Roger: "Bottom line, I would like to use CentOS for certain server-related stuff, but would also like to budget in a yearly fee for when I need to call someone for assistance."
Ive used RHEL and CentOS in production. RHEL due to previous admins or certain users requesting it, CentOS because I prefer it over RHEL. I hate RHEL. RHEL 5 is better then previous releases, but CentOS is easier to setup, having more in the repos, and the community is faster and far more helpful with problems then RHEL support. The two are similar but not equal. Im sure you can find payed support for CentOS. There are definite a few situations where proprietary software is written specifically fo RHEL and not CentOS, so it is sometimes a pain to get things working on CentOS. Ragi: The original comment was about open source (it may have been a joke, or maybe serious). However, you used the term "GPL" interchangeably, and that was the origin of my comment. Right, roger said open source. My comment was about GPL. I was not interchanging them. I was careful to limit my comment to GPL. Saying open source is a little broad. "Anyway, some of us don't leave in academia-world and do consulting to pay the bills. In this business-world, we have to make the best decision for our customers and *explain* to them what is best for them. In certain cases, *shrug*, open source is not the best solution. In many scenarios, the license is the real deal killer. Sometimes, these companies don't feel comfortable with GPL - and with reason. " You are free to live outside of "academic-world". I am also a sys-admin and even though it is at a university, I do get paid and have bills to pay like anyone else. I agree, in some cases, open source is not an option to customers, but it is always the best solution in implementation, when possible, and the best practice when writing code. "But make no mistake, in many cases, GPL is used to protect the ***creator's*** original intention with the source code, not the ***user***. Actually, I am not against that, they created it, it is their *right* to do so. But calling that " freedom for the **user** " is just regurgitating licensing political speech. If you want to talk "freedom of the ***user***", then licenses like BSD give the ***user*** far more freedom." No, that is wrong. What is the GNU GPL for, what is its purpose or intention? To defend the freedom of every user. That everyone that gets the software gets the following freedoms: 0. the freedom to run the program as you wish. 1. the freedom to study the source code and change it as you wish. 2. the freedom to help your neighbour, which is the freedom to distribute exact copies up to and including publication when you which 3. the freedom to contribute to your community, which is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified copies up to and including publication. "Ugh, I think I started a license talk. Lame. Sorry." I am only going to correct what you said, not attack it. Piece not war ::grin:: There is always an exception. As an alternative to proprietary licensing only, dual licensing is acceptable, i.e., QT. Releasing the code under GPL and then selling to particular companies permission to use the same code in other ways. It should be noted that the FSF will never support dual licensing as policy because they believe in treating everyone the same. Chris... On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Roger E. Rustad, Jr. <roger.rus...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Jeff Lasman <jpli...@nobaloney.net> wrote: >> And for what it's worth, that $15/month fee from Red Hat doesn't include any >> support; it's strictly a fee for us to be able to tell people we use Red Hat >> (when i last spoke with a Rep [a long time ago]) he said he didn't even care >> if I used the CentOS ISO, as long as I paid for the right to call it Red Hat. >> While I doubt that's official company policy (and it's not what I do), it's >> an >> interesting. > > Interesting... > > I've heard conflicting things about CentOS and Red Hat. Someone told > me that you could use CentOS and that Red Hat would support it if you > paid their fee. I posed that question on a listserv, and I got shot > down, yet I read posts like yours that say that it's all about just > paying your money. > > Bottom line, I would like to use CentOS for certain server-related > stuff, but would also like to budget in a yearly fee for when I need > to call someone for assistance. > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > LinuxUsers@socallinux.org > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > -- "As we open our newspapers or watch our television screens, we seem to be continually assaulted by the fruits of Mankind's stupidity." -Roger Penrose _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
