On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Jamie Duncan wrote:

> I'm not worried at all if you have a license or not. I'm not your sales
> rep. :)
>
> The way the comment read didn't sit with me well. It sounded dismissive to
> a lot of work that Red Hatters do for upstream communities all over that
> allow RHEL, RHEL derivitaves and all other forms of Linux to happen. Not
> just the kernel, but the un-sexy bits in the middle that make an OS usable.

So if I don't agree, or am critical about something Red Hat did, I am 
dismissive to Red Hat's contributions ? Sorry, but that is not true at 
all. In this complex world, I think one is allowed to criticize one action 
without implying everything else...

Self-criticism (and yes, I feel part of Red Hat's community) is essential. 
And a decision that makes Red Hat weaker, weakens my case as well.


> I also can't agree with the the thought that Red Hatters won't dissent
> against company decisions that they don't agree with. I'm not going to dig
> through the world archives this late on a Friday but I just don't accept
> that assumption. Of course I'm a fanboy and an employee. But I'm those
> things because I believe in how we try to do things. We don't always get it
> right (see RHEV 1.0 and other debacles). But we try to.

With al due respect, but your response to one point of criticism is 
probably why someone at Red Hat (unless maybe high up in the organization) 
may not speak up. It clearly is a management/legal decision and yes, I do 
believe if you are on the payroll, that is exactly what you are not 
supposed to question. Red Hat becoming less Open Source may harm the 
company's public image.

And since the CentOS board is on Red Hat's payroll as well, I think they 
are in the same boat, unfortunately.

-- 
-- dag wieers, [log in to unmask], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [log in to unmask], http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]