On 2/22/06, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That would be easier to understand if you'd explain how it > is different for Red Hat to redistribute the underlying > packages which they didn't write than it is for someone > else to redistribute them again in something that approximates > the same bundled group. Sure, Les. Red Hat is devoting effort to distribution creation and maintenance, and developing the glue software that holds all that together (the installer, the system configuration tools, "Red Hat-isms" in the boot process like /etc/sysconfig, SELinux integration, etc). CentOS isn't doing any of that work. Red Hat takes raw upstream software and turns it into a distribution. I think that's great and there are obviously a number of other people doing the same thing (Debian, SuSE, et al). CentOS is doing any of that work. CentOS is taking a distribution created via someone else's hard work and rebranding it as their own. They're essentially relying on Red Hat Software, Inc., for all their distribution and release engineering. I don't care for that. At anyrate, Les, I appreciate your (and other's) desire to understand my position, however irrational it may sound to you. -- Chris "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
