Hello, This afternoon I received the new that my institution, in the main direction, is planning (for political reasons, I don't know which one??) migrate to Debian. I have a hotted conversation with my boss cause I've been working on CentOS during near a year and half. I explained it that both distros just implement the protocols that are standards, that could be installed a web server in a Debian Box or in a CentOS Box, both can use apache and generally the service will be stable in both, without a lot of differences. Also that the use of each one is indifferent, just a matter of user's comfort and that means, it will take a long time to change to other, because not only will be the time in planning services, but the time in learn a new way of do it too. Note: if I said something wrong correct me please. The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry. I really struggle a little more to defend, CentOS and my comfort on it ;) , but have not solids arguments about that issue, I really never worried about it. Would some of you explain me this issue, or point me somewhere to read?. I'll really appreciate that.
> The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry. >They may want to re-read the GPL and related licenses. 99.9% of the software in RHEL is GPL, which means they can charge for it all they want, but whoever buys it can re-release it as they see fit. Given that RHEL is in the habit of buying things and releasing them to the FOSS community (Netscape Directory anyone?) I don't see them closing anything in the near future. It's not really the software RH is trying to charge people for, so much as it's the support, licensing and reliability that gives bosses the peace of mind they want.> I really struggle a little more to defend, CentOS and my comfort on it > ;) , but have not solids arguments about that issue, I really never > worried about it. > > Would some of you explain me this issue, or point me somewhere to > read?. I'll really appreciate that. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:08, Alain Reguera wrote:> The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry. >> Would some of you explain me this issue, or point me somewhere to > read?. I'll really appreciate that.Redhat has has been fanatical about observing the GPL on upstream packages, applying it to their own their own code and making source available in RPM form even for packages with licenses that don't require it. While it is always good practice to have a 'plan B' to cover the possibility of a preferred product becoming unavailable, there is no reason to expect things to change and not much point in switching to a different version ahead of time. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 21:08 -0500, Alain Reguera wrote:> Hello, > > This afternoon I received the new that my institution, in the main > direction, is planning (for political reasons, I don't know which > one??) migrate to Debian. > > I have a hotted conversation with my boss cause I've been working on > CentOS during near a year and half. I explained it that both distros > just implement the protocols that are standards, that could be > installed a web server in a Debian Box or in a CentOS Box, both can > use apache and generally the service will be stable in both, without a > lot of differences. Also that the use of each one is indifferent, just > a matter of user's comfort and that means, it will take a long time to > change to other, because not only will be the time in planning > services, but the time in learn a new way of do it too. > > Note: if I said something wrong correct me please. > > The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry.We would have access to their SRPMS anyway, even if they only released to customers. Several of the CentOS developers are upstream customers and we would have access to the upstream source even if they closed it to all but paying customers. Since their SRPMS are GPL, once we have access we can release RPMS builr on them, so long as we follow the redistribution requirements. Here is an interview of the RedHat CIO discussing CentOS: http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/UNID/0358EF0F3EFF0584CC2570AA0073523A?OpenDocument Look for CentOS in this document. Thanks, Johnny Hughes CentOS Developer -------------- 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/20060123/494c72f0/attachment-0005.sig>
Alain Reguera wrote:> The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry. >You might want to keep in mind that Redhat dont actually 'sell' a distro - they sell support services and a subscription to the RHN website / infrastructure. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
Hello list,> The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry.To be honest I was anxious about that too. Take a look for a case of SuSE Linux Enterprise Server. Why Novell don't make available SRPMs the way RedHad do? Regards -- ____________________________________________________________________ D o m i n i k S k ? a d a n o w s k i
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Even tho many good answers were already provided, thera are a few point I would like to comment on. On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:08:25PM -0500, Alain Reguera wrote:> This afternoon I received the new that my institution, in the main > direction, is planning (for political reasons, I don't know which > one??) migrate to Debian.Then they are wrong from the state. No company should change the software they run on their computers for political reasons. Technical, yes. Economical, yes. Commercial, yes. Strategic, yes. But not political.> I have a hotted conversation with my boss cause I've been working on > CentOS during near a year and half. I explained it that both distros > just implement the protocols that are standards, that could be > installed a web server in a Debian Box or in a CentOS Box, both can > use apache and generally the service will be stable in both, without a > lot of differences.That is, at best, wishful thinking. I have to seriously question Debian's stability on an enterprise environment. You will see some serious version changes on updates (not common, but they do happen), and some less-than-stable versions on the distribution. RHEL (as CentOS) is not a bleeding-edge distribution. Actually, some software are so old that if you are will have trouble if you are migrating from another distribution. As an example, I would like to point out that Mutt on CentOS 4 is older than the one we had on Conectiva Linux 9 (old, old). On the other hand, with RHEL (and CentOS) you will have a rocksolid server, something I never saw with any other distribution I had the (dis)pleasure of working with. To name a few: RedHat Linux (pre-enterprise), Mandrake, Mandriva, SuSE, Conectiva, Slackware and Debian. The overall maintenance cost for a CentOS box is about 60% of what I had with other distributions (85% compared to SuSE Enterprise). I'm talking about technical personal time here.> Also that the use of each one is indifferent, just > a matter of user's comfort and that means, it will take a long time to > change to other, because not only will be the time in planning > services, but the time in learn a new way of do it too.I can put a figure on that time. Namely, 3 to 6 months (depending on how well documented your procedures are). Also, it is far from indifferent, as I pointed earlier.> Note: if I said something wrong correct me please.I hope what I wrote above helped :)> The arguments they gave to me were, what happen if redhat close the > base packages, they don't have to release them, but just to the buyer, > and we can't buy the distro, there are others distros like debian that > is totally free, and without dependencies of proprietary industry.Already answered by other in a far better way than I could do myself.> I really struggle a little more to defend, CentOS and my comfort on it > ;) , but have not solids arguments about that issue, I really never > worried about it. > > Would some of you explain me this issue, or point me somewhere to > read?. I'll really appreciate that.I went to a distribution change a some months ago. Since we are a consulting company, I had to think not only about my company, but also my clients. That triggered the change was the fact that Mandrake Software bought Conectiva (Conectiva Linux was our distro of choice). Yes, we had a choice of starting to use Mandriva, but since it was a change on itself, we decided to do a full analysis of the avaliable distros to see which one was a better choice. The first question one has to ask is the focus of the distribution. On that, the first two we rulled out were Slackware and Debian. Slackware is a hackers/learning focused distro, and Debian is a politicaly focused distro. Fedora is a bleeding-edge distro, so it was also ruled out, along with many others. Truthfuly, just by applying this first filter (distro focus), we were able to disqualify about 70 distros. That is a filter I recomend anyone to apply when choosing what you will put on your company servers. I have changed distros before that. One thing I learned is that choosing the correct distro will be much more cost effective, even if you have to change it after 6 or 7 years, than sticking to a distro for the wrong reasons (ie: non-business related). Best Regards, - -- Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD1XoKpdyWzQ5b5ckRAkwPAKCjL0zcJQJxiyA7C5xFbilTAnws5QCdHHZL lxGd+i9p1UYWKVoJ0ckoSrk=ySEA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----