Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along, nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to read this. Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's plans for the future of Centos. Can you read between the lines? In this case, it isn't very hard to do, IMHO. community.redhat.com/centos-faq
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 20:01 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's > plans for the future of Centos. > > community.redhat.com/centos-faqIt is what many of us feared. I never noticed any of the Centos bosses stating they are on a Centos board dominated by Red Hat employees. It is a de facto take-over of Centos by Red Hat. Centos Independence has been "sold" to Red Hat by the supposed guardians of Centos. "The role of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer Program is to provide participants with the tools and resources they need to develop on and for deployment on Red Hat Enterprise Linux; CentOS does not fit into this. ......... ".... developing on CentOS does not guarantee that the resulting application will work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux." So I was 100% correct when I wrote earlier "Am I mistaken in thinking, after reading recent postings, Centos is slowly moving in a different direction to RHEL and the removal of useful and informative sub-version numbers is merely the first of many manifestations of the growing-gap, or eventual gulf, between "upstream" and Centos ?" "Will Centos versions eventually become incompatible, partially or wholly, with its parent's RHEL versions ? I can understand why that would be commercially advantageous to RH." This Centos mailing list, just like the Centos name and logo is the corporate property of Red Hat Inc. How much did Red Hat pay the guardians of the Centos brand to sell-out the whole of Centos to RH ? I do not know how this previously unpublished commercial take-over of Centos will affect the running of our systems. Hopefully things will continue smoothly for everyone's benefit. Perhaps a Fork will emerge. I wonder why this take-over was continually denied by Centos bosses at the beginning. Probably to prevent effective forks, Red Hat will deliberately make it more difficult for the community to compile their sources and produce a workable distribution closely resembling RHEL. One thing is for sure, all the advantages of Centos development will enrich RH whilst Centos will lack all the advantages of RHEL. That is commercial business folks ! -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
On 03/04/15 09:01 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along, > nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to > read this. > > Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's > plans for the future of Centos. > > Can you read between the lines? In this case, it isn't very hard to do, > IMHO. > > community.redhat.com/centos-faqHow about you elaborate on your theory? Publicly, and I believe honestly, Red Hat wanted to ensure the long-term health of the CentOS project. Many companies, when starting out, use CentOS because of it's enterprise lineage and free-as-in-beer cost. Eventually, some of those companies will succeed and grow. Along the line, they will realize the value and ROI of switching to full enterprise support. Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these companies to switch the RHEL proper. There is no grand conspiracy here. It is very much in Red Hat's interests to keep CentOS healthy and thriving. Will CentOS change over time? Yes, of course. Every project, company (and people) need to change and adapt, or else they will fade into irrelevance. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?
On 03/04/15 09:25 PM, Always Learning wrote:> > On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 20:01 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: > >> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's >> plans for the future of Centos. >> >> community.redhat.com/centos-faq > > It is what many of us feared. > > I never noticed any of the Centos bosses stating they are on a Centos > board dominated by Red Hat employees. > > It is a de facto take-over of Centos by Red Hat. Centos Independence has > been "sold" to Red Hat by the supposed guardians of Centos. > > "The role of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer Program is to > provide participants with the tools and resources they need to develop > on and for deployment on Red Hat Enterprise Linux; CentOS does not fit > into this. ......... > > ".... developing on CentOS does not guarantee that the resulting > application will work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux." > > So I was 100% correct when I wrote earlier > > "Am I mistaken in thinking, after reading recent postings, Centos is > slowly moving in a different direction to RHEL and the removal of useful > and informative sub-version numbers is merely the first of many > manifestations of the growing-gap, or eventual gulf, between "upstream" > and Centos ?" > > "Will Centos versions eventually become incompatible, partially or > wholly, with its parent's RHEL versions ? I can understand why that > would be commercially advantageous to RH." > > This Centos mailing list, just like the Centos name and logo is the > corporate property of Red Hat Inc. How much did Red Hat pay the > guardians of the Centos brand to sell-out the whole of Centos to RH ? > > I do not know how this previously unpublished commercial take-over of > Centos will affect the running of our systems. Hopefully things will > continue smoothly for everyone's benefit. Perhaps a Fork will emerge. > > I wonder why this take-over was continually denied by Centos bosses at > the beginning. > > Probably to prevent effective forks, Red Hat will deliberately make it > more difficult for the community to compile their sources and produce a > workable distribution closely resembling RHEL. One thing is for sure, > all the advantages of Centos development will enrich RH whilst Centos > will lack all the advantages of RHEL. > > That is commercial business folks !If you and others believe this to be the case, then form an organization and fork CentOS. Or, do as CentOS did in the beginning and recompile the RHEL binaries to be binary-compatible and create your own OS. It is the open-source way, and I am not being sarcastic. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:27 -0400, Digimer wrote:> Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these > companies to switch the RHEL proper.Not if Centos and RHEL become too incompatible. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
Le 04/04/2015 03:01, Francis Gerund a ?crit :> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along, > nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to > read this. > > Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's > plans for the future of Centos. > > Can you read between the lines? In this case, it isn't very hard to do, > IMHO. > > > > community.redhat.com/centos-faqYes, I already read this last June, when RedHat announced they had recruited CentOS main developpers. I don't see anything new here, or at least no change since this time. So, nothing new concerning the future of CentOS. Could you elaborate what you read between the lines there ? Alain
100% with Digimer here. I think there are no conspiracy theories. IMO RedHat does not want nor does it afford to mess up CentOS. All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the project, testing, helping out community. Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message -----> From: "Digimer" <lists at alteeve.ca> > To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> > Sent: Saturday, 4 April, 2015 02:27:53 > Subject: Re: [CentOS] The future of centos> On 03/04/15 09:01 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: >> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along, >> nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to >> read this. >> >> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's >> plans for the future of Centos. >> >> Can you read between the lines? In this case, it isn't very hard to do, >> IMHO. >> >> community.redhat.com/centos-faq > > How about you elaborate on your theory? > > Publicly, and I believe honestly, Red Hat wanted to ensure the long-term > health of the CentOS project. Many companies, when starting out, use > CentOS because of it's enterprise lineage and free-as-in-beer cost. > > Eventually, some of those companies will succeed and grow. Along the > line, they will realize the value and ROI of switching to full > enterprise support. Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these > companies to switch the RHEL proper. > > There is no grand conspiracy here. It is very much in Red Hat's > interests to keep CentOS healthy and thriving. Will CentOS change over > time? Yes, of course. Every project, company (and people) need to change > and adapt, or else they will fade into irrelevance. > > -- > Digimer > Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ > What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without > access to education? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/04/2015 07:04 AM, Always Learning wrote:> I think it inevitable that Red Hat will introduce some closed source > packages for the its paying customers, ...For the sake of perspective, even in the old Red Hat Linux boxed sets in 1997 this was true. There was a whole CD of closed source stuff that you got in the boxed set that was never available for download. Things like WordPerfect for Linux, for starters. Sybase ASE was in one of the boxed set's Linux Applications CDs (but I seem to remember it being a 'limited' or 'personal' edition). Harking back to 1998, here's what is on that CD for Red Hat Linux 5.2: [lowen at dhcp-pool114 Red Hat Vendor Disc Oct 1998]$ ls -1 AIS Applix ARDI CASEMaker CodeForge Crosswinds Decosoft DigitalControls EST Fastlane Flame Herrin HKS InfoSpring JX KAI Knowledge Knox Multisoft NetWin NExS Perforce README REBOL RPMS SAFE Shpink SpectraLogic Stalker SuSE Sybase Take5 TRANS.TBL VariCAD Visual WGS WP [lowen at dhcp-pool114 Red Hat Vendor Disc Oct 1998]$ This is also true for RHEL, and has been for quite a while. There is a whole 'Supplemental' disc that has packages for which there is no source freely available, although the number of packages on that disc is relatively small, most of it being IBM Java for the 7.1 supplemental server disc. So it is nothing new to have closed source value-add in the Red Hat ecosystem.
On 04/04/2015 06:12 AM, Nux! wrote:> 100% with Digimer here. > > I think there are no conspiracy theories. IMO RedHat does not want nor does it afford to mess up CentOS. > > All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the project, testing, helping out community. > > Lucian > >Agreed, and I want to thank you specifically for the nux dextop repo, which is in my standard installed repo set for EL6 and EL7.
In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list might have on this article I wrote for my new company. http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-brief/ I for one welcome our Redhat overlords. I think they will provide better governance which should give Centos better credibility as an Enterprise, community supported operating system. On 4 April 2015 at 17:17, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:> On 04/04/2015 06:12 AM, Nux! wrote: > >> 100% with Digimer here. >> >> I think there are no conspiracy theories. IMO RedHat does not want nor >> does it afford to mess up CentOS. >> >> All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the project, >> testing, helping out community. >> >> Lucian >> >> >> Agreed, and I want to thank you specifically for the nux dextop repo, > which is in my standard installed repo set for EL6 and EL7. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
2015-04-04 4:01 GMT+03:00 Francis Gerund <ranrund at gmail.com>:> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along, > nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to > read this. > > Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's > plans for the future of Centos. > > Can you read between the lines? In this case, it isn't very hard to do, > IMHO. >If this is a problem, just pick another RHEL clone like Scientific Linux ? -- Eero
On Sun, 2015-04-05 at 21:27 +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:> If this is a problem, just pick another RHEL clone like Scientific Linux ?I thought I read on this List the intention of Scientific to base its future distribution on Red Hat's Centos product. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
Maybe Matching Threads
- Problems with getty and X on runlevel switch [Was: Re: The future of centos]
- The future of centos
- The future of centos
- Problems with getty and X on runlevel switch [Was: Re: The future of centos]
- Problems with getty and X on runlevel switch [Was: Re: The future of centos]