On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> ??? That is not at all what I got from his reply.  What I got was that CERN
> will still be committing resources, but instead of duplicating effort
> they're joining up with the CentOS effort.

Whatever. The relevant questions are: (1) Will SL's goal continue to
be creating a re-spin of Red Hat Enterprise and *not* CentOS, since
Red Hat's clear goal in acquiring CentOS is to create divergence
between the two; and (2) what mechanism(s) will SL use to achieve that
goal? (Specifically, will SL compare the git sources against actual
SRPMs obtained via subscription?)

> That's part of the
> reason the CentOS team has changed the statement '100% binary compatible' to
> 'functionally compatible' since they do mean different things, but the
> latter is more indicative of reality than the former ever has.

The *goal* of CentOS used to be binary compatibility, even if it was
never 100% achieved. Since the acquisition by Red Hat, that is no
longer even the goal, for obvious reasons.

> Red Hat is being as close to a good member of the community as is
> possible within the constraints of a publicly traded corporation,

Disingenuous claptrap. Red Hat is blatantly violating the clear intent
of the license that the authors of the code placed on their work. Why
Red Hat does this is frankly irrelevant.

> No one yet in this thread has provided a public, no
> login required, link to up-to-date sources for SLES 11.

Yes, you keep bringing this up as if it were an argument.

No one has provided a public, no login required link to an up-to-date
photo of my bare rear end, either, which would be precisely as
relevant. We are talking about Red Hat; the actions of SUSE, Oracle,
Microsoft, Tesla, and your cat have zero bearing on the discussion.

Nobody cares about SUSE because nobody cares about SUSE.

 - Pat