On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jos Vos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist?

This sounds as if you have reading problems. Are you an illiterate?

I have made no value judgments. I have made a few statements of fact
and given a few opinions, and I have tried to be careful to
distinguish the two.

To summarize the statements of fact:

- Red Hat (the company) considers Oracle (the company) one of their
top two competitors.

- Red Hat considers CentOS a competitor.

- Red Hat believes acquiring CentOS will improve their bottom line.

These statements are not "attacks". They are neither "good" nor "bad".
They simply are.

Some logical conclusions can be drawn, of course. For example, if Red
Hat's stated motivations could be achieved at lower cost than by
hiring the entire CentOS team, it would follow that those stated
motivations are false or incomplete. (Always remember that companies,
like politicians, do not make statements to communicate information.
They make statements to achieve a desired result. Their statements may
happen to communicate information, but if and only if it helps to
achieve their desired result.)

One more time... The pertinent question is: How does Red Hat think
acquiring this particular competitor will help them make money?

Personally, I seriously doubt "by making it easier to clone RHEL" is
the answer. But hey, what do I know?

Looking forward either to saying "told you so" or to eating crow in
the next 12-24 months.

 - Pat