[CentOS] Re: Site about qmail (with CentOS as SO)

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Wed Oct 24 21:17:57 UTC 2007


Les Mikesell wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
>>>>> No. But we had that stuff rather regularly with samba - their first
>>>>> line
>>>>> of support seems to be : "Upgrade your version to the most current
>>>>> one,
>>>>> then ask again."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I meant.
>>>>>
>>>> That is very common with applications. They don't back patch old
>>>> versions, and the problem you ask about might be already fixed. Just
>>>> look at the dovecot list. People still pop in and ask why 0.99 has
>>>> this problem, because that is what their distro came with, but they
>>>> are currently at 1.0.5, and have 1.1 in beta. Who has the time to
>>>> backport fixes to old versions if you don't get paid for it?
>>> And what's the point even if you do get paid?  The problem is really in
>>> distributions that by policy won't do a version level app upgrade even
>>> in instances where it would clearly be better than patching the beta
>>> version they chose to include.
>>>
>>
>> Well ... Even IF the dovecot people backported patches to 0.99 ... RHEL
>> would probably not bring those patches in anyway, unless it fixed a
>> problem that they have in the RH bugzilla.  That is the whole purpose of
>> freezing on the enterprise distribution.
> 
> Why should dovecot people have anything more to do with a beta version
> that they no longer support?  It wasn't their choice for that version to
> live on (nearly) forever.
>

I said EVEN IF THEY DID ... it would not make any difference.  I did not
say that they wanted to do so.  ALTHOUGH, if they cared to be in 85% of
the Enterprise Linux installs in the World, they WOULD support it, but
that is another story.

>> They fix security updates and bugs and you run it like it was released
>> ...  IT IS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT.
>>
>> IF that isn't the distribution type you want ... CentOS is not the
>> distribution for you :D
> 
> So which distribution makes intelligent decisions about how to best
> maintain each application package instead of applying a blanket policy
> that obviously doesn't fit everything?  I do, of course, want stability
> in most of the packages - just not where a barely functional beta was
> shipped in the first place.
> 

Well, the decisions are made, that was what they picked ... it is done
and not going to change.  I would say the the people planning RHEL are
fairly intelligent, as the own 85% market share in the PAID FOR
Enterprise Linux world.  And even Novell + SUSE + Microsoft (with a cold
slap in the face from Oracle too) did not even put a SLIGHT dent into that.

But, what do I know about these things.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071024/7d7672ec/signature.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list