SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Patrick J. LoPresti" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Patrick J. LoPresti
Date:
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:27:18 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Sommerseth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 15/01/14 19:49, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>>
>>
>> - 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.
>
>
> They simply are pure speculations.  You might be right in the first point,
> based on that both parties are commercial companies delivering competing
> products.
>
> But the rest is pure garbage.

At the risk of repeating myself... I refer you to Red Hat's 10-K filing:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1

See the "Competition" section on pages 12-14. Search for "Oracle" and "CentOS".

So when I say, "Red Hat considers CentOS a competitor", that is a
demonstrable statement of fact, appearing in an authoritative document
where lies can result in prison sentences. (Unsurprisingly, the
"mission statement" you keep citing appears nowhere in this document.
When choosing between "words" and "legally binding words", which to
believe? Hm, hard to say...)

When I say "Red Hat considers Oracle one of their top two
competitors", I base that on the same section of the 10-K, where
Oracle features far more prominently than any other company, save
perhaps Microsoft.

When I say "Red Hat believes acquiring CentOS will improve their
bottom line", that is so blindingly obvious I am not even sure how to
debate it. Companies do not make acquisitions for the fun of it.

> And Red Hat hasn't /aquired/ Cent OS,

*Of course* Red Hat has acquired CentOS. SIngh et. al. are now
full-time RedHat employees (proof left as exercise for the reader).
The relationship could hardly be more clear.

Singh does not mention this detail in his own announcement
(http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/).
I guess it must have slipped his mind? Or maybe he figured nobody
would consider it relevant? Ha ha ha.

> So please, stop speculating.

None of the above is speculation. What Red Hat will do with their new
acquisition... Well, that is speculation, which I leave to your deep
wisdom.

 - Pat

ATOM RSS1 RSS2