On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person will ignore that command.
So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right? Sounds to me like you might want to use something different.
No I am not as can be conspicuously seen in what I wrote. Lamar your introduction of non-relevant matters can not detract from the essential point I made:-
(1) removing sub-version numbers is wrong; and
(2) changing the ISO naming structure from {major version}-{sub-version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso is an illogical unwise change because anyone looking at
{major version}-{sub-version}
instantly knows, for example, that is Centos 7.1 whereas
CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
is baffling and one is then required to build and maintain a translation table to convert '1503' into Centos 7.1. That is frankly bonkers.
Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.
How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as RHEL ? More puzzling is the complete absence of logic for this detrimental removal of the sub-version number.
It is impossible to satisfy everyone.
I do not remember reading on this list any criticisms of the former, now abandoned, practise of using:-
{major version}-{sub-version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso