There are three things that we are trying to achieve in the branding hunt. In priority order these are :
1) To remove Red Hat TM's so as to meet their requirements and guidelines
2) To establish the CentOS Branding and identity
3) To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
b) Even if someone has reported a component as checked, please check it again - more +1's to a patch, or to a whitelist request, or to a blacklist request help increase confidence in the overall end result.
c) please also install and check in the GUI, sometimes applications About box's will have the Red Hat shadowman logos that we need to usually replace.
d) When in doubt, feel free to reach out
Getting in touch : During the entire Branding hunt run, we will be available on #centos-devel / irc.freenode.net as well as the centos-devel list ( http://lists.centos.org/ ), feel free to reach out with comments, suggestions etc.
On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
- To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
</devil's advocate>
On 06/03/2014 02:47 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
- To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
</devil's advocate>
it depends on how much fate you have in the users. I've seen someone asking once in #centos what option to use for virt-install since he only had "rhel", "fedora" .....
On 02/06/14 08:04 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 06/03/2014 02:47 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
- To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
</devil's advocate>
it depends on how much fate you have in the users. I've seen someone asking once in #centos what option to use for virt-install since he only had "rhel", "fedora" .....
You can't make things idiot proof... I would suggest that confusion was a good chance for providing insight to the user on the nature of RHEL vs. CentOS. I think it's find to not specifically name CentOS, personally.
On 02/06/14 09:08 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 02/06/14 08:04 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 06/03/2014 02:47 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
- To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
</devil's advocate>
it depends on how much fate you have in the users. I've seen someone asking once in #centos what option to use for virt-install since he only had "rhel", "fedora" .....
You can't make things idiot proof... I would suggest that confusion was a good chance for providing insight to the user on the nature of RHEL vs. CentOS. I think it's find to not specifically name CentOS, personally.
s/find/fine/
On 06/03/2014 12:47 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
- To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
If we can, we could/should add CentOS distros there - and set suiteable defaults to match. After all, the install route for CentOS Linux is quite different from RHEL ( even the ISO media! ).
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 02:58:46AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or leave it as-is?
If we can, we could/should add CentOS distros there - and set suiteable defaults to match. After all, the install route for CentOS Linux is quite different from RHEL ( even the ISO media! ).
If you haven't already, plese file an upstream bug about this.
On 06/02/2014 06:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
There are three things that we are trying to achieve in the branding hunt. In priority order these are :
To remove Red Hat TM's so as to meet their requirements and guidelines
To establish the CentOS Branding and identity
To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
b) Even if someone has reported a component as checked, please check it again - more +1's to a patch, or to a whitelist request, or to a blacklist request help increase confidence in the overall end result.
c) please also install and check in the GUI, sometimes applications About box's will have the Red Hat shadowman logos that we need to usually replace.
d) When in doubt, feel free to reach out
Getting in touch : During the entire Branding hunt run, we will be available on #centos-devel / irc.freenode.net as well as the centos-devel list ( http://lists.centos.org/ ), feel free to reach out with comments, suggestions etc.
Also, let's build a wiki with the set of changes so we can summit them upstream for easier branding in future.
Carl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org To: centos-devel@centos.org Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 3:22:25 PM Subject: [CentOS-devel] Branding hunt
There are three things that we are trying to achieve in the branding hunt. In priority order these are :
To remove Red Hat TM's so as to meet their requirements and guidelines
To establish the CentOS Branding and identity
To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code
represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux'
Somewhat related. Are there, or could there be, strictly generic branding packages that anyone could use for anything w/ no trademark concerns? That'd be really nice for people building their own stuff...
Jason
Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for branding issues : a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string
b) Even if someone has reported a component as checked, please check it again - more +1's to a patch, or to a whitelist request, or to a blacklist request help increase confidence in the overall end result.
c) please also install and check in the GUI, sometimes applications About box's will have the Red Hat shadowman logos that we need to usually replace.
d) When in doubt, feel free to reach out
Getting in touch : During the entire Branding hunt run, we will be available on #centos-devel / irc.freenode.net as well as the centos-devel list ( http://lists.centos.org/ ), feel free to reach out with comments, suggestions etc.
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Carl Trieloff -
Digimer -
Jason Brooks -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Manuel Wolfshant -
Matthew Miller