Free vs. pay versions

[Jarod Wilson]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Sure. But a certification is not a piece of software. We're talking
>> about the software used to build RHEL and the software distributed by
>> Red Hat.
>
> We're discussing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  If you don't have the certifications then it isn't Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Well, yes, that's correct. But its still neither here nor there with
respect to what software Red Hat does or does not ship in binary-only
form that CentOS can't rebuild, which was the matter I was attempting
to focus on here. The certification part isn't disputed. Whether or
not Red Hat ships binary-only content on its distribution discs that
make it impossible for CentOS to reproduce a package-by-package
compatible clone is. The thing to do here though is to probably simply
ask the question on a CentOS mailing list.

>> These are also separate products from RHEL though, not something on
>> the RHEL distribution discs, so while they're not vague recollections,
>> they're still not binary-only bits shipped in RHEL. :)
>
> Incorrect.  RHCS was first distributed as a binary-only release on the Advanced Server 2 discs.  No source code.  I looked.  It didn't exist on the discs, nor on Red Hat's FTP site.

Damn, knew I should have looked back even further than RHEL3...
However, I just looked. I see piranha and clumanager binaries on the
2.1 (GOLD through U6 isos), as well as matching srpms. Weren't those
the primary components of the cluster suite? I don't see anything else
in the 2.1 tree that looks like cluster bits, but I'm not particularly
familiar with the cluster suite, so maybe I'm just missing it.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org