rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 10 19:56:10 UTC 2008
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):
> Unfortunately I don't have anything besides anecdotal evidence but SFGate
> did choose CentOS over RHEL. I've also been part of OS trade studies
> where deployment costs trumped RHEL support and other Linux servers
> distros won. This was for highly mission critical systems where I was a RHEL
Well, look, I'm not Red Hat Marketing (and am quite fond of CentOS and
Scientific Linux); I just pointed out that Red Hat, Inc. continues to
succeed at its commercial offerings despite the ability of RHEL rebuilds
to offer similar code with different branding and independent
engineering teams to undercut its prices (down to and including gratis).
> But they don't do it for $20K per copy like I was paying for Solaris with
> Silver support. Neither does Sun.
This is irrelevant to the prior discussion. If you wish to start an
entirely new discussion about comparisons between companies, I certainly
won't stop you, but have no desire to participate.
> Your statement may be correct in the general sense given folks will pay for a
> commercial license for things like MySQL because they don't want to open up
> their source but I don't think that RHEL is a particularly good example.
And yet, it was more than good enough to show that Donovan's assertion
was simply factually incorrect as stated. Thus my point.
You seem to want to talk about something else. Go for it!
More information about the License-discuss