I find it amazing that people are whining about military spending in the US. Especially people in Europe.
When the next Hitler or Stalin comes, I doubt very seriously you will be whining about all that military spending when the B3 bombers and the American soldiers are again saving your homeland because your countries REFUSE to provide for their own common defense.
How many times do we need to see this recur before it can pierce this whiny ideology.
Another little tidbit... Windows Vista, the OS, costs as much as this whole computer. Add Microsoft Office 2007 and you have spent double the price of this machine and all the Linux software you want. And you don't even have a computer yet.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
The SPEC file is the most important "script used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Red Hat is all the time doing things in the SPEC file that produces the RPM... if they distribute the RPM to people, they HAVE to also distribute the SRPM to those same people.
SURELY you don't think that CentOS developers do not have access to RHN. At a cost of $379.00 a year, CentOS becomes a valid customer and the FREE ftp server is then a moot point.
Well... I totally agree with you.
Parents are responsible for their children and should monitor what is going on.
I do not have any problem with requiring a parent to allow access to a site for their children.
And you know what... if parents don't want to allow their children to watch TV or have internet access, what is wrong with that. It is the parents who are responsible to decide what their children are allowed to see.
What does that have to do with using the RHN service and the parts of RHEL that are not GPL?
Several of the packages provided (like redhat-artwork and redhat-logos) are not GPL, they are copyright RH, Inc.... and the RHN Network is not GPL.
So, the terms of service REQUIRE that to use the RHN network or to install those couple packages, you have to have to pay them.
If you do not pay, you can't use RHN and you can't install the non-GPL packages.
That is _EXACTLY_WHY_ CentOS exists... it redistributes the GPL software and removes the parts that are not and redistributes it all in a manner that is free to use.
None of that changes the fact that you can not make copys and redistribute the NON-GPL trademarks... or install the entire distribution... without paying Red Hat.
Did you filter out the dynamic address ranges to get a reasonable estimate of your userbase?
No, which makes the number higher than it would be.
However, we also can not take into account the people who are using 192.168.x.x, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255, or 10.x.x.x networks that allow for a single IP address to host many CentOS machines.
So, since our target user is in the enterprise, we would just assume that the net result is a wash and call it even. Not sure what else you would do.
why would the they need to remove their own trademarks and give you a version that you could build with no work.
That is silly.
The onus to reuse certian items should not reside with the provider. And besides, the packages in question (redhat-artwork and redhat-logos) are not not ever GPL.
All the GPL'ed items do not require changes.
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well... it seems that the Fedora team (and Board Chairman) do not seem to share your opinion of CentOS (they must not have gotten the memo to hate CentOS before we shared a FOSDEM 2007 devroom). Also see:
I'm sure that Red Hat would be much better off if the people who want to install a free server did not install CentOS (which can easily run anything on RHEL later if support and a paid for OS is required)... but instead used debian or ubuntu. Of course they wouldn't... Red Hat benefits greatly because CentOS gets software installed that can easily move to their flag ship product when and if the time is right.
Also, take a look at the Red Hat bugzilla sometime and do a search for CentOS. The code base gets seen / installed by many more people on many more pieces of hardware, many of which would not have installed on RHEL but some other free OS if CentOS were unavailable. This allows RH to get feedback and bug reports from many more people to stablize their codebase. All the time, RH does not need to provide any real support to this group of people.
You can even argue that because of the popularity of CentOS combined with some big name 3rd party repositories like RPMForge and KBS CentOS Extras that a whole new need was demonstrated, and that the EPEL project was created to help fill that need. Again, Red Hat and RHEL users benefit greatly because of this colaboration.
There are other numerous advantages as well... but that is enough for now. No, Red Hat is not loosing sleep because CentOS exists... indeed, quite the opposite.
Re:Only a few weeks behind...StartCom...
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right... BUT....
Try some some ldd compares between RHEL and startcom... then do the same for CentOS
CentOS has nearly 200 mirrors world wide and a geoip enabled system to deliver updates and find downloads, startcom as about 10.
Though... the more the merrier I always say... and startcom is a fine distro too.
Re:yet another Fedora Core 6
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Except... Fedora Core 6 will stop getting updates once FC8 is out in a year.. but RHEL5 (and CentOS) being Enterprise OSes will continue to be supported for 7 years. So, while they are the same (or at least very similar) to FC6 now, if you are installing it on your enterprise servers or desktops, you will appreaciate the support lifetime and reduced cost of totally reloading your OS every 6 months.
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
A few people use it... well, maybe more than a few as we have had 2 million unique IP Addresses do updates against our yum repositories in the last 12 months.
Well... you could use RHEL... but how ethical is it?
I mean... there is Gnome and KDE from other open source people, and Samba too. And OpenOffice.org is developed by someone else. Hmmm, what about Firefox, Seamonkey, the Kernel.
I just don't know about the RH stuff, they just seem to be riding the backs of other developers.
------------
HOW STUPID DOES THAT SOUND....:-)
pretty stupid, right?
So stop whining about CentOS... CentOS is GPL, and is not doing anything that 100 other distro maintainers are not doing.
GPL is GPL...
CentOS did not change the boiler plate after this happened. That server was not updated with the latest version of apache for CentOS.
We changed the wording of the boiler plate on 5 Jan 2006 in this version of apache:
http://vault.centos.org/4.2/updates/i386/RPMS/
That is when the ISOs for the offical release came out, as well as the RPMS on RHN were made available. Now if you are talking about the Beta release of u3... that is a different story. But that was a totally different set of RPMS. (yes, I have access to the beta channel)
There seems to be some people who think CentOS does not Red Hat... that could not be further from the truth. They have a re-distribution policy that we more that meet the requirements of. We have worked with them in the past and will continue to work with them in the future to address any issues that they have with CentOS.
ummm... there is PLENTY of added vaule (someone else mentioned the SPARC and ALPHA arches)... there is also an installable i586 version of the kernel adding support for pentium, VIA c3 processors, etc. That is not upstream. PPC32 that works in CentOS... not upstream.
There is a CentOS Extras repo and CentOS Plus repo that produce packages that are not upstream... and work with both CentOS and RHEL.
CentOS submits MANY bugfixes and patches to Red Hat code back upstream.
There are also many other things out there based on CentOS as their core OS... anyone heard of Asterisk@home, SME Server, openfiler, Rocks Clusters... plenty more:
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amazing that people are whining about military spending in the US. Especially people in Europe. When the next Hitler or Stalin comes, I doubt very seriously you will be whining about all that military spending when the B3 bombers and the American soldiers are again saving your homeland because your countries REFUSE to provide for their own common defense. How many times do we need to see this recur before it can pierce this whiny ideology.
Another little tidbit ... Windows Vista, the OS, costs as much as this whole computer. Add Microsoft Office 2007 and you have spent double the price of this machine and all the Linux software you want. And you don't even have a computer yet.
OK ... I am not really understanding many of these bashing articles.
... we are talking about a $200.00 machine.
... buy that. But don't complain that your $200.00 PC is not the $5000.00 one.
For crying out loud
Put that in perspective, that is the same price as an ipod nano or a 20" analog TV set.
Do you see articles bashing 20" analog TV sets for $200.00 and comparing them to $20,000.00 LCD TVs and expecting the same performance??? I think not.
If one wants a $5000.00 PC, then buy that. If you want a $200.00 PC
You didn't post the most important part ...
... if they distribute the RPM to people, they HAVE to also distribute the SRPM to those same people.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
The SPEC file is the most important "script used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Red Hat is all the time doing things in the SPEC file that produces the RPM
SURELY you don't think that CentOS developers do not have access to RHN. At a cost of $379.00 a year, CentOS becomes a valid customer and the FREE ftp server is then a moot point.
ummm ... Bush didn't kill anybody.
... here are some democrat quotes for you:
19 Jihadists killed about 2800 people on 9/11/2001.
About 3400 American military volunteers (so far) have given their lives in sacrifice after that.
Bush did not "LIE"
Democrat Quotes
Of course, that does not fit with your unbelievably biased world view.
Well ... I totally agree with you.
Parents are responsible for their children and should monitor what is going on.
I do not have any problem with requiring a parent to allow access to a site for their children.
And you know what ... if parents don't want to allow their children to watch TV or have internet access, what is wrong with that. It is the parents who are responsible to decide what their children are allowed to see.
OH NO ....
:-D
3 671841
Another senior Red Hat employee who did not get the We Hat CentOS memo it seems
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/
Could it be Red Hat really does like CentOS?
sure, you can install "the GPL Only" packages and not the others ... BUT ... you can't legally then use RHN if you do that.
What does that have to do with using the RHN service and the parts of RHEL that are not GPL?
... and the RHN Network is not GPL.
... it redistributes the GPL software and removes the parts that are not and redistributes it all in a manner that is free to use.
... or install the entire distribution ... without paying Red Hat.
Several of the packages provided (like redhat-artwork and redhat-logos) are not GPL, they are copyright RH, Inc.
So, the terms of service REQUIRE that to use the RHN network or to install those couple packages, you have to have to pay them.
If you do not pay, you can't use RHN and you can't install the non-GPL packages.
That is _EXACTLY_WHY_ CentOS exists
None of that changes the fact that you can not make copys and redistribute the NON-GPL trademarks
Did you filter out the dynamic address ranges to get a reasonable estimate of your userbase?
No, which makes the number higher than it would be.
However, we also can not take into account the people who are using 192.168.x.x, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255, or 10.x.x.x networks that allow for a single IP address to host many CentOS machines.
So, since our target user is in the enterprise, we would just assume that the net result is a wash and call it even. Not sure what else you would do.
and the OS that you build and distribute had many more than that ... right :-P
why would the they need to remove their own trademarks and give you a version that you could build with no work. That is silly. The onus to reuse certian items should not reside with the provider. And besides, the packages in question (redhat-artwork and redhat-logos) are not not ever GPL. All the GPL'ed items do not require changes.
Well ... it seems that the Fedora team (and Board Chairman) do not seem to share your opinion of CentOS (they must not have gotten the memo to hate CentOS before we shared a FOSDEM 2007 devroom). Also see:
... but instead used debian or ubuntu. Of course they wouldn't ... Red Hat benefits greatly because CentOS gets software installed that can easily move to their flag ship product when and if the time is right.
... but that is enough for now. No, Red Hat is not loosing sleep because CentOS exists ... indeed, quite the opposite.
LinuxFormat Article
I'm sure that Red Hat would be much better off if the people who want to install a free server did not install CentOS (which can easily run anything on RHEL later if support and a paid for OS is required)
Also, take a look at the Red Hat bugzilla sometime and do a search for CentOS. The code base gets seen / installed by many more people on many more pieces of hardware, many of which would not have installed on RHEL but some other free OS if CentOS were unavailable. This allows RH to get feedback and bug reports from many more people to stablize their codebase. All the time, RH does not need to provide any real support to this group of people.
You can even argue that because of the popularity of CentOS combined with some big name 3rd party repositories like RPMForge and KBS CentOS Extras that a whole new need was demonstrated, and that the EPEL project was created to help fill that need. Again, Red Hat and RHEL users benefit greatly because of this colaboration.
There are other numerous advantages as well
Right ... BUT ....
... then do the same for CentOS
... the more the merrier I always say ... and startcom is a fine distro too.
Try some some ldd compares between RHEL and startcom
CentOS has nearly 200 mirrors world wide and a geoip enabled system to deliver updates and find downloads, startcom as about 10.
Though
Except ... Fedora Core 6 will stop getting updates once FC8 is out in a year .. but RHEL5 (and CentOS) being Enterprise OSes will continue to be supported for 7 years. So, while they are the same (or at least very similar) to FC6 now, if you are installing it on your enterprise servers or desktops, you will appreaciate the support lifetime and reduced cost of totally reloading your OS every 6 months.
A few people use it ... well, maybe more than a few as we have had 2 million unique IP Addresses do updates against our yum repositories in the last 12 months.
How about on an Enterprise Desktop???? Maybe you have heard of those :P
Well ... you could use RHEL ... but how ethical is it?
I mean ... there is Gnome and KDE from other open source people, and Samba too. And OpenOffice.org is developed by someone else. Hmmm, what about Firefox, Seamonkey, the Kernel.
I just don't know about the RH stuff, they just seem to be riding the backs of other developers.
------------
HOW STUPID DOES THAT SOUND .... :-)
pretty stupid, right?
So stop whining about CentOS ... CentOS is GPL, and is not doing anything that 100 other distro maintainers are not doing.
GPL is GPL ...
CentOS did not change the boiler plate after this happened. That server was not updated with the latest version of apache for CentOS. We changed the wording of the boiler plate on 5 Jan 2006 in this version of apache: http://vault.centos.org/4.2/updates/i386/RPMS/
ummm ... the arch is i386 ... most of the packages are compiled in i386 mode (specifically: -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=pentium4)
The exceptions are the kernel, ssh, glibc.
The correct arch is i386
well ... the centos team isn't paid at all for there work. It's all volunteer.
ummmm .... whether you are subscribed to the beta channels or not ...:
M arch/msg00049.html
... that is a different story. But that was a totally different set of RPMS. (yes, I have access to the beta channel)
... that could not be further from the truth. They have a re-distribution policy that we more that meet the requirements of. We have worked with them in the past and will continue to work with them in the future to address any issues that they have with CentOS.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/nahant-list/2006-
That is when the ISOs for the offical release came out, as well as the RPMS on RHN were made available. Now if you are talking about the Beta release of u3
There seems to be some people who think CentOS does not Red Hat
ummmm ... of course it can be built from source .... HOW DO YOU THINK WE BUILT IT ?????
... but we built the kenrel from the SPRM that can be downloaded at our website.
not sure what your problem was
ummm ... there is PLENTY of added vaule (someone else mentioned the SPARC and ALPHA arches) ... there is also an installable i586 version of the kernel adding support for pentium, VIA c3 processors, etc. That is not upstream. PPC32 that works in CentOS ... not upstream.
... and work with both CentOS and RHEL.
... anyone heard of Asterisk@home, SME Server, openfiler, Rocks Clusters ... plenty more:
y topic=11
There is a CentOS Extras repo and CentOS Plus repo that produce packages that are not upstream
CentOS submits MANY bugfixes and patches to Red Hat code back upstream.
There are also many other things out there based on CentOS as their core OS
http://www.centos.org/modules/news/index.php?stor
Not a fork ... it is as close as you can get to the upstream product.
CentOS has always used a differnet mirror system (yum) than RHN.