[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [redhat-ccm-list] Please provide stable 6.1 Release

Obviously, I am biased, but I disagree with the conclusion. I suppose it all depends on your definition of "viable open source solution". My interpretation is:

1. Viable: Can run a production system on the code.
2. Open source: The source is available under a reasonable open source license.
3. Solution: Actually does something useful.

I believe that 5.2.1 meets all those criteria. In fact, we still have production systems running on 5.2.1.

All of the source code is available in nightly builds. We don't hide anything. Sometimes, it breaks -- but when it breaks for you, it breaks for us. We've even made the repositories yum-able for easy upgrading.

We've also released *all* of our documentation to the community. I think that shows a pretty huge commitment. The documentation was a huge effort for many of us, and making it free is a big deal, maybe not for you, but it is for us.

I understand there's disappointment that we haven't released 6.0 publically. I'm disappointed too. But I don't think that lessens Red Hat's commitment to open source. I hope we will continue to put out "Official, Public Releases". I don't have a schedule (after the amount of time it took to get 5.2.1 out, I don't think I could be trusted anyway ;-) ). We'll see.


Shackelford, John-Mason wrote:

When RedHat failed to release 6.0 to the public as had been promised it
demonstrated that it was not really serious about its commitment to keeping
redhat-ccm a viable open source solution. Source licensed--sure, open
source--not in any practical sense.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]