On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49:51AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:
This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist?
This sounds as if you have reading problems. Are you an illiterate?
[...] (Always remember that
Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu writes:
How exactly does a for-profit corporation buy an endeavor such as
CentOS?
By hiring the key, primary developers, I would imagine.
Could RH buy SL from Fermilab/CERN?
RH can try (and has succeeded once in the past) to hire SL developers
away.
http://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/
The CentOS Marks are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.
I find it puzzling that official announcements say nothing
about CentOS trademarks, copyrights, etc being transferred
to Red Hat - as that web page seems to imply.
FWIW, the centos.org domain and the
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:45:01AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti 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.
That the 1914 Adam Smith and Carl Marx brand of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Konstantin Olchanski
olcha...@triumf.ca wrote:
I find it puzzling that official announcements say nothing
about CentOS trademarks, copyrights, etc being transferred
to Red Hat - as that web page seems to imply.
It is also mentioned in Red Hat's FAQ:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49:51AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
[...] (Always remember that companies,
like politicians, do not make statements to communicate information.
They make statements to achieve a desired result. Their
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:45:01AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti 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.
This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist?
Remember, every corporation has a legal responsibility to its shareholders
which usually looks like (and I quote from
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm because the author has
experience as a corporate securities attorney and I am a physical
scientist with no legal training),
On 14/01/14 23:59, John Lauro 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
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Sommerseth da...@sommerseths.net wrote:
On 15/01/14 19:49, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
- Red Hat (the company) considers Oracle (the company) one of their
top two competitors.
- Red Hat considers CentOS a competitor.
- Red Hat believes acquiring
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:27:18PM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
*Of course* Red Hat has acquired CentOS. SIngh et. al. are now
full-time RedHat employees (proof left as exercise for the reader).
The relationship could hardly be more clear.
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product nor the project. Red
Hat does not own the various marks.
Wrong.
http://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/
The CentOS Marks are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.
- Pat
At the risk of repeating myself... I refer you to Red Hat's 10-K
filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1
See the Competition section on pages 12-14. Search for Oracle and
CentOS.
So when I say, Red Hat considers CentOS a
On 01/15/2014 03:37 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product nor the project. Red
Hat does not own the various marks.
Wrong.
http://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/
The CentOS
On 2014/01/15 15:27, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Sommerseth da...@sommerseths.net wrote:
On 15/01/14 19:49, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
- Red Hat (the company) considers Oracle (the company) one of their
top two competitors.
- Red Hat considers CentOS a
On 01/15/2014 11:27 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
Singh does not mention this detail in his own announcement
(http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/).
I guess it must have slipped his mind? Or maybe he figured nobody
would consider it relevant? Ha ha ha.
so,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 01/15/2014 11:27 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
so, rather than looking at an opinion blog, why dont you go read the
actual announcement ? see if that mentions this little detail...
Do you mean Red Hat's
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
