4 ms·
I think you're missing the point. Nobody would argue that CentOS doesn't make sense - the argument is that it doesn't make sense if RHEL owns it, as there is a
by GordonS 6y ago
I think you're missing the point. Nobody would argue that CentOS doesn't make sense - the argument is that it doesn't make sense if RHEL owns it, as there is a clear conflict of interest.
- UMetaGOMS 6y agoI think you might be replying to the wrong comment, as this doesn't really relate to my point at all. I don't disagree with the sentiment that RHEL also controlling the free alternative doesn't make sense. I do disagree with repeated assertions that people can just use RHEL for free - for the most part, they can't.
- Arnt 6y agoI assumed that RH hired those people because CentOS might be a threat if owned by someone else, whereas if RH owned it, CentOS would be a moat. Ie. CentOS takes those users who won't pay, RH takes those who will, RH controls both and there's no niche for anyone else. Evidently I was wrong.
- smarx007 6y agoI think that was supposed to be the case but then things like https://www.cloudlinux.com/extended-lifecycle https://www.cloudlinux.com/extended-lifecycle must have upset someone at RH. Support past EOL has been traditionally a high-margin activity for vendors. And it must be so if https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432183