Free vs. pay versions (Re: Oracle Sues Google Over Android)

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On
> Behalf Of Jarod Wilson
> 
> What I believe is that I know Red Hat and its package distribution
> policies. Quite intimately. Vague recollections about not being able
> to get something to work a few years ago are hardly persuasive. Like I
> said elsewhere in this thread, show me a package in the RHEL
> distribution discs that isn't open source (or
> binary-but-redistributable firmware), and I'll cheerfully admit I'm
> wrong (and go bludgeon someone internally at Red Hat). I don't doubt
> that you couldn't get something to work, nor do I contend that RHEL
> and CentOS are 100% the same, and its possible that the CentOS folks
> screwed up a build, but the assertion that you couldn't get something
> to work on CentOS because of some binary-only library Red Hat ships
> that CentOS can't is flat-out wrong.

Good point.  I believed I knew the package name 4 years ago, and I believed
I had learned something 4 years ago.  Nobody's ever challenged that belief
until now.

Now that the belief has been challenged, I'll say this:

Whatever the reason, dell drivers & firmware & utilities designed to run on
rhel don't natively work on centos.  In some cases, they can be made to
work, but in my experience (within the last year) following some guides
online that specifically say how to make a specific package work on a
specific version of centos for a specific piece of hardware... there is
extra effort associated to run centos, and a low success rate in my personal
experience.  I know some people do it, and do it just fine.

I still feel it's worth while to pay for rhel, instead of using centos, on
dell hardware, particularly if you have a perc raid controller.

Was that the point?  or was there some other end result in these threads
that I can't remember anymore?