On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Martin Marques wrote:
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
The SRPMS for RHEL are freely available, but the binary RPMs, ISOs, and binary update RPMs are available from RH only by subscription. Red Hat branding (graphics, etc.) cannot be used except in conjunction with official RH products. In this sense, RHEL is a "closed binary".
CentOS uses the RHEL SRPMs, but builds its own binary RPMs, ISOs, and binary update RPMs (without RH branding). Of course, RH does not support CentOS installations except insofar as updates they release for RHEL are available (as source) for CentOS to use.