On 02/19/2011 06:44 PM, DJA wrote:
On 02/19/2011 03:58 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:27:56PM -0800, Richard McClellan wrote:
- Johnny Hughes, you would do CentOS well to mind your words. Or
better yet, don't respond to threads asking about the process or release status. Instead, take half a day and write up a description of it.
He already went over the build process in more than enough detail to permit someone outside the project to do so.
I think Mr. McClellan was suggesting a bit more documentation on the website. Not everyone interested in CentOS is necessarily going to subscribe to this list. It was a reasonable suggestion in that context.
- The CentOS process is opaque and secretive. It may indeed be very
complex with justifiable restrictions over who can contribute at what level, but the process should be described somewhere. This would also help impartial observers/users of CentOS understand why things take as long as they do. The process and team appear to be dysfunctional to the point that using CentOS may be a risk.
Secretive? Just today there have been postings with enough information to permit someone familiar with development processes in general to do their own build. Do you need something along the lines of "Step 1: Collect and download to a staging area the necessary source RPMs from upstream." hand-holding?
Again, easily-gotten docs on the subject (aside from a dev list) would be very helpful and maybe cut down on at least some of the dialog here in the last couple of days (some of it unnecessarily heated).
- A lot of people are frustrated with the level and type of
communication from the CentOS inner circle. Increasing the level of communication--including release status--and politeness would be good for CentOS.
This is arguably true to some extent, but by no means a necessary occurrence.
As a new subscriber and potentially a new user doing research before implementation, I sincerely hope so.
A few days on this list was enough to give me a fresh interest in finding an alternative to CentOS.
I hear Redhat would be happy to sell you a set of support subscriptions. Of course, you would be required to pay for them.
That is a very condescending, specious, and frankly rude reply, and does nothing to further your argument. your work, or the recommendation of your distribution. In any case, I have no doubt that we would not get similar disdain from Redhat to what was a very civil customer comment.
With that I bid you all good luck and thanks for five year of CentOS.
Please don't let the door get scuffed on your way out :)
Smiley or not, that was very Eric Cartman of you. I can only hope that such unprofessionalism is not indicative of the quality of either CentOS itself, or of the mindset of its support staff-at-large.
I have to also question whether deciding to choose to use CentOS is going to come with serious future regrets.
That reply was not from a developer of CentOS ...