what do you-all think about bye bye centos and filepro

[Fairlight]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:47:30PM -0500, Brian K. White via Filepro-list thus spoke:
> Deciding what to do, and calling out RedHat's actions are two separate
> things.

Which is why I say I'm perfectly content to use their tech downstream.
I'll never pay them for support because I'm better than their support,
or they've at least never proven themselves more competent to my
satisfaction.  It'd be like paying for full service at a petrol station;
I'm able-bodied, and therefore it would be a superfluous extravagance.

I'm not going to deprive myself of my prefered architecture, just
because I don't like the vendor's politics.  If I did that, I wouldn't
have any vendors -left-.  I think people who boycott Chic-Fil-A are
morons, for instance.  Why would any sane person willingly deprive
themselves of a product they like, just to 'send a message' which will
never actually be heard, over something which doesn't actually
-directly- affect them?  That's stupid.  Now, when Adaptec boned me back
in the day, I was -done- with them, but they literally directly impacted
me with their bad choices.  A vendor gets -one- chance to burn me,
typically.  It's rare that I will change my mind after I've dropped
them, too, slthough it's happened; Seagate got another turn eventually,
at least for cheapo game console portable drives.  I'm still loyal to WD
because their quality is better on desktop and NAS drives, in my
experience.

Point is...I didn't stop listening to Thirty Seconds to Mars because
Leto became a ragingly public leftist liberal and proved that his
personality was not one I liked; I stopped listening to them because
they went steadily downhill starting at album #3, and album #5 was a
steaming pile of rubbish not worth a second listen.  If the quality had
been there, I'd still suffer their politics for good music.  He's still
a great vocalist, but the actual composition was just phoned in past a
certain point.  It's a shame, but so be it.

It's just crazy to deprive yourself of a product based on anything but the
product's merits alone.  There will always be someone else ready to take
your place as a customer, so it's a completely hollow and meaningless act
of principled but misguided protest to bother boycotting just based on
principles.  It should directly affect someone before it reaches boycott
levels.  You can hurt a university's food service department by boycotting
them over extortionist pricing, for instance; they have one market,
and that -will- burt their bottom line because they only have access
to their students.  You're not going to significantly impact a public
restaurant.  To think you can at any noticeable level is a study in hubris
and egocentrism.  (Notice that Chic-Fil-A is still thriving, years after
the controversy and useless boycotts.  All those people could still be
enjoying the food they once did, if they'd bothered to be halfway
logical.)

There's a difference between those, and refusing to use RH -directly-.
I'll use their architecture downstream, happily; it's my preferred
architecture, and the one with which I'm most consistently familiar and
have spent the most time learning its quirks.  That said, they literally
-directly- boned me, so why would I get directly back into bed with the
people who just stuck a knife in my back?  They've literally just proven I
can't trust them.  Only a fool walks into a relationship where they know
they can't trust the other party.  It takes a special kind of willful
stupidity (or at the very least, masochism) to do that.  I'm many things,
and have been accused of being many more, but I'm simply not -that- stupid.

Business relationships are like any other; they can survive almost
anything except a major, impactful breach of trust.

m->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.