[CentOS-devel] Defining what CentOS is

Ned Slider ned at unixmail.co.uk
Tue Dec 23 00:43:38 UTC 2008


Karanbir Singh wrote:
> ( managed to screw up my last reply )
> 
> Ned Slider wrote:
>> I agree with Dag that solution providers shouldn't be able to sell it as 
>> CentOS if it clearly isn't because they've modified, disabled or removed 
>> key parts of the system. 
> 
> who defines what is key and what isnt ? We can come up with a list of 
> what 'we' consider to be 'vital' for the system to still be refred to as 
> a CentOS based install - and we should do that ( isnt that what the wiki 
> page in question is trying to do ? )
> 

Yes to your last question, and to your first question -  who better 
CentOS core devs to do that!

>> The community can't be expected to support it 
>> when we (the community) don't know what a solution provider has changed 
>> or why they have changed it.
> 
> well. thats a good question. But my question to you would be - what 
> makes one user a part of the community and another not ?
> 

God point - I've never really looked at it like that. I just try to 
offer the best help I am able to whomever I can. Sometime the best 
advice we can give is to seek support from their provider when the 
provider has altered the product as one would hope the provider is going 
to have a more intimate knowledge as to what they've done and why 
they've done it than we are.

> Flip side is, we only need to make a best effort - after all, the 
> $provider of $BrokenSystems should be the upstream support group for 
> these people, no ? If they wander down to the centos mechanisms they are 
> welcome to.
> 

Agreed, and nothing to add really to my comments above.

>> So we're back to the question of what can and can't be changed in a 
>> system for it still to be CentOS.
> 
> For it to be exactly CentOS ? nothing can be changed. Nothing added, 
> nothing removed.
> 
> For it to be a reasonable CentOS'ish install ? I am sure we can come up 
> with a list.
> 

It may actually be easier to come up with a list of things we wouldn't 
expect them to change (like the kernel, for example) as opposed or in 
addition to a list of things a genuine CentOS system should include. 
Less wiggle room for inventive marketing?



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list