I'm not worried at all if you have a license or not. I'm not your sales rep. :)
The way the comment read didn't sit with me well. It sounded dismissive to a lot of work that Red Hatters do for upstream communities all over that allow RHEL, RHEL derivitaves and all other forms of Linux to happen. Not just the kernel, but the un-sexy bits in the middle that make an OS usable. I also can't agree with the the thought that Red Hatters won't dissent against company decisions that they don't agree with. I'm not going to dig through the world archives this late on a Friday but I just don't accept that assumption. Of course I'm a fanboy and an employee. But I'm those things because I believe in how we try to do things. We don't always get it right (see RHEV 1.0 and other debacles). But we try to. Have a good weekend. -jduncan On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Dag Wieers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Mark Stodola wrote: > > On 06/20/2014 08:55 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> >>> > On 06/20/2014 03:55 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: >>> > > > > It may have become a legal question now that the SRPMs are no >>> longer >>> > > available from ftp.redhat.com. That in itself is an unwelcome >>> change. >>> > > It is an unfortunate change, yes, but I prefer to give Red Hat the >>> > benefit of the doubt as far as motivations go, since they could close >>> > it up completely like SuSE has with SLES and SLED (OpenSuSE is SuSE's >>> > Fedora, so it doesn't count). And SuSE is completely within its >>> > rights under GPL to do how they are doing; this is not a jab against >>> > SuSE, since SuSE has also done and is doing a lot of great work for >>> > open source. (Of course, since I haven't looked for publicly posted >>> > source for SLES in a while, they may have posted it since I last >>> > looked and I just don't know about it.) >>> >>> I am glad you agree that Red Hat now moving closer to what SuSE is doing >>> is unfortunate and not welcomed by the community(*). >>> >>> (*) Where community in my definition excludes people on Red Hat's >>> payroll ;-) >>> >> >> Although this discussion seems interesting, I see the same points being >> reiterated. I don't see how any of this is going to change anything >> though. RedHat and CentOS are moving forward whether we like it or not and >> the SL development team are doing what they can within those constraints. >> If one needs all that integrity and vetting of the source, go fork over >> the money for a license. >> > > I have a license, don't worry. I am a Red Hat customer. But of course, one > license will not do. You need a bunch of entitlements to get access to all > channels. And on a yearly basis too. HA, RHSCL, ... > > For only accessing the SRPMs and rebuilding it adds up quickly. > > > -- > -- dag wieers, [email protected], http://dag.wieers.com/ > -- dagit linux solutions, [email protected], http://dagit.net/ > > [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] > -- Thanks, Jamie Duncan @jamieeduncan
