Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
Todd Blake wrote on 18 May 2005 00:38:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I pronounce it "cent" (as in dollars and "cents") "os" (as in "os"tritch).
M.
i thought it's cent(like martyn said like dollars and cents) and OS(as acronym of operating system letter O and letter S)
On 5/18/05, Martyn Drake martyn@drake.org.uk wrote:
Todd Blake wrote on 18 May 2005 00:38:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I pronounce it "cent" (as in dollars and "cents") "os" (as in "os"tritch).
M.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
my money is on the Ostritch...
Mark Quitoriano wrote:
i thought it's cent(like martyn said like dollars and cents) and OS(as acronym of operating system letter O and letter S)
On 5/18/05, Martyn Drake martyn@drake.org.uk wrote:
Todd Blake wrote on 18 May 2005 00:38:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I pronounce it "cent" (as in dollars and "cents") "os" (as in "os"tritch).
M.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Todd Blake wrote:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I pronounce it like the breath freshener.
CentOS, the freshmaker!
--Shawn
I just pronounce CentOS these days as "no more ruddy expensive yearly fees to Red Hat". Although when I'm in a better financial position, I will start donating to the CentOS project proper whenever I can.
M.
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:46 +0100, Martyn Drake wrote:
I just pronounce CentOS these days as "no more ruddy expensive yearly fees to Red Hat".
RHEL is about Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and 5+ year updates, and not about milking you dry. For a $300+ product, you get free support and the option to get guaranteed response times. Red Hat originally tried to sell a Red Hat Linux 6.2 E[nterprise] with SLAs. But SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 came out and showed that the industry wanted a "separate enterprise product" and Red Hat followed suit.
[ Yes, SuSE brags about "being first with the enterprise idea." ]
But by paying that money, you fund the largest commercial GPL company and collection of GPL projects. Don't bash Red Hat, they are a very, very good company -- 100% GPL-anal to the ultra-power. The only other company that comes close is now SuSE, thanx to Novell's purchase -- although Novell still a doesn't make their core goods GPL (whereas all of Red Hat's developments are always 100% GPL).
As far as the trademark issues, don't blame Red Hat, but US Trademark Law and companies like Cobalt, Sun and several others who abused Red Hat's good will. _No_ major commercial Linux vendor will ever allow their trademark to be freely used on distributed modifications again, precisely because of what Red Hat had to go through.
Companies like Caldera, SuSE and several vendors have vehemetly defended their trademarks for such reasons (e.g., German trademark law is even more of an issue than US). A company who does not defend its trademark can see it declared public domain. Red Hat couldn't stop companies like Cobalt and Sun from distributing heavily modified versions, and when they turned around and tried to force Sun, Sun had legal standing to say they could do what they wanted with Red Hat's trademark.
Sun did not find the same of SuSE however, and had to license once they did. ;->
People thought it was about Cheapbytes and that was not true at all. Red Hat even made explicit guarantees in its various trademark revisions so companies like Cheapbytes could distribute _unmodified_ copies of its software with its trademarks. They revised it several times but, unfortunately, the abuse by other companies came to a head.
Hence the name change to Fedora Core. Most of the other changes in Fedora Core (no SLAs, updates limited to 1 year, etc...) were already in effect as of Red Hat Linux 8.0 -- over a year before the name change happened. So other than the trademark issue, Red Hat remains unchanged.
Although when I'm in a better financial position, I will start donating to the CentOS project proper whenever I can.
And that's a good thing. But don't feel the need to bash Red Hat just because you appreciate the CentOS project.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
RHEL is about Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and 5+ year updates, and not about milking you dry. For a $300+ product, you get free support and the option to get guaranteed response times. Red Hat originally tried to sell a Red Hat Linux 6.2 E[nterprise] with SLAs. But SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 came out and showed that the industry wanted a "separate enterprise product" and Red Hat followed suit.
When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable impression. However, that's just my opinion. Others wil no doubt have really benefitted from it. What I really needed was the errata and updates rather than support, and an overall better overall lifecycle that RHEL promises and indeed, delivers. I could have gone down the Fedora route, but wasn't too thrilled with it's overall lifecycle.
I'm a non-commercial user (but neither a charity or educational establishment) and that $300 per year is a lot of money to pay for a stable and constantly updated OS. You could argue I could use Debian or some other free distribution, but having been a Red Hat Linux user for many years it's what I know best and feel the most comfortable around.
Now I didn't actually mind PAYING for RHEL, of course not, but I just find they need to find a sweet spot price for those that may not need the install/configuration support (like me), or the SLAs, but want the lifecycle the product delivers and the stability it offers. Is $340 per year worth it for that?
I was paying £65 a year for the RHN for the last available versions of the Red Hat Linux and that suited me just fine. That price is now £184, and includes features I don't actually need or want.
Of course CentOS has now came along, and that's meeting my needs just fine. Hence why I'm more than happy to make the odd donation when I can.
But by paying that money, you fund the largest commercial GPL company and collection of GPL projects. Don't bash Red Hat, they are a very, very good company -- 100% GPL-anal to the ultra-power. The only other company that comes close is now SuSE, thanx to Novell's purchase -- although Novell still a doesn't make their core goods GPL (whereas all of Red Hat's developments are always 100% GPL).
I'm not bashing Red Hat. Bashing Red Hat would be something along the lines of "Red Hat sucks; they've done nothing for the community; they're just another greedy organisation" which would be wrong on all accounts. Red Hat is also a business and needs to be profitable like any other business. I recognise that. I also recognise what they've done for the community as well. They are a good company.
And that's a good thing. But don't feel the need to bash Red Hat just because you appreciate the CentOS project.
I'm sorry to have come across 'bashing' Red Hat. Not my intention, most definately.
M.
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 06:44 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:46 +0100, Martyn Drake wrote:
But by paying that money, you fund the largest commercial GPL company and collection of GPL projects. Don't bash Red Hat, they are a very, very good company -- 100% GPL-anal to the ultra-power. The only other company that comes close is now SuSE, thanx to Novell's purchase -- although Novell still a doesn't make their core goods GPL (whereas all of Red Hat's developments are always 100% GPL).
If someone needs the support that Red Hat provides, then by all means they should purchase that product from Red Hat. The rates they charge for service are in keeping with industry norms. I have no problem whatsoever with Red Hat or their prices or their service.
I absolutely agree that Red Hat is great at providing their SRPMS in a timely manner, and in a way that is MUCH more FOSS oriented than anyone else who does an enterprise distro. (Try to get SUSE or Mandrake SRPMS for a rebuild project). Red Hat is to be commended for their support of the FOSS community.
As far as the trademark issues, don't blame Red Hat, but US Trademark Law and companies like Cobalt, Sun and several others who abused Red Hat's good will. _No_ major commercial Linux vendor will ever allow their trademark to be freely used on distributed modifications again, precisely because of what Red Hat had to go through.
No one wants to use Red Hat's trademarks (at least not in the CentOS project) unfairly. But it is certainly "FAIR USE" to say where you downloaded SOURCE from. It is also "FAIR USE" to link to a publicly available website. It is "FAIR USE" to compare products and features. Surely putting a phrase in your meta tags, if you have a comparison article is also "FAIR USE".
Ubuntu and Knoppix can say they use Debian sources ... SLAX can say it uses Slackware sources. Those guys have trademarks too. ------------------------------------ If Toyota and Honda both got an engine for a car from the same place ... Honda could certainly say:
Uses the same engine as the Toyota XXXX ... even if Toyota provided them with the engine.
When they don't use the same product ... they can say, The Honda YYYY has 35HP more than the Toyota XXXX and costs $1,125.00 less ... and they can point to the Toyota website from their website, and they can explain that it is based on tests conducted at xxxx and on the manufacturer's suggested retail prices, etc. -----------------------------------
Although when I'm in a better financial position, I will start donating to the CentOS project proper whenever I can.
That is good ... the resources used to build CentOS cost money, as does the bandwidth to distribute it. As I pointed out in another e-mail recently ... on www.alexa.com (one of the only places to compare actual web traffic to neutral sites on the internet) CentOS ranks higher than several major Linux distros {slackware, knoppix, mepis, xandros, many others} on traffic. We lag far behind them (i'm sure), on donations (both money and/or resources).
And that's a good thing. But don't feel the need to bash Red Hat just because you appreciate the CentOS project.
I agree with that statement ... CentOS could not exist without Red Hat and their user friendly FOSS policies. RHEL is a very good product. Red Hat is a very good company. Anyone who needs the support they offer should buy their products.
Todd Blake wrote:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I'm pronouncing it using Croatian spelling rules. Simply pronounce it as it is written: CentOS!
No guessing mambo-jumbo you have in English spelling rules (should they be called rules at all?) ;-)
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 11:54 -0500, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Todd Blake wrote:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I'm pronouncing it using Croatian spelling rules. Simply pronounce it as it is written: CentOS!
No guessing mambo-jumbo you have in English spelling rules (should they be called rules at all?) ;-)
---- my best Canadian imitation... 'Eh ?
;-)
Of course pronunciation rules depends where on the globe you reside...The people of Great Britain do not believe that Americans speak English and listening to someone from Boston or Mississippi it doesn't even seem to be the same language so rules - what rules?
Craig
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:54 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 11:54 -0500, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Todd Blake wrote:
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?
I'm pronouncing it using Croatian spelling rules. Simply pronounce it as it is written: CentOS!
No guessing mambo-jumbo you have in English spelling rules (should they be called rules at all?) ;-)
my best Canadian imitation... 'Eh ?
;-)
Of course pronunciation rules depends where on the globe you reside...The people of Great Britain do not believe that Americans speak English and listening to someone from Boston or Mississippi it doesn't even seem to be the same language so rules - what rules?
Craig
oh...just say it any ole way...just say it w/pride and love! jr
I am perhaps going about this the hard way of getting SAMBA all running on my Centos 4 install...
These scripts are set up to work with Fedora Core 3 or K12LTSP 4.2
I got the install to work. It did not seem to hard.
Then the docs tell me to install apt from Fedora project. Well I am using yum so I ignore that.
Next step is to run:
perl -MCPAN -e -shell
and I get the error:
Unrecognized character \xE2 at -e line 1.
And I do not know where to go from here. I am not left at the cpan prompt as the docs say I should be...
Anyone out there that can help? Or does anyone know of another really neat SAMBA/LDAP setup script? Or do I need to switch to K12LTSP?
Barrs Law of Recursive futility If you're smart enough to use one of these.... .....you can probably manage without one!
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I am perhaps going about this the hard way of getting SAMBA all running on my Centos 4 install...
These scripts are set up to work with Fedora Core 3 or K12LTSP 4.2
I got the install to work. It did not seem to hard.
Then the docs tell me to install apt from Fedora project. Well I am using yum so I ignore that.
Next step is to run:
perl -MCPAN -e -shell
and I get the error:
Unrecognized character \xE2 at -e line 1.
And I do not know where to go from here. I am not left at the cpan prompt as the docs say I should be...
Anyone out there that can help? Or does anyone know of another really neat SAMBA/LDAP setup script? Or do I need to switch to K12LTSP?
perl -MCPAN -e shell
(but using CPAN to update perl will break things)
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
Bryan J. Smith -
Craig White -
Johnny Hughes -
Mark Quitoriano -
Martyn Drake -
Nigel Kendrick -
Peter Farrow -
rado -
Robert Moskowitz -
Shawn M. Jones -
Todd Blake