Posted on 05/03/2005 5:36:11 AM PDT by ShadowAce
We built a custom system using oracle, bea's weblogic, and used Linux for much of the developmnet but the code has no gpl code in it and does not link GPL libraries so its closed source..
There is nothing to refute, I tell someone that if you distribute gpl code you have to give it out and you turn around and attack me. You complain about poor redhat having to give away its work when they get 95% of the stuff they sell from someone else. (BTW I am a big RedHat fan and my company spends a good deal of money on them).
1) Companies like Redhat do have some non GPL stuff in their distro you cant just copy that.
2) Support, everyone here will tell you an os (and its source) can not cost a dime but the system will still cost money.
on my home PC I use fedora (free) because I have no specific uptime requirements, no documented patching schedule (I can fall a few patches behind), and I never run into a situation I need any more help than google on. At the office the opposite is true and I pay RedHat for licenses..
So you're basing your argument on them losing groups that would either never have bought it in the first place or who probably couldn't afford it anyway? You have yet to show that it is a trend that is any different from Mandrake. Why do you avoid getting into this since Mandrake actually took over something like 25% of the entire Linux market for a while before Red Hat beat them back down? You have also yet to show any case of any serious customer migrating from RHEL to CentOS which is what would really constitute losing customers. The only "lost customers" you have shown so far ones that never contemplated RHEL in the first place.
Sure, some cheap foreign fake from France isn't going to gather the same level of support here in the U.S. as something being put together here in the States. Name one major university that ever standardized on Mandrake.
Very few universities have actually really standardized on Linux at all. And on what basis do you call Mandrake cheap foreign crap? What's your technical explanation? Why are you so afraid to actually explain technical details? I think it's just because you'd finally make a total fool of yourself.
No I'm not, there's other posters right here in this very thread. They just chose not to stick around and argue with fanatics ad nauseum, something I personally find rather amusing.
News flash, I am not even a Linux user. My main platforms are MacOS X 10.4 and Windows XP. That kinda disqualifies me from having much of a real vested interest in any linux distribution. The biggest fanatic here is you because you rant and rave about CentOS while not providing one iota of an explanation about how RHEL is so different from SuSE, Gentoo, etc. Avoiding details while ranting, especially when others demand the details, tends to be a sign of ignorance of the subject at hand and the mark of a fanatic with an agenda.
You can keep making these long posts of why you and you alone feel the way you do, but until you start producing some reputable backup data that claims CentOS is a pile of crap compared to Red Hat and is not being deployed as a replacement, you're getting smoked.
I'm still waiting for you to post a detailed explanation of how RHEL and CentOS are truly different from SuSE, Gentoo, etc. I asked for a package-by-package break down comparing several distributions and believe me you might want to get started doing real research here since Gentoo's guys love to patch up many of their packages. Also, please include information that shows the difference between each of them and the official source tree of those packages. Feel free to limit yourself to only the kernel, the entire GCC distribution, BASH, X.Org, KDE, GNOME, Mozilla/Firefox, Perl, Python, Apache and a few Java tools. I have already demonstrated one flaw in CentOS that cannot be reproduced in RHEL's configuration utilities suggesting at least a small difference between them. I have also pointed out that RHEL's packages that you claim are so badly ripped off are barely tweaked at all from their original form meaning that Red Hat is basically just repackaging others' packages themselves.
Why do you avoid this? Does it make you squirm to have someone firmly ask you to cut the crap and give a blow-by-blow explanation of why RHEL is so unique that repackaging their minor tweaks to the packages they bundle is actually different from VidaLinux tweaking Gentoo? All I am asking is for a real explanation of how say, Red Hat's kernel SRPM differs from SuSE's for example and then how RHEL's differs from what you can find in the official kernel tree. I think the real reason that you have avoided this question is because you know that it is a leading question. The differences between RHEL and SuSE are more of a matter of package version than any source code tweaks.
If you want to play that game now, who are you to know what they were considering before going to CentOS? You don't, so it's a non starter. My argument is simple, there's a free clone of Red Hat that is almost if not identical to Red Hat (used the same exact codebase to create the product) that many people are using now, instead of actually paying for their Linux. I've given you a multitude of links that point this out as well, yet all we ever get from you is are rambling soliloquy's about how Red Hat can't be touched by CentOS, and everyone but you is wrong.
Why do you avoid getting into this since Mandrake actually took over something like 25% of the entire Linux market for a while before Red Hat beat them back down?
Because Madrake, like other RH clones such as Red Flag in China, aren't unequivacally free. The point of this thread is, and has been, how the GPL allows completely free duplicates to appear in the market and push software prices and developer salaries down. Maybe one day you'll finally catch a clue, and see why your Mandrake example is N/A from the get go, unless you want to deal with Mandrake's near constant bankruptcy woes.
I'm still waiting for you to post a detailed explanation of how RHEL and CentOS are truly different from SuSE, Gentoo, etc...Why do you avoid this?
Because you're mixing the for-sale and free products together. I suppose it's some sort of trap you think you're laying for me, but it really has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The issue is, Red Hat and Suse have both lost over 50% of their stock value in the last year, thanks to free clones like the "German Government Linux Desktop" being used over in Munich Germany instead of the American for-sale products.
Very few universities have actually really standardized on Linux at all.
Hysterical you would admit this, since I've already shown you one of the very few major schools that is standardizing on Linux will be using CentOS.
I have already demonstrated one flaw in CentOS that cannot be reproduced in RHEL's configuration utilities suggesting at least a small difference between them.
Fine, so there's one small flaw you claim to have found. Big deal, didn't stop Duke did it, nor have you yet been able to produce a single legitimate outside source to corroborate your position that CentOS is an unworthy replacement for RH. Conversely, I've already given you a half dozen that say that it is.
I have also pointed out that RHEL's packages that you claim are so badly ripped off are barely tweaked at all from their original form meaning that Red Hat is basically just repackaging others' packages themselves.
ROFLMAO, most versions of Linux use RH's "RPM" pakcage standard nowdays, including their closest competition Novell/Suse. The "R" stands for Red Hat, for lurkers who need to know how absurd your claim is. Besides, now you're talking out of the other side of your mouth, ripping Red Hat as being nothing special, when you've just spent the majority of your last several posts extolling their supposed superiority.
All I am asking is for a real explanation of how say, Red Hat's kernel SRPM differs from SuSE's for example and then how RHEL's differs from what you can find in the official kernel tree. I think the real reason that you have avoided this question is because you know that it is a leading question.
Simple, because it's some weird tangent you're dying to go off on to save your skin from this schooling. But differences in Suse and RH have nothing to do with this thread or the topic at hand, which is how the GPL allows free clones to be created in just a few days time, clones which are perfectly functional and deprive those attempting to sell Linux from selling near as many copies. If/when you feel you can prove that free copies in no way limit sales of virtually the same product without the name stripped off, bring it on. But so far, all you've done is trot out red herring after red herring, and argue both for and against RH being a superior package when compared to other distros.
Because Madrake, like other RH clones such as Red Flag in China, aren't unequivacally free.
What's that? Mandrake isn't unequivocably free? Funny how I see all of the source RPMs there on the FTP mirrors, just like Red Hat releasing all of their source RPMS.
Maybe one day you'll finally catch a clue, and see why your Mandrake example is N/A from the get go, unless you want to deal with Mandrake's near constant bankruptcy woes.
Read for clarity there. You actually just made my point for me. I said that if Mandrake, with a lot of capital backing it cannot beat Red Hat, then how can CentOS which offers nothing of substance over Red Hat? At least Mandrake tried to add to Red Hat to become "Red Hat+" If Mandrake is getting torn apart, then CentOS will not be a threat. I'm surprised you would even challenge this since Mandrake is not only freely availible for download, but is also backed by a multi-million Euro corporation. You're now going to tell me that a tiny team of hobbyists working on a shoe-string budget and with very little in the way of an actual community to support them are going to do what Mandrakesoft couldn't on a budget probably literally 50-100x larger?
Because you're mixing the for-sale and free products together. I suppose it's some sort of trap you think you're laying for me, but it really has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Sophistry really is your forte. You avoid comparing even SuSE and RHEL because you know you're wrong. You know damn well that they largely just repackage existing packages and that what they do is really no different than what CentOS does to RHEL. If RHEL and CentOS use the same set of packages that SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Ubuntu use, then what is CentOS' "crime?" RHEL's packages are virtually identical to SuSE's, Gentoo's, Debian's, etc. The package maintainers for each group may apply some small patches that are distro-specific, but those are tend to be irrelevant except for that particular distribution.
Your unwillingness to admit the fact that non-commercial distributions like Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo use the same packages that RHEL does is the problem here. You could build a Gentoo system that is 90-95% identical to RHEL 4.0 if you are very specific with portage. Yep, portage will let you replicate almost the entire setup by downloading and building the same packages and versions of them that RHEL uses. So is Gentoo ripping off Red Hat? Not at all, they are both just redistributing the same source trees.
ROFLMAO, most versions of Linux use RH's "RPM" pakcage standard nowdays, including their closest competition Novell/Suse. The "R" stands for Red Hat, for lurkers who need to know how absurd your claim is. Besides, now you're talking out of the other side of your mouth, ripping Red Hat as being nothing special, when you've just spent the majority of your last several posts extolling their supposed superiority.
And many others use Debian's or Gentoo's portage. Your point? RPM is widely considered to be the lowest common denominator and its conflict resolution is terrible. Gentoo's portage system is a God-send by comparison. But... your bringing up RPM is irrelevant because it's nothing more than a container format for files and a means of managing them once installed. I could get you a Deb file or an Ebuild which has the exact same layout as the RPM. You're basically debating the merits of Zip over Gzip or BZip2.
Simple, because it's some weird tangent you're dying to go off on to save your skin from this schooling. But differences in Suse and RH have nothing to do with this thread or the topic at hand, which is how the GPL allows free clones to be created in just a few days time, clones which are perfectly functional and deprive those attempting to sell Linux from selling near as many copies.
You're trying to escape the fact that source code is irrelevant here. The difference between SuSE and RHEL is nominal. You must be some middle manager who has never touched Linux or anything else remotely related to it because you clearly have no concept of what you're talking about. Gentoo and Debian deprive Red Hat of sales where I live because many of the local IT companies use them instead of RHEL. They are both as capable of taking over from Red Hat as CentOS or SuSE are, but then you already knew that. They provide the same programs that RHEL does with the exception of package managers, both Gentoo's and Debians's managers are superior to RPM.
You're obsessed with this idea that CentOS is something special when it isn't. SuSE, Gentoo or Ubuntu are just as capable of replacing RHEL as CentOS, and in fact they provide advantages that CentOS doesn't such as a significantly larger userbase for each and real support for their distributions. Once again, you're forgetting that if all you're looking for to replace RHEL with is another distribution, that any of the major ones will suffice. SuSE, Ubuntu and Gentoo can be easily set up with a minimal fuss to replace RHEL and are in fact a better option since they have much more robust teams and communities supporting them.
Break it to me? ROFLMAO, that is what I've been saying all along. You don't have to pay for jack, you can get a free copy of Linux like Debain and rename it "German Government Linux Desktop" instead of actually buying one of those they try to charge you money for, and it's probably just as good if not practically identical. Which is the basis of this guy's lawsuit, the effective price of GPL software is zero ($0), since all it takes is a few days for someone to strip off the name, make the copy, and start giving it away to others for free.
What's that? Mandrake isn't unequivocably (sic) free? Funny how I see all of the source RPMs there on the FTP mirrors, just like Red Hat releasing all of their source RPMS.
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of "unequivocally". I suggest your refrain from using large words you can't comprehend, much less know how to spell, else you are likely to improperly use them and look like an embicile.
I said that if Mandrake, with a lot of capital backing it cannot beat Red Hat, then how can CentOS which offers nothing of substance over Red Hat?
Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said CentOS would quote "beat Red Hat", nothing of the sort. I simply said due to the GPL you can get a completely free copy of Red Hat, with the label stripped off, and you can legally use that copy, make copies of it, redistribute it to others, and never pay Red Hat a dime. The only thing you could possibly need Red Hat for is support. If the sofware is reliable, and you have decent staff of your own, you shouldn't need Red Hat at all.
Sophistry really is your forte. You avoid comparing even SuSE and RHEL because you know you're wrong.
LOL, I've already told you repeatedly the differences in RH and Suse have nothing to do with whether free copies exist that can be legally used without paying either of those vendors a penny. And zero-cost clones is the point of the parent article, and this thread, no matter how many times you keep trying to drag us out into left field.
If RHEL and CentOS use the same set of packages that SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Ubuntu use, then what is CentOS' "crime?"
Who said CentOS was criminal? While ethically questionable, it's apparently legal to make free copies of Red Hat. RH has threatened them a little with trademark lawsuits, but under the current GPL there's nothing they can do about CentOS making these free copies of Red Hat and giving it away for free. Just like there's nothing Red Hat can or will do to stop the Chinese government from renaming Red Hat to "Red Flag" and selling it across Asia, exactly like they're doing.
Your unwillingness to admit the fact that non-commercial distributions like Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo use the same packages that RHEL does is the problem here.
Are you mental or something? The fact they are virtually identical, yet some are being given away for free is the only point I've been trying to make, yet you argue repeatedly, refuse to provide a single outside source, ever, then tell me that the fact they use the same packages is actually MY problem. ROFLMAO, the fact the free versions are so similar if not identical is the basis of the lawsuit, sounds like you actually agree with the plaintiff.
Gentoo and Debian deprive Red Hat of sales where I live because many of the local IT companies use them instead of RHEL.
I'm sure they do, so why in the hell are you arguing with me then? Sounds like you have your own first hand experience, which is all you seem interested in anyway. They are using free copies instead of similar if not identical versions of Linux that Red Hat and others like Suse want them to pay for, which has been my point from the beginning.
You're obsessed with this idea that CentOS is something special when it isn't. SuSE, Gentoo or Ubuntu are just as capable of replacing RHEL as CentOS, and in fact they provide advantages that CentOS doesn't such as a significantly larger userbase for each and real support for their distributions. Once again, you're forgetting that if all you're looking for to replace RHEL with is another distribution, that any of the major ones will suffice. SuSE, Ubuntu and Gentoo can be easily set up with a minimal fuss to replace RHEL and are in fact a better option since they have much more robust teams and communities supporting them.
Nope, I don't give a rat's ass about CentOS, it was simply an excellent example that if you try to sell GPL software like Red Hat is, you have to simultaneously give that code away for free, and a legally free copy of your product is very likely to appear in the marketplace if you become successful. Many of your own suggested replacements for Red Hat are free as well, including Gentoo and Debian. You're actually agreeing with my points, and the plaintiff's, and don't even realize it. Hysterical!
I was going to respond to your post, but then you resorted to a chain of ad hominems without cause. That's a real sign of manners, you know...
Red Hat stock down 60+%, Novell stock down 50+%, and IBM stock down 25 percent and they just announced today they are laying off 13,000.
You're confused by that word "FREE" again, aren't you?
There is no requirement in the GPL to give the software away at no cost. FSF says:
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
You really do need to do better research. Hey, even my goofy girlfriend knows this, and she's not even a computer geek!
Are you saying the copies of CentOS that are being distributed around the world for free are being done so illegally? Surely not?
Do the words appear in my post? Surely not.
Personally, I would look to see if Red Hat is complaining about it. The only beef Red Hat seems to have is about CentOS using Red Hat trademarks on the web site.
Like I said, Red Hat had to give that software to CentOS for free, and no matter how many copies CentOS makes, or how many copies of those copies are made, Red Hat won't get one Red Cent back. And there's nothing Red Hat can do about it, either.
More like Red Hat had to make it available, and CentOS simply took it (the Source RPMS) and built their distro from it. Nothing legally wrong with that, either. Many people have taken Knoppix CDs and made their own mini-CD distros from the publicly-available software that Knoppix used, and the unpatented techniques that Knoppix pioneered.
.. and no matter how many copies CentOS makes, or how many copies of those copies are made, Red Hat won't get one Red Cent back. And there's nothing Red Hat can do about it, either.
I see your point. Understand that Red Hat has made their software patches and RPMs available on their web site for years, and has had no problem with subscribers AND non-subscribers downloading same.
Red Hat makes their money on their support model and you know this. There will always be some people who would rather pay for a Red Hat support contract than go it alone with one of the me-too distros. Enterprises, particularly, and that is the market Red Hat is going after.
After all, Red Hat got the software (kernel, KDE and utils, Gnome and utils, Apache, Mozilla, *tex, perl, PHP, etc.) FOR FREE to begin with; their patches might be considered their "contribution" back to the community (Fedora is a "volunteer" effort, and is essentially Red Hat's test bed, so they do get some value from that as well), and so their "product" really is their support mission. And Red Hat is apparently fine with that.
Your concern is based on the old shrink-wrap pagadigm where you have ONE copy of software (on a durable CD which can be used many times to install said software on an unlimited number of machines) that you are allowed to install on only ONE machine, lest you run afoul of a licensing agreement (contract) which imposes further restrictions on you and which you MUST accept in order to legally use the software which you have PAID A FEE to use before the terms were even spelled out for you.
That is the world that you closed-source folks have imposed on yourselves. We don't ALL have to live like that. Software freedom means treating your peers like peers, not like walking wallets in a pay-while-you-play scheme.
There's no "more like" it at all, I've been saying they had to make it available, and you've just been wanting to argue, now admitting they quote "had to make it available" yourself.
Software freedom means treating your peers like peers, not like walking wallets in a pay-while-you-play scheme.
Sounds like some perfectly equal utopian world somebody sold you on. Not me. I like the current system based on money. But maybe one's opinion is just a position of relevance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.