RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
RE: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Debian is moving to the BSD kernel. How does Scientific BSD sound to you? Jean-Victor Côté, M.Sc.(Sciences économiques), (CPA, CMA), Post MBA J'ai aussi passé d'autres examens, dont les examens CFA. J'ai un profil Viadeo sommaire: http://www.viadeo.com/fr/profile/jean-victor.cote I also have a LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2367003trk=tab_pro Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:45:01 -0800 Subject: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious From: lopre...@gmail.com To: scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Patrick, Why do you think oracle's spinoff is their major competition? On Jan 14, 2014 12:47 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti lopre...@gmail.com wrote: RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
Re: Centos / Redhat announcement
On 01/14/2014 03:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: You actually do need to decide. Do you want a solid and stable system for many years (7-10 years), or do you want bleeding edge? True. And I have decided. Doesn't mean I am happy with the situation. I run several Fedoras in VM's. -- ~~ Computers are like air conditioners. They malfunction when you open windows ~~
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
What spinoff do you mean? Did I miss something? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=RHT+Competitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Linux I suppose you could argue that Oracle comes behind Microsoft and Novell on the list of Red Hat competitors (I wonder how Red Hat looks at it?), but I do not think that changes my reasoning nor my conclusions. If you think the end result will be to make it _easier_ to obtain a free clone of RHEL, then once again, I think you are out of your mind. Yes, I am accusing Red Hat (http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/#_motivations) of lying... Or, more precisely, of being highly selective with the truth. Also again, I could be wrong. Time will tell. - Pat On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Z form...@gmail.com wrote: Patrick, Why do you think oracle's spinoff is their major competition? On Jan 14, 2014 12:47 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti lopre...@gmail.com wrote: RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Your first assumption, although largely correct as a generality it is not entirely accurate, and at a minimum is not the sole purpose. That is why companies have mission statements. They rarely highlight the purpose of making money, although that is often the main purpose even if not specified. What is Red Hat's mission? It is listed as: To be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way. Making things exceedingly difficult would go against the stated mission. In my opinion it would also go against making money as it would kill the eco system of vendors that support RedHat Enterprise Linux for their applications. There are so many distributions out there, the biggest way for them to not make money is to become insignificant. Having free alternatives like Centos keeps high market share of the EL product and ensures compatibility and a healthy eco system. If there was not open clones of EL, then ubuntu or something else would take over and the main supported platform of enterprise applications, and then the large enterprises that pay for RedHat support contracts would move completely off. Having people use Centos or Scientific linux might not directly help the bottom line, but for RedHat it's a lot better than having people use ubuntu or suse. Oracle not being free could pose a bigger threat, but either RedHat remains on top as they are the main source for good support, or they do not and Oracle will have to pick up the slack for driving RedHat out of business. and what's left of RedHat would have to start using Oracle as TUV... I don't see too many switching to Oracle besides those that are already Oracle shops. - Original Message - From: Patrick J. LoPresti lopre...@gmail.com To: scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:45:01 PM Subject: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
RE: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Correcting a few statements here about OEL. OEL is free to use and distribute http://public-yum.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/). It is used and deployed on more than just Sun/Oracle hardware. The UEK kernel additionally has it's use cases outside of the standard EL kernel whilst maintaining and riding on top of the standard EL user space. As an example I work with Dell on some of the OEM hardware we have them for use and I know OEL is also supported and tested by Dell on their HW because customers ask for it. Likewise for HP. Support can be purchased as well for OEL on any x86 hardware upon which the user wishes to run it. We are spooling up our HELiOS 6.5 spin of SL right now and for a number of reasons will including the UEK3 kernel and a few userspace bits from OEL (EX:btrfs-progs). regards, - Chris From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov [owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov] on behalf of John Lauro [john.la...@covenanteyes.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:59 PM To: Patrick J. LoPresti Cc: scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov Subject: Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious Your first assumption, although largely correct as a generality it is not entirely accurate, and at a minimum is not the sole purpose. That is why companies have mission statements. They rarely highlight the purpose of making money, although that is often the main purpose even if not specified. What is Red Hat's mission? It is listed as: To be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way. Making things exceedingly difficult would go against the stated mission. In my opinion it would also go against making money as it would kill the eco system of vendors that support RedHat Enterprise Linux for their applications. There are so many distributions out there, the biggest way for them to not make money is to become insignificant. Having free alternatives like Centos keeps high market share of the EL product and ensures compatibility and a healthy eco system. If there was not open clones of EL, then ubuntu or something else would take over and the main supported platform of enterprise applications, and then the large enterprises that pay for RedHat support contracts would move completely off. Having people use Centos or Scientific linux might not directly help the bottom line, but for RedHat it's a lot better than having people use ubuntu or suse. Oracle not being free could pose a bigger threat, but either RedHat remains on top as they are the main source for good support, or they do not and Oracle will have to pick up the slack for driving RedHat out of business. and what's left of RedHat would have to start using Oracle as TUV... I don't see too many switching to Oracle besides those that are already Oracle shops. - Original Message - From: Patrick J. LoPresti lopre...@gmail.com To: scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:45:01 PM Subject: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
So I decided to check the Competition section of Red Hat's annual SEC regulatory filing (10-K): http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1 (see pages 11-13) Oracle and Microsoft are each mentioned seven times in this section, far more than any other company. Granted, Oracle _Linux_ is only mentioned once, but once is enough to show that Red Hat takes it seriously. Interestingly, Fedora and CentOS are also specifically named as competitors. So I can rephrase my earlier question: How does Red Hat believe the acquisition of this competitor will make them money? (I have my guesses, obviously. Hint: What is Red Hat's strategy for ensuring that Fedora does not compromise RHEL sales? What do you think their strategy will be to ensure the same for CentOS?) Anyway, enough speculation from me. We will all see what actually happens soon enough. - Pat On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Z form...@gmail.com wrote: Yes I meant oracle. Im not sure if oracle is the major competitor in os market for rh. From my expirience it is still windows vs unix in enterprise infrustructure. Speaking of oracle clone - it comes only with oracle products. And even then, not that often. Again these are my observations over couple of yeara and ill be happy to reconsider if you have some statistics to support your point. From what I understand code for free was never an issue for rh. The companys bussines was to _provide services_ on top of open source os. On the contrary, I think that the way to grow the rh bussines is to work in as many open source projects as possible. This way more people are fimiliar with this particular version of linux.
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Well in general my company uses SL or depending on the business unit CentOS for non critical systems and Red Hat on every thing mission critical, not because they think it works better just because of appearances. If there is an outage on a critical system that effects the bottom line the first question they will be asked by the board of directors is what linux distro it was running on and if director of the department doesn't say Red Hat with a current support agreement then the board knows who to make their scapegoat. If the director answers Red Hat and we have support then they look else where for a scapegoat. Also market analysts look at the distro when they evaluate your projected stock value and they tend to give higher estimates if you can say all your linux boxes run Red Hat.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Jan 14, 2014 18:01, John Lauro john.la...@covenanteyes.com wrote: Your first assumption, although largely correct as a generality it is not entirely accurate, and at a minimum is not the sole purpose. That is why companies have mission statements. They rarely highlight the purpose of making money, although that is often the main purpose even if not specified. What is Red Hat's mission? It is listed as: To be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way. Making things exceedingly difficult would go against the stated mission. In my opinion it would also go against making money as it would kill the eco system of vendors that support RedHat Enterprise Linux for their applications. There are so many distributions out there, the biggest way for them to not make money is to become insignificant. Having free alternatives like Centos keeps high market share of the EL product and ensures compatibility and a healthy eco system. If there was not open clones of EL, then ubuntu or something else would take over and the main supported platform of enterprise applications, and then the large enterprises that pay for RedHat support contracts would move completely off. Having people use Centos or Scientific linux might not directly help the bottom line, but for RedHat it's a lot better than having people use ubuntu or suse. Oracle not being free could pose a bigger threat, but either RedHat remains on top as they are the main source for good support, or they do not and Oracle will have to pick up the slack for driving RedHat out of business. and what's left of RedHat would have to start using Oracle as TUV... I don't see too many switching to Oracle besides those that are already Oracle shops.- Original Message - From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" lopre...@gmail.com To: scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:45:01 PM Subject: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. - Pat
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
Very interesting points of view. I don't want to bite off more than one can chew but...in light of what has been written...which interpretation could we give (as SL users) to the very recent setup of a Fedora Server (Working Group) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server given the existing relationship between Red Hat and Fedora? hope the question could be seen pertinent (or not too much OT) to the matter SL users are discussing. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Paul Robert Marino prmari...@gmail.comwrote: The only reason Oracle is mentioned is because Oracle is doing what they always did. Providing a platform for their proprietary products and using the free speech software and open source community to make their bottom line look better without contributing back. Frankly they are an old company which hasn't adapted with the times. In a time when even Microsoft has released OS components under the Apace 2 license ( which frankly gives me images of a squadron of pigs armed with liquid nitrogen bombs flying over hell) they are ridiculously trying to hold on to their old model and just have huge amounts of reserve cash and market saturation which won't keep them going very long. Also if you look at the truly huge data warehouses very few of them are using Oracle databases and most are migrating to supported variants of PostgreSQL despite the lack of good training or any real industry respected certification because it works better. -- Sent from my HP Pre3 -- On Jan 14, 2014 19:01, Patrick J. LoPresti lopre...@gmail.com wrote: So I decided to check the Competition section of Red Hat's annual SEC regulatory filing (10-K): http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1 (see pages 11-13) Oracle and Microsoft are each mentioned seven times in this section, far more than any other company. Granted, Oracle _Linux_ is only mentioned once, but once is enough to show that Red Hat takes it seriously. Interestingly, Fedora and CentOS are also specifically named as competitors. So I can rephrase my earlier question: How does Red Hat believe the acquisition of this competitor will make them money? (I have my guesses, obviously. Hint: What is Red Hat's strategy for ensuring that Fedora does not compromise RHEL sales? What do you think their strategy will be to ensure the same for CentOS?) Anyway, enough speculation from me. We will all see what actually happens soon enough. - Pat On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Z form...@gmail.com wrote: Yes I meant oracle. Im not sure if oracle is the major competitor in os market for rh. From my expirience it is still windows vs unix in enterprise infrustructure. Speaking of oracle clone - it comes only with oracle products. And even then, not that often. Again these are my observations over couple of yeara and ill be happy to reconsider if you have some statistics to support your point. From what I understand code for free was never an issue for rh. The companys bussines was to _provide services_ on top of open source os. On the contrary, I think that the way to grow the rh bussines is to work in as many open source projects as possible. This way more people are fimiliar with this particular version of linux.
What happened to adobe repository ?
Hello, In SL we can install the package adobe-release which installs the repository definition /etc/yum.repos.d/adobe-linux-i386.repo but it looks like this repository is no longer accessible. When I try to open http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/ with a browser, I get : Forbidden You don't have permission to access /linux/i386/ on this server. Any idea what is going on ? Thank you -- Jean-michel BARBET| Tel: +33 (0)2 51 85 84 86 Laboratoire SUBATECH Nantes France| Fax: +33 (0)2 51 85 84 79 CNRS-IN2P3/Ecole des Mines/Universite | E-Mail: bar...@subatech.in2p3.fr
