4 ms·
The point as I saw it was that CentOS didn't require a licensing fee. RedHat decided to make them into an official free version whose users they could then upse
by marcinzm 6y ago
The point as I saw it was that CentOS didn't require a licensing fee. RedHat decided to make them into an official free version whose users they could then upsell onto licenses. IBM seems to have decided that they'd make more money in this segment by squeezing licenses out of existing users and killing the product.
- bonzini 6y agoCentOS was never officially an "official free version". After Red Hat acquired CentOS, they positioned as a base for open source projects to develop on RHEL (which was what Red Hat needed and why they hired the developers in the first place). Of course, users that just needed a free RHEL kept using it that way with the added bonus of corporate backing, so much that Scientific Linux said "screw it we'll just use CentOS".
- freedomben 6y agoIBM had nothing to do with it, unless you think every Red Hat employee would lie about it. I would think if anything RH would like to blame IBM :-) They legitimately believe this is better. Maybe not for everybody, but for most. And for those who it's not better for they are announcing options in the next month or two for free RHEL access. I just blogged about it if you are interested. There's a lot of inaccurate info out there as a result of poor initial messaging. I attempt to clear things up here: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877?sk=e500c2f16403d634ff8a4ea17d705252 https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...