,
wording that was required to make the case on the "Non-Compete" clause
in Monterey, the media took it and made it about Linux.  So it didn't
surprise me when IBM didn't settle that SCO expanded it in May 2003 to
include the whole "smokescreen" of Linux IP.

Let the SCO lawsuits against its contractual partners like IBM,
Autozone, Chrysler and the like go.  Don't bring them on this list, and
just act like SCO doesn't exist.  Don't add to the rabid environment
that has people believing SCO v. IBM is SCO v. Linux.

It never was and every motion and every item SCO tries to introduce that
isn't about Monterey, including the Non-Compete, is being shot down.  At
the same time, SCO is getting motions granted on the Monterey and Non-
Compete considerations.  So if SCO does finally win on a few counts,
it's important that people know they had _nothing_ to do with IP in
Linux, and _everything_ to do with IBM's contractual obligations with
SCO.

Again, don't make IBM's fight with SCO our fight.
> That is absolutely clear.  I would call them a bad company.  Were they
> always that, no.  Did IBM screw some people in the past, yes.
IBM screwed a very _good_, pro-GPL Linux partner in Caldera-SCO.  Why?
Because it could.  It saw them as a competitor with a similar strategy.

It's doing the same of HP and Sun.  Why?  Because it can.

I'm not saying IBM is "bad."  I'm just saying that you do
_not_ want to
defense or demonize companies engaged with IBM.  In fact, had some in
the Linux community not gone so "rabid" on the March 2003 filing, SCO
might have not been able to put up the current "smokescreen" on Linux
IP.
> Red Hat made a business decision that left many people out in the cold
> (the RHL / RHEL line decision) ... CentOS fills that gap.  Some CentOS
> users are very upset with Red Hat because of that decision.  That does
> not make them shallow, they have the right to their opinion.
When did I say they were shallow?!?!?!
Now you're just demonizing anything I say!

I said people who take what I say and say I call company X "bad" and
company Y "good" are shallow.  Get off the comments about companies
and
just leave them be!  There are long, involved details to the actions of
many companies -- and you can't demonize one company without looking at
the actions of another.

IBM is no different today then they were before.  They just have an
equal interest, for now.  Unfortunately, some companies with far better,
pro-GPL histories have been backed into a corner by IBM.  And more are
currently in the making right now.

I just wish people could not make non-technical, political statements
on this list.  Appreciate CentOS for what it is, without feeling the
need to make snide comments.  That's all.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                     b.j.smith at ieee.org 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you.  Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them).  Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work.  ;->

> The SCO that exists currently ... the one that is suing IBM right now,
> in the lawsuit as it currently exists, is an enemy to all Linux, IBM and
> Red Hat customers.  That is absolutely clear.  I would call them a bad
> company.  Were they always that, no.  Did IBM screw some people in the
> past, yes.  Will they again in the future, probably.  Same is true for
> Sun, Red Hat, Novell, SuSE, Mandr(ake/riva), etc.
I still remember the FIRST Linux GUI installer for a Linux distro. It 
came on the Caldera Openlinux 2.2. It worked. It was really nice.

The Novell guys that were behind Caldera deserve plenty of respect for 
what they have done.

I think, today's SCO bashing should really go to the current owner of 
SCO and to IBM. IBM for what they did and the guy who put McBride in 
place to do the stock game.
> 
> Red Hat made a business decision that left many people out in the cold
> (the RHL / RHEL line decision) ... CentOS fills that gap.  Some CentOS
> users are very upset with Red Hat because of that decision.  That does
> not make them shallow, they have the right to their opinion. It also
> does not change the fact that Red Hat is also the best when it comes to
> distributing their source code (of all the major enterprise providers).
I really don't understand why some people get so uptight about it. I 
look after over 30 machines and I have had no problems moving on to 
Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 2. In fact, I like their Fedora project 
more than their RHL line.
> 
> I personally don't have a problem with the Red Hat business decision
...
> but I understand why some people do.
> 
> Fedora Core just doesn't do it for me ... if it works for you, great.
> There is nothing wrong with FC, it just doesn't have the lifetime
> support I am looking for.
That lifetime support you are looking at is far less than 2 years I can 
assure you.
> 
> CentOS, on the other hand, has exactly the options I am looking for.  A
> vibrant community that actively answers questions via IRC, forums and
> active mailing lists.  It is available for free (though donations SHOULD
> be made ... especially if you are using CentOS to make money), has rapid
> security updates, and it has a long lifetime.  So, this is while you
> will find me for quite some time.

CentOS offers the free and the long lifetime. I personally don't care 
too much since the advantages on newer Fedora Cores outweigh a 
'supported' but static distro. However, others may not see it that way 
and so it is good that CentOS is here. At the same time, I find it 
offensive when people starting saying 'Dead Rat' just because the RHL 
line was pulled and they forget all the work that Redhat puts into the 
Linux kernel, gcc, glibc and a host of others that are at the core of 
any Linux distribution.