Which distro for the enterprise now?

On Feb 4, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Craig White wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 11:29, Derek Neighbors wrote:
>> Chris Gehlker said:
>>> On Feb 4, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be clear I am not saying the RHEL product is bad. Therefore, I
>>>> don't
>>>> see the need for someone else to repackage it. I think the binding
>>>> of
>>>> support to the license is less than desirable.
>>>
>>> You seem to be missing the point that the mere fact that others have
>>> the *ability* to repackage RHEL means that the binding of support to
>>> the license is very weak, simple branding as opposed to lock-in.
>>
>> You appear to be missing the fact (as I am lead to believe) that
>> there are
>> part of RHEL that are not available for others to "repackage".
> ---
> Huh?
>
> I have already posted the links for der.Hans
>
> Red Hat Trademark Guidelines - main page
> <http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html>
>
> The only parts of RHEL that are not available to repackage are the
> trademarks themselves - pictures and references to the Red Hat name and
> other trademarks as listed on this link.
>
> I don't know who or what is leading you to believe otherwise.

Normally I wouldn't presume to answer for someone else but since in his
'signoff' post to this thread Derek felt very free to speculate on my
motives I feel a bit entitled to speculate on what he meant. Whitebox
is not allowed to link you to Red Hat's servers for automatic upgrades
and other services provided by Red Hat from its servers to its
customers. Red Hat also asks it's customers not to pass on service
bulletins to Whitebox customers. Apparently, for Derek, this
constitutes 'lock-in'. Now in fairness to Derek, he seems to be merely
echoing some propaganda that Bruce Parens wrote in his role as chief
salesman for UserLinux.