[NTLUG:Discuss] [Bulk] Re: Of the free versions, which is more stable?

[Leroy Tennison]

Burton Strauss wrote:
> While what CentOS does is legal, it's also pretty clearly feeding off of
> RH's efforts w/o much original effort.
>
> Depending on your view point, this kill's RH's 1-off sales or introduces new
> users to RH's efforts such that when they need it for business they buy the
> supported version (develop on CentOS, test and deploy on RHEL).
>
> Since RedHat has - at times - been pretty aggressive about protecting their
> trademarks, which is mostly "RedHat" and associated logos, it makes sense
> not to use RH's trademarks (if nothing else, it saves on typing - otherwise
> every page would some sort of 2 paragraph grey legal disclaimer!
>
>
> IANAL but from what I understood in BizLaw, RH could probably make a good
> case against CentOS for copyright infringement - not on the individual
> pieces, but on the compilation of specific pieces that is RHEL.  A
> compilation copyright is weaker and there have been cases (such as the
> phonebook) where mere compilations have been held NOT to be copyrightable.
> Part of the issue w/ compilations is the amount of effort that goes in to it
> - and in the case of RHEL it's quite a bit.  More effort = more originality
> = stronger copyright.
>
> While I guess it could be interesting from the Groklaw/Entertainment view,
> I'd hate to see the wasted effort that such a case would entail!  So I think
> not poking the bear in it's den by using the RH trademarks is a good choice.
>
>
> -----Burton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discuss-bounces at ntlug.org [mailto:Discuss-bounces at ntlug.org] On Behalf
> Of Leroy Tennison
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:22 AM
> To: NTLUG Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] [Bulk] Re: Of the free versions, which is more
> stable?
>
> Dave Augustus wrote:
>   
>> Have you considered Centos 4? It is Redhat Enterprise Linux 4- only free.
>>     
> I use it on both workstations and servers. It is great. And with Yum, it is
> even better.
>   
>> I have been using Centos for over 1.5 years now. I started with Centos 3-
>>     
> I replaced all my RH9 installs with that. Never looked back!
>   
>> Dave Augustus
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Leroy Tennison <leroy_tennison at prodigy.net>
>> To: NTLUG Discussion List <discuss at ntlug.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2006 7:01:43 AM GMT-0600
>> Subject: [NTLUG:Discuss] Of the free versions, which is more stable?
>>
>> I think it's time to move on from Red Hat 9, of the latest offerings 
>> from Fedora and SuSE, which one appears to be more stable for a plain 
>> workstation.  I know Fedora Core 5 is way too new but what about 
>> Fedora Core 4 or the newest SuSE release (10.?).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>   
>>     
> This reply is certainly "outside my previous box" but definitely worth
> considering.  I went to Centos site and they decline to identify the source
> other than to say a "prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor" and
> that it conforms to the vendor's redistribution policy.  
> What's going on here?  I understand that all Red Hat branding has been
> removed but why the game?  Can you point me to the vendor's redistribution
> policy?
>
> I did find other references which identified Red Hat (DistroWatch) whose
> table shows that RHEL is really holding back on some packages (Firefox and
> OpenOffice in particular).
>
> As an aside, I also found the pathetic Tuttle, OK fiasco.  It's sad that
> ignorant people can't even fully own up to their mistakes once they have
> been helped to find them by the people they attacked...
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>   
Thanks for the reply, that makes sense when you think about it.