Ubuntu founder doesn't "get" enterprise Linux

[Matthew Saltzman]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:

> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>
>>>> BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. 
>>>> Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps 
>>>> into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If it wasn't clear, what I meant was that no one takes the complete 
>>> existing RHEL work and adds things to improve it, redistributing the 
>>> entire bundle. That may not match anyone else's definition of 'open', but 
>>> it is what affects the products you'll be able to use in the future.
>> 
>> Sure they do.  CentOS does, in fact.
>
> No, they are required to remove things.  And they claim it is a non-trivial 
> amount of work to comply.

Ah, you're right.  They are required to remove the Red Hat branding.  I 
expect it was a non-trivial amount of work to comply in the first place. 
I would speculate that it's easier to maintain compliance once achieved, 
but I don't know for sure, as I've never tried to build a distribution.

>
>> Look at CentOS Extras, CentOS Plus, CentOS Cluster Suite/Global File 
>> System.  Look at Scientific Linux customizations 
>> https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize.
>
> And White Box, now gone because it was not practical to maintain...

But what about it was not practical to maintain?  Compliance with Red 
Hat's brand protection policy?  Or other aspects of the distro?

I can't speak authoritatively to the question.  Can you?

-- 
 		Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs