Slashdot

If RedHat doesn't want to share their code, then they should build their own OS, instead of just working on the pre-existing huge resource that is Linux/GPLed code. See how that works? They agreed to CentOS-style reuse of their work in exchange for THEIR for-profit reuse of decades worth of OTHER people's work; that's the price of the GPL, and they pay it willingly, because what they get is so valuable.

And speaking of cynicism: anyone stop to think that maybe some overaggressive RedHat executive with a suitcase full of cash is behind Lance's disappearance? Follow the money: CentOS looks unreliable ==> RedHat cashes in....

    I totally agree with the "bus syndrome" thinking. At one company I was at for many years, the boss had that concern. I was the senior SysAdmin, who created and managed the entire IT infrastructure. To alleviate it, everything was documented. A copy of the passwords were kept under lock and key. Server functions were well documented. My assistant(s) (depending on the year I had 1 to 4) could continue smooth operations without me.

    Keeping the "bus syndrome" mentality, should I be unavailable for a day or days, there were no problems. I could fly between cities to do work, and not panic that the whole world was going to fall apart while I was on a plane. I still got plenty of phone calls, simply because it was my baby. Junior admins didn't want to make widespread changes without my seal of approval, even if it was a quick phone call where they gave me a brief outline of their changes, and I gave them verbal approval ("Go for it. Let me know how it goes.").

    The day came that they decided I wasn't necessary. I was locked out of the machines per my own plan, and then notified that I was no longer part of the company. Whoever did the changing wasn't quite as consistent as I was and missed a few spots. Being a "good guy", I verified that I was locked out of everywhere, and sent a list (it was short) of what I still had access to, so they could get those too. The missed spots were non-essential, so even if I had a desire to do bad things, I couldn't have broken much.

    The password plan had better motives than firing the top guy. On password change day, I issued the passwords on slips of paper to the people who needed them (and to the vault). Should someone's passwords become compromised, I could have all the passwords changed in approx 5 minutes. Should something seem funny, we'd change the passwords. Usually we just changed them because the existing passwords had been in use for too long. We did have someone lose their USB key with their SSH keys on it. We went through the well practiced drill. It turned out to be just an exercise. The key had fallen out of his pocket, and was under the seat of his car.

    When they terminated me, the company lived on. The transition was smooth without me. I may as well have been hit by a bus. No one asked me "how do I....?", because it was all there for those with access who knew what to look for. Even if we had a walkout of all IT staff, things were documented well enough where an experienced IT person could walk in and keep things running.

    We were a high dollar, small staff company. Why should somewhere like CentOS be any different?

You do realize that technically Redhat is just skating by on the free give-aways of others, too, don't you?

I mean, as I understand the whole Linux thing. Feel free to correct me.

Not to diminish the contribution by Red Hat, which is pretty extensive, the above argument is invalid. Red Hat did not create the products included in their distributions. They take existing free software, package it, and sells it as part of a complete package, including support. The software is still free.

Some projects whose products are included in Red Hat distributions were created by Red Hat and staffed by Red Hat personnel. They chose the GPL anyway. They have even purchased several companies and relicensed the products of those companies under the GPL. Do you really think that Red Hat would have done this if they thought that this would severely impact their business?

Those companies are in a very different situation. They own the copyrights to their entire code base, and are thus able to change the license to a proprietary one if they think that it will create an advantage. Companies like Red Hat cannot do this, since many of the components of their products are free software. They could have done it with those components that they have written themselves, or acquired the producers of, but they mostly haven't.

Why? Not even Red Hat think so. They argue that people or organizations that have little or no money are not their target market, and thus, it doesn't impact them that those instead use free rebuilds of their product. In fact, it is a better option for them than to use a completely different distribution, such as a Debian one, since using CentOS means that you are already used to their distribution, and may become a customer in the future when you have acquired the financial capabilities, as well as the demand for commercial support contracts.

One of my guys told me "I'm taking a 1 week vacation. I'm going in the woods with the clothes on my back, a pup tent, canteen and hunting knife." Either he was going to come out of the woods hungry, or he may not come out at all.

Rambo V: Systems Administrator.

This time... it's technical.