On 7/25/23 13:36, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Providing support is not a violation of the spirit of the GPL.
And neither is *not* providing support.
--
Google Where SkyNet meets Idiocracy
On 2023-07-25 16:24, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
Honestly, you are mixing unrelated, or not relevant topics and
arguments, and even misconceptions and forget to understand the
problem at all.
I don't see how that's unrelated. As I said earlier, on this point
we're discussing a matter of
Am 26.07.23 um 00:52 schrieb Gordon Messmer:
On 2023-07-25 12:18, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer said:
If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't
published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of
thing, but they aren't. There's
On 2023-07-25 12:18, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer said:
If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't
published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of
thing, but they aren't. There's nothing there that isn't published
elsewhere.
Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer said:
> If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't
> published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of
> thing, but they aren't. There's nothing there that isn't published
> elsewhere.
This will not be the case for the
On 2023-07-25 09:19, Gordon Messmer wrote:
5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit.
As you acknowledge, that's a subjective question. I would say "no."
Seriously? You are the only person here who thinks that.
After reading an unrelated thread, I want to make an
On 2023-07-25 04:25, Phil Perry wrote:
Nonsense. For years Red Hat freely published the complete RHEL SRPMs
to their public ftp server.
No, they didn't. Take a look at the planning guide diagrams, here:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata
A RHEL major release isn't a
I was trying to stay out of this thread, but the reply was complete and
utter nonsense...
On 25/07/2023 01:24, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-07-24 13:47, frank saporito wrote:
Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements:
1. Red Hat is no longer posting source code to
On 21.07.2023 09:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote:
Because the general rule seems to be
Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service
What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable'
service.
this is ok, but the worse thing is: students and teachers get
>
>> 5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit.
>
>
> As you acknowledge, that's a subjective question. I would say "no."
>
> I think the entire history of the free-as-in-speech vs free-as-in-beer
> clarification is proof that we wanted to ensure the right to improve
> software if
On 2023-07-24 13:47, frank saporito wrote:
Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements:
1. Red Hat is no longer posting source code to git.centos.org.
Correct. Red Hat used to publish a de-branded subset of RHEL source
code there, and they've discontinued that process. The
On 7/24/23 10:12, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote:
On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They
give away software. All of their software is available at no
charge, typically in an unbranded
On 21.07.2023 09:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote:
Because the general rule seems to be
Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service
What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable' service.
this is ok, but the worse thing is: students and teachers get
On 2023-07-24 08:31, Tom Bishop wrote:
Eh your keep dancing around and trying to spin what they did with the
source and their intent.
I'm not dancing around anything. I'm discussing the objective,
verifiable facts of what they did, some of my opinions on that, and not
Red Hat's intent,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:13 AM Gordon Messmer
wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote:
> > On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They
> >> give away software. All of their software is available at no charge,
> >>
On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote:
On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They
give away software. All of their software is available at no charge,
typically in an unbranded release. What Red Hat sells is support.
Does
suffering the most because of greed.
-Original Message-
From: frank saporito
Reply-To: CentOS mailing list
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Current RHEL fragmentation landscape
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:55:28 -0500
On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 2023-07-21 00
+1 Frank
Personally I am moving all my workloads to anything but. It's clear the
direction that Red hat is taking and so be it. I've seen it multiple times
with open source projects that just seems like greed kicks in and it's all
about making the most $$ that they can. Oh and let's be clear,
On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote:
But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google
Workspace.
Why ?
Because the general rule seems to be
Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service
What! You are
On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote:
But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google Workspace.
Why ?
Because the general rule seems to be
Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service
What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely
On 7/21/2023 1:57 AM, Ian B wrote:
We just have 5 servers, and don't want any personal support. We'd be fine
to pay what we'd consider a reasonable fee I think. I contacted Redhat to
ask about their licensing and if we could fit somehow into it (i.e the
personal support & 16 machine type
Sorry for being too critical.
I hope we have a better understanding between us (customer and provider).
Thanks
---
Lee
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 1:00 PM Lee Thomas Stephen wrote:
>
> I subscribe (pay) for a lot of things personally. Music, Movies, Anti
> Virus, VPN, Storage, etc.
> But for my
Fwiw we pay for Google Workspace. I think there is a pricing issue though,
but I guess changing it would affect their income from their bigger
customers.
We just have 5 servers, and don't want any personal support. We'd be fine
to pay what we'd consider a reasonable fee I think. I contacted
I subscribe (pay) for a lot of things personally. Music, Movies, Anti
Virus, VPN, Storage, etc.
But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google Workspace.
Why ?
Because the general rule seems to be
Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service
What! You
On 2023-07-20 04:36, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader,
writing software is a hard work.
#offensive terms to the community :-), hide hat wrote it.
No, they didn't.
That term was bandied about on social media by people who were
>> I can't predict the future but my feeling is that AlmaLinux has a good
>> chance to become the second Gold standard.
>
> I disagree with you. Both Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are in a very
> comfortable position, and they will likely stay that way.
We'll see, Rocky Linux wants to stay a 100%
I can't predict the future but my feeling is that AlmaLinux has a good
chance to become the second Gold standard.
I disagree with you. Both Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are in a very
comfortable position, and they will likely stay that way.
my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder
Hi,
I've quickly made an incomplete list of the RHEL and clones/forks
landscape to see what the current situation is. The interesting question
will be how this will change in the coming years and how it affects Red
Hat/IBM and the Linux users in general.
RHEL ("The Original", quasi Gold standard
28 matches
Mail list logo
