Slashdot Mirror

cAos web site is running on a non free CMS called Rife. Before [or after] you mod me a troll, look at the number of mature free alternatives CMS stystems out there.

CentOS URL

You can get RPM's and SRPM's for all the EFL stuff (though not quite yet E 0.17 itself) here:

http://caos.oregonstate.edu/cAos-2/ext/autobuilder /

Or at any of our other mirrors.

So instead of using RH you suggest I go to a third party leech?

No, I'm suggesting you take advantage of the precise freedoms that using Free software gives you (if you feel that's your best option). Red Hat must even tacitly approve of CentOS and Whitebox, or they would only distribute source to people who bought RHEL subscriptions (and then only tarballs + patches, rather than the complete src.rpms that they do currently) as allowed by the GPL.

A process which still won't get reasonably priced paid support?

Commercial Support for CentOS. Whether those supporters provide good value compared with DIY, RH, or SuSE is subjective and up to you to decide. Once again, this is another freedom provided by using Free software. Also, bear in mind that the prices quoted on RH's site aren't necessarily the complete story. If you're buying for an enterprise, you'll probably be able to get a deal out of them, as you would when buying support or software from any other enterprise vendor.

Essentially, your argument boils down to you being upset that if you want RH support, their list price indicates you need to pay an extra US$79 for RHEL WS compared with RHL back in 2002 or so. Services generally go up in price over time, deal with it. It's called inflation.

And as a leech as opposed to an actual customer I'd have even less leverage in getting broken stuff fixed, wouldn't I?

Well, yes. But that's exactly the same situation you would have been in prior to RHEL/Fedora if you were using cheap*bytes or Linux Emporium CDs. If you want support, pay for it from someone who you believe offers good VFM. If you don't pay, it's pointless bitching that you don't get it.

Personally, I'm OK with a distro upgrade every year or so on my workstations

Well good for you. Many people find they have more important things to do (actually productive work) than upgrade workstations.

Well, its either that or lose time to rebuilding massive chunks of the OS stack from source in order to get new applications (aka my productive work) running on a year-old distro. I'm lazy, so I prefer to do an upgrade. :-)

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

As you might imagine, our single-CPU web server is taking quite a beating at the moment. We took the site down briefly to tune some things, and it's back up for the moment, but we're working with several potential resources to post static copies of the linked pages in case the situation worsens again.

Please bear with us.

Michael Jennings
Technical Lead, cAos Linux
The cAos Foundation (http://www.caosity.org/)

At my shop, we have been using CentOS 3 for quite some time now, and are extremely satisfied with it. Now, if you work for a big company that gets off on spending lots of money to make sure they got something tangible, then go for Red Hat Enterprise linux. People like to run their mouths about how disorganized RedHat is etc. Its untrue, at least presently speaking. Yum is an admin's dream come true when it comes to updates. Now, as CentOS 3 is just a recompile of the RedHat Enterprise sources, CentOS has been completely compatible with all that good stuff(TM) that is certified to run on RHEL 3, like oracle, not to mention completely free (as in beer/speech). I would wait until February, when RedHat Enterprise 4 comes out as it will include the 2.6 kernel series and much more up to date software. CentOS will likely build those sources and create CentOS 4 near or around that same time.

CentOS Page

Whilst we are (sort of) on topic, I am looking at putting Linux on a couple of workstations and a couple of servers. I am looking at cAos http://www.caosity.org/ (built from RedHat Enterprise source) and Debian Sarge http://www.debian.org/ (assuming it is released when I am ready to install).

Does anybody know of a good comparison between these two (or even RHEL vs Debian)? rather than relying on potentially missing something by looking only by myself.

You actually can get free copies, or as near to it as makes no difference. For example, check out White Box Enterprise Linux. Totally legal, totally legit.

When companies buy RHEL, what they really want (and get) is the ability to call up Red Hat and have useful discussions.

As has been pointed out, the fee RedHat charge is for their services. If you can forgo the services and the brand there are freely (beer/speech) available alternatives.

Whitebox Enterprise Linux 3 has taken the RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 source RPMs, removed trademarks and RedHat artwork and produced their own binary distro of those source RPMs. The resulting server is RHEL3 RPM compatible (which is useful if you are using 3rd party repositories.

WhiteBox Linux release erratta fixes following on from any that RH release. So the distro is kept up to date (using up2date or yum, or if you're like me, apt)

There are other projects with RHEL3 based distros as well.

Don't you just love the GPL?

--
WBEL3 Based Linux VPSs

RHEL was definitely far out of our price range, especially since we have absolutely no use for the support that we would be paying for. We ended up going with CentOS on our fourteen Dell servers that run everything for somethingawful.com.

CentOS is a community-supported build of the RHEL source RPMS. They closely follow RedHat errata and release updated packages shortly after the official RedHat packages appear. We've used it for over six months now and it's been great. It's perfectly stable, and it's easy to rollout updates via a local yum repository that rsyncs off the CentOS mirrors.

Try CentOS or WhiteBox!!!

CentOS
http://www.caosity.org/

WhiteBox Linux
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

CentOS is basically just a totally free and open version of RedHat Enterprise Linux, and it's really nice. Although there's no one to call if someone goes wrong, it basically offers everything feature-wise that RedHat does. check it out here.

CentOS is basically just totally free and open version of RedHat Enterprise Linux, and it's really nice. Although there's no one to call if someone goes wrong, it basically offers everything feature-wise that RedHat does. check it out here.

There's nothing particularly wrong with a reinstall for major upgrades as lots of things can get broken in the process. RH et. al. don't want to carry on supporting legacy versions of packages with their major releases. With Anaconda and network kickstarts the pain of doing complete reinstalls is pretty much eliminated - assuming you manage your configurations well.

With the RHEL product, there will be security updates for 5 years, which do not require reinstalling the entire system. There are "free" clones of RHEL, check out WhiteBox Linux or CentOS or Tao Linux. I'm using WhiteBox in a production environment.

Since RedHat still provides its source code for RHEL, there are some alternatives other than the cutting edge Fedora distribution: Tao Linux, CentOS-3 and White Box Entreprise Linux. These distributions are build from the source packages of RHEL 3 and are almost identical to RHEL except for some artwork and logos.

For those who appreciate stability, reliability and long-term availability (4-5 years lifecycle), those distributions are made for you. Personnaly, I prefer Tao Linux because it has a rather large user base. The Tao logo looks great too!

Why not take a look at CentOS [caosity.org] It's good for those looking for the stability and longevity of RHEL but not the official support from Red Hat.

Actualy, White Box Linux is a mixed bag: on one hand, it is a free recompile of RHEL. On the other hand, this is a one-man-show, who refuses to ackowledge help offers and who is not ontop of security fixes.

If you are interested in "Whitebox Linux", most probably you would like to try out CentOS.

CentOS is the same idea that whiteBoxLinux, with a few differences:

- CentOS is a community driven project, instead of a one-man-show.
- CentOS cares about security updates.
- CentOS has several "flavours" to suit your needs.

See CentOS here.

Peace!

I've upgraded most of my public facing 7.3 and 8.0 boxes to Centos 3.1 (which is effectively RHEL 3). It works great!!

Check it out at: CentOS

I've upgraded most of my public facing 7.3 and 8.0 boxes to Centos 3.1 (which is effectively RHEL 3). It works great!!

Check it out at: CentOS

There's nothing wring with Mandrake, or any of the other major Linux distros. I've found them all to be of top quality. But with the myriad of RH options available now, I don't understand why anyone who has been using RH for a while would ever want to change.

Just doesn't make sense.

For those that are used to RH and don't want a big change, there are many distributions that are compiling the RHEL source and making their own distro. Thank you GPL!

Whitebox Enterprise Linux
cAos
Tao
just to name a few

If we're going to be starting another distro war, I think everyone should take a look at these three projects which aim to release a free edition of RedHat Enterprise Linux. Once you've got one of these running, even if these distro go under, you can still get SRPMS security updates from RH and build them yourself through 2008.

Tao Linux
White Box Linux
cAos

I am not a lawyer, but I will try to answer this in that I have spoken with Red Hat directly before regarding most of this stuff.

Now that RedHat no longer offers a free desktop version of their product, would it be possible that a Linux-running site could be sued by RedHat for illegally running a 'pirated' copy of Red Hat Advanced Server?

Only if you actually purchased a license do you give Red Hat permission to audit your facilities for license violations. Installing Linux is allowed by the GPL, as many times over as you would like. But you are only entitled to Red Hat services on the machine you paid for. IE NO UPDATES/BUG FIXES.

Would this be any different to Microsoft calling in the BSA to investigate a site running unlicensed copies of Windows?

Not really, you can always get Red Hat workalikes built from the source code available to us all. For Free!
White box Linux
Tao Linux
CentOS
Just to name a few.

What if the RedHat site was running a hybrid type of installation, with portions of the distro taken from the unlicensed 'illegally obtained' version of RHAS, but others, such as package management (apt-get, for example), taken from the free GNU/Debian distro?

Depends on whether the machine is licensed or not. I assume a jacked up installation (debian packages on rh system) would void any warranty or compatability assurances that come with Red Hat.

In addition to WhiteBox, there is another RHEL knockoff in the works: cAos -- Community Linux

While I certainly join Bruce in liking (and using) Debian, there's certainly absolutely nothing wrong with RPM-based options such as cAos and Fedora.

Not to mention that getting "Linux distributors to unite behind" any one thing is doomed, anyway.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Since I posted that message I was contacted by the cAos folks. Seems like a better project to pool resources with. Sort of like RHEL with a Debian-esque social contract.

If your offer still stands, please drop me a note and I'd love to talk to you about setting up a mirror.

IMHO, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is closer to being a suitable foundation for a community-driven enterprise-class Linux distribution. There is very little at all to trim from it (mostly removing Red Hat's trademarks). Say what you want about Red Hat, but they have until lately been the most unambiguously Open Source friendly Linux vendor out there. I say "until lately" because their service agreements stifle traditional GPL rights granted to the end user.

That said, a number of us are working on liberating RHEL through the cAos project. First public beta should be available this month. We have a very Debian-like social contract, but the tech is all based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For those of you who prefer RPM-based distros, wouldn't it be nice to install all system packages with yum? The new install floppy image we're testing now is working towards this goal. What this means is all of your packages are installed with the latest stable version from the getgo.