As the linked article points out, that $15 billion is a simple correlation based on diabetes alone.

When cost savings are almost erased by one disease, maybe someone hasn't thought through the unintended consequences.

I guess that by blessing CentOS, more companies will start offering paid CentOS support. This has the benefit of marginalizing Oracle Linux and pushing back against Ubuntu server marketshare growth.

I guess that by blessing CentOS, it creates much less room for Oracle to position Oracle Linux as a competitor to RHEL. And I do agree with other people that have said the lateness of CentOS created space for companies that sell Ubuntu server support to thrive. Better to have Oracle support companies catch some scraps than Ubuntu to each their lunch.

The clause prevents you from installing a bunch of CentOS servers, paying for one RHEL license and then updating the CentOS with the RHEL repository RPMs (or private repository mirror). You're more than welcome to pay for a RHEL license for one server and update it with the RHEL repository RPMs and then have a farm of CentOS that you update with the CentOS repository RPMs. Other things that are OK: paying for one RHEL to have access to the Red Hat knowledge base and using that information to support your CentOS installs (with CentOS RPMs).

They don't claim owership of the compiled RPMs, but they do only distribute them to people who pay for a support contract. And it's well within their rights to terminate a support contract if a compiled RPM is redistributed to someone who isn't a customer.

To understand this, you have to understand the relationship Red Hat Enterprise Linux has with recompile derivatives. While the compiled RPMs for RHEL cost money and are not redistributable without a license, the source RPMs are nearly all open source. Anyone with a RHEL license can download the RHEL SRPMs and do a recompile. This was great for people who want a RHEL-alike without paying for licenses and CentOS (and then Scientific Linux) came into existence. Red Hat was pleased with this because it gave a cheap way for enterprise customers to try RHEL and eventually become customers who pay for licenses/support.

Then came Oracle Linux who did the exact same thing as CentOS and Scientific Linux, but started charging for licenses and support outside of Red Hat's control. Red Hat wasn't pleased so they started packaging their SRPMs so instead of them containing upstream tarball with RH patch files, they would ship tarballs only or mega huge patch files without comments pointing to the relevent Red Hat bugzilla bug. This made it harder for Oracle to provide support to their customers, but it also had the effect of causing CentOS to get delayed by a good amount every new RHEL release.

Without a quick turnaround on CentOS releases that match RHEL releases, it threatened to kill their "the first one is free" business model. And it probably caused some customers to switch to cheaper Oracle value-added distributors. So Red Hat's only remaining move is to make a relationship with CentOS official. Presumably most of the relationship with be done in private to keep Oracle from gaining an advantage.

systemd already has systemd-nspawn, but it's not touted as a secure container.

And that is a good thing for Linux because it can use a lot of good technology from the kernel. The major issue is that systemd requires cgroups and that means no support for kFreeBSD. Even if the ex-Canonical people recused themselves, systemd was always going to have an uphill battle.

There is a Debian derivative that has decided to use systemd, but it's -- the still incubating -- Tanglu.

I can't replicate it either. The YouTube video claims I double-tap the home button but the second tap is slightly longer? By the end of the first tap it's already bringing me back to the lock screen, i.e. by the time I'm pressing down for the second tap, I'm already being taken back to the lock screen. iPhone 5, updated last night to 7.0 (11A465).

That feature was proposed for Cyanogen and a patch was written. It was never included out of fears that developers would block Cyanogen from installing apps on the (then named) Android Market.

The court file of the foreman suing no longer exists. The files they requested where either the lawsuit against him and/or his bankruptcy file.

'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'" The only harm is to these business' pocketbooks.. For once I'm on MS side in this matter...

Then you are failing to think this through. The only effect of this will be to give advertisers an excuse to ignore "do not track". How does undermining "do not track" help anyone?