With great excitement I'd like to announce that we are joining the Red Hat family. The CentOS Project ( http://www.centos.org ) is joining forces with Red Hat. Working as part of the Open Source and Standards team ( http://community.redhat.com/ ) to foster rapid innovation beyond the platform into the next generation of emerging technologies.
Wow. I'm not entirely sure this is good news. We'll see.
Yves Bellefeuille
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Yves Bellefeuille Sent: den 8 januari 2014 01:36 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] CentOS Project joins forces with Red Hat
With great excitement I'd like to announce that we are joining the Red Hat family. The CentOS Project ( http://www.centos.org ) is joining forces with Red Hat. Working as part of the Open Source and Standards team ( http://community.redhat.com/ ) to foster rapid innovation beyond the platform into the next generation of emerging technologies.
Wow. I'm not entirely sure this is good news. We'll see.
My first thought as well. Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground. So for Redhat acquiring another free distribution makes me wary, unnecessarily so maybe...
I hope CentOS will continue to be The "free" stable enterprise solution. -- //Sorin
On 01/08/2014 09:14 PM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Behalf Of Yves Bellefeuille Sent: den 8 januari 2014 01:36
Wow. I'm not entirely sure this is good news. We'll see.
My first thought as well. Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground. So for Redhat acquiring another free distribution makes me wary, unnecessarily so maybe...
I wouldn't worry so much. RedHat has every incentive to keep CentOS very much alive and well. Consider that if RedHat were to try to kill CentOS then they would have Oracle chomping at the bit to take over with Oracle Linux and that is a scenario that RedHat almost certainly does not want.
Peter
On 01/08/2014 02:14 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Yves Bellefeuille Sent: den 8 januari 2014 01:36 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] CentOS Project joins forces with Red Hat
With great excitement I'd like to announce that we are joining the Red Hat family. The CentOS Project ( http://www.centos.org ) is joining forces with Red Hat. Working as part of the Open Source and Standards team ( http://community.redhat.com/ ) to foster rapid innovation beyond the platform into the next generation of emerging technologies.
Wow. I'm not entirely sure this is good news. We'll see.
My first thought as well. Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground. So for Redhat acquiring another free distribution makes me wary, unnecessarily so maybe...
I hope CentOS will continue to be The "free" stable enterprise solution.
//Sorin
Think about this. RDO, GlusterFS, oVirt, and OpenShift Origin are all Red Hat community offerings that need to have a long lived community base OS to speed their usage and growth.
All of those also have a paid equivalent (Open Stack Platform, Storage, RHEV, and Open Shift) where Red Hat gets paying customers if the community projects thrive. It is absolutely in Red Hat's best interest for all of the community software listed above to do well.
Red Hat wants their paid platforms to continue to be successful, they therefore want their community projects to be successful.
CentOS and Red Hat are joining forces to make those (and other) community projects more successful. It is a simple as that and it is in both the CentOS Project's and Red Hat's best interest for both of us to thrive and grow.
Fedora, a Linux distribution to deliver "state of the art" features, is also always going to be "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ... Next". Fedora is also a great Linux distribution in its own right. It is obviously still very much in Red Hat's best interest for Fedora to continue to grow.
Is Red Hat in business to make money ... of course they are. Does Red Hat make more money or less money if their community projects do well? Of course they make more money if more people use their community projects. Red Hat wants CentOS, Fedora, RDO, GlusterFS, oVirt, OpenShift Origin, and every other project where they provide support to do thrive and grow.
Is it in the CentOS Project's best interest for RHEL and Fedora to continue to grow ... of course it is.
Karanbir Singh (the Chair of the CentOS Project board) and Robyn Bergeron (the Fedora Project Leader) have both posted blog entries that discuss these items in further detail:
http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/
http://wordshack.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/centos-welcome/
This is not rocket science folks. We all want all of these open source projects to do well.
I am very excited about this arrangement and I think we all win.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
op 08-01-14 11:54, Johnny Hughes schreef:
On 01/08/2014 02:14 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Yves Bellefeuille Sent: den 8 januari 2014 01:36 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] CentOS Project joins forces with Red Hat
With great excitement I'd like to announce that we are joining the Red Hat family. The CentOS Project ( http://www.centos.org ) is joining forces with Red Hat. Working as part of the Open Source and Standards team ( http://community.redhat.com/ ) to foster rapid innovation beyond the platform into the next generation of emerging technologies.
Wow. I'm not entirely sure this is good news. We'll see.
My first thought as well. Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground. So for Redhat acquiring another free distribution makes me wary, unnecessarily so maybe...
I hope CentOS will continue to be The "free" stable enterprise solution.
//Sorin
Think about this. RDO, GlusterFS, oVirt, and OpenShift Origin are all Red Hat community offerings that need to have a long lived community base OS to speed their usage and growth.
All of those also have a paid equivalent (Open Stack Platform, Storage, RHEV, and Open Shift) where Red Hat gets paying customers if the community projects thrive. It is absolutely in Red Hat's best interest for all of the community software listed above to do well.
Red Hat wants their paid platforms to continue to be successful, they therefore want their community projects to be successful.
CentOS and Red Hat are joining forces to make those (and other) community projects more successful. It is a simple as that and it is in both the CentOS Project's and Red Hat's best interest for both of us to thrive and grow.
Fedora, a Linux distribution to deliver "state of the art" features, is also always going to be "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ... Next". Fedora is also a great Linux distribution in its own right. It is obviously still very much in Red Hat's best interest for Fedora to continue to grow.
Is Red Hat in business to make money ... of course they are. Does Red Hat make more money or less money if their community projects do well? Of course they make more money if more people use their community projects. Red Hat wants CentOS, Fedora, RDO, GlusterFS, oVirt, OpenShift Origin, and every other project where they provide support to do thrive and grow.
Is it in the CentOS Project's best interest for RHEL and Fedora to continue to grow ... of course it is.
Karanbir Singh (the Chair of the CentOS Project board) and Robyn Bergeron (the Fedora Project Leader) have both posted blog entries that discuss these items in further detail:
http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/
http://wordshack.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/centos-welcome/
This is not rocket science folks. We all want all of these open source projects to do well.
I am very excited about this arrangement and I think we all win.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
+1
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: den 8 januari 2014 11:54 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] CentOS Project joins forces with Red Hat
Karanbir Singh (the Chair of the CentOS Project board) and Robyn Bergeron (the Fedora Project Leader) have both posted blog entries that discuss these items in further detail:
http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/
Thanks for linking to the blog posts, it made me appreciate why the move was made, incl some of the "softer" values. I think I understand it clearer now.
-- //Sorin <taking of tin foil hat>
Le 08/01/2014 11:54, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
Red Hat wants their paid platforms to continue to be successful, they therefore want their community projects to be successful.
I am a little bit dubious about that. Why would they sell RHEL, and give away the same thing, CentOS, just recompiled from sources ? The only thing I can see in this way is that Red Hat is mainly selling support, but why in this case don't give RHEL for free ?
At least, I fear CentOS will lose its independance.
Alain
Hello Alain,
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
Le 08/01/2014 11:54, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
Red Hat wants their paid platforms to continue to be successful, they therefore want their community projects to be successful.
I am a little bit dubious about that. Why would they sell RHEL, and give away the same thing, CentOS, just recompiled from sources ? The only thing I can see in this way is that Red Hat is mainly selling support, but why in this case don't give RHEL for free ?
The more stability to have from Open Source, the better product and happy customers you have for RHEL.
So Red Hat has huge support for Open Source, including CentOS. But you are right, Red Hat is also stright on having paying customers stay with RHEL and they do not give away their base RHEL product for free.
At least, I fear CentOS will lose its independance.
This is for sure, Red Hat has taken over. It is not a cooperation on infrastructure or similar, but kind of the "community of CentOS" to move into Red Hat proper...
best regards,
Florian La Roche
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Is Red Hat in business to make money ... of course they are. Does Red Hat make more money or less money if their community projects do well? Of course they make more money if more people use their community projects. Red Hat wants CentOS, Fedora, RDO, GlusterFS, oVirt, OpenShift Origin, and every other project where they provide support to do thrive and grow.
I've always thought Red Hat was at its best before they started restricting access to the finished product, even to the community that contributed most of the code and bug reports that made it possible and usable. That is, when they just sold support and the released code was the same for everyone, including the binaries. Without that, I don't think they would exist today. While I greatly appreciate the CentOS project and the way it has continued this access in a practical sense, I still don't understand why Red Hat thinks it is a good idea to dilute their brand name or make it less visible and well known. (Well, I can understand it with Fedora as the never-finished work in progress, but not for the equivalent of the base CentOS as an exact clone.).
I have found at times the community to CentOS-leadership relations to be quite poor.
I have witnessed the summary judgements against people like Dag Wieers driving them away. Useful members driven out.
I have seen release dates slip for months at a time with no word from the people in control of CentOS. The project has come into jeopardy many times. CentOS 5.4 was a fiasco.
I have always suspected that after each release the exact build environment / script to create the RPMs is not made available to bring about this end - whereby the "secret sauce" of how to build the SRPMs on ftp.redhat.com are still kept hidden by the CentOS leaders. This is not a community project. Its a free rebuild with all the mock magic hidden by those who just got a huge payout.
I am also wondering if the serially rude and dismissive behavior by some of the folks in control of CentOS will continue now that they cash massive checks from Redhat. I guess when you sell out one needs to be more polite.
Now we need to possibly find a new rebuild. I think that release dates will still be something that the leaders here do whatever and whenever they want. I think that there will be significant differences in RHEL and CentOS now. I think the secret build sauce will remain hidden from view and the people receiving big pay for Redhat will serve their new masters well.
I've been a user since the WBEL/cAos days. I worry about this state of affairs. Deeply.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/Re-CentOS-CentOS-announce-CentOS-Project... Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I see you haven't read announcements and explanations, or you haven't understood them.
On 01/17/2014 10:14 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
I have found at times the community to CentOS-leadership relations to be quite poor.
I have witnessed the summary judgements against people like Dag Wieers driving them away. Useful members driven out.
You ARE aware that RepoForge is forzen solid because Dag Wieers does not want to release control to others but has no time to build packages ready for build? I wonder how is that different of what you accuse CentOS devs did.
FYI, I am not on either side, I do not accuse anyone, but I think every comment should be balanced.
I have seen release dates slip for months at a time with no word from the people in control of CentOS. The project has come into jeopardy many times. CentOS 5.4 was a fiasco.
I have always suspected that after each release the exact build environment / script to create the RPMs is not made available to bring about this end - whereby the "secret sauce" of how to build the SRPMs on ftp.redhat.com are still kept hidden by the CentOS leaders. This is not a community project. Its a free rebuild with all the mock magic hidden by those who just got a huge payout.
I can understand that someone is not willing to explain "secret sauce" they spent 100's of hours poured into to make it work in their free time, just so others can jump in and create a competitor to their "product" thus invalidating their work with lesser gratification. I am first who would not do it. Not without monetary reward. Weather I personally liked it or not is irrelevant.
Red Hat wants RHEV and their other products to have rebuilt versions. They need it so their products get bigger user base. It would be stupid to create entire community from scratch when CentOS only needs little help to open up and producing Variants, and then compete with CentOS.
So Red Hat will get opensource rebuilds for RHEV and other products and CentOS gets second wind and opens up entire process.
I am also wondering if the serially rude and dismissive behavior by some of the folks in control of CentOS will continue now that they cash massive checks from Redhat. I guess when you sell out one needs to be more polite.
Now we need to possibly find a new rebuild. I think that release dates will still be something that the leaders here do whatever and whenever they want. I think that there will be significant differences in RHEL and CentOS now. I think the secret build sauce will remain hidden from view and the people receiving big pay for Redhat will serve their new masters well.
Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, you could have also teamed up and found sponsors from all those unhappy community members you say exist. So, where is the product of your open collaboration?
I've been a user since the WBEL/cAos days. I worry about this state of affairs. Deeply.
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 15:59 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, you could have also teamed up and found sponsors from all those unhappy community members you say exist
I lack knowledge of how the community inspired Centos project started. I remember squabbles over the domain name which was satisfactorily resolved.
Not many people have the time and mental ability (both are needed) to acquire the knowledge to create a rebuilding of RHEL. Using Centos requires less intellectual effort than literally starting from the absolute beginning with RHEL sources.
Thinking positively about Centos, we share as users/installers/administrators and problem solvers a really great and very practical alternative to the world of M$.
Centos is used for millions, if not trillions, of operating systems. Many use it but very few contribute technical assistance or money to the continuing Centos project. Without Centos what would we do ? SL or the Debian family or the BSDs or Solaris ?
Despite negative, unhappy and wrong things that have occurred, the Centos project has continued to our personal advantage. It would be nice if the unhappy things of the past could be amicably resolved and we all become one big, happy and very satisfied world-wide family.
Lots of people have contributed directly in Centos or as package re-builders for Centos suitable repositories. To all those people, I would like to say "Thank You".
(Love is in the Air)
Great to see you are still in love - she must be very special :-)
On 01/17/2014 04:35 PM, Always Learning wrote:
(Love is in the Air)
Great to see you are still in love - she must be very special :-)
Actually, "Ljubo" in both my first and last name means closely to someone who loves, kisses someone. Ljubomir means "one who loves/kisses peace (peace = mir). "Ljuba" for example means "one you love", designates mostly females.
So if you look and Internet as "cloud" in the "air", signature means I am still around :)
"Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a single CentOS.
Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a few that have now financially benefited and retain a dictatorship on roadmaps, release information and code.
Community here is a consumer of a built OS, but there is no community in how it gets built. And with this centralized power comes the takeover and payouts.
If Redhat wasnt trying to block OEL or SL or trying to control CentOS and make it different, they would simply offer RHEL for free on their own. This allows them to wean the world off of CentOS at what is likely to be a glacial pace at first then by Redhat we will have all given up.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/Re-CentOS-CentOS-announce-CentOS-Project... Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
IonPacepa wrote:
"Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a single CentOS.
Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a few that have now financially benefited and retain a dictatorship on roadmaps, release information and code.
Community here is a consumer of a built OS, but there is no community in how it gets built. And with this centralized power comes the takeover and payouts.
<snip>
Most projects have specially authorized people. This is a Good Thing... unless you really enjoy having a distro larded with malware and bugs that crackers, crooks, other organizations and governments have deliberately, or when IMSOHOT updates code with bugs galore.
I'd prefer not to have any of that (or I'd be on, say, another distro that shall remain nameless but is also a style of hat....
mark
On 01/17/2014 05:03 PM, IonPacepa wrote:
"Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild,"
A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a single CentOS.
Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a few that have now financially benefited and retain a dictatorship on roadmaps, release information and code.
Path to CentOS core member is simple. You join CentOS Q&A team, and after some time proving you are reliable, you might join them.
Unless you prove your self, you can not even get job of supervisor to a bunch of clerks in supermarket, right? It is dangerous to allow unproven persons messing with such trusted OS like CentOS.
Community here is a consumer of a built OS, but there is no community in how it gets built. And with this centralized power comes the takeover and payouts.
If Redhat wasnt trying to block OEL or SL or trying to control CentOS and make it different, they would simply offer RHEL for free on their own. This allows them to wean the world off of CentOS at what is likely to be a glacial pace at first then by Redhat we will have all given up.
So you just skipped everything else I said and just reiterated what you said in first e-mail?
Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
Excellent. Now if others would stop responding to the trolls it would be even better.
John
On 01/17/2014 05:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
Excellent. Now if others would stop responding to the trolls it would be even better.
Sorry, I saw other troll e-mails of his after I wrote 3 responces in total. Only then I saw what's up.
On 01/17/2014 10:03 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
"Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a single CentOS.
Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a few that have now financially benefited and retain a dictatorship on roadmaps, release information and code.
I really didn't want to get dragged into this, and this will probably be my only post on the matter. But I feel the need to address some 'facts' that have been laid out.
Let's clear a few points up here:
The benefit we gained is time. We are able to work on this fulltime now instead of after hours following a job doing something else.
As to not giving up the secret sauce, we publish the changelog and packages we've had to modify to deal with TM compliance. It's in the wiki for every release. The build scripts for isos were for the early releases were on the mirrors and are still published on the vault.
What we didn't do was create a support mechanism to fracture the community every time someone got an idea. That seeks only to tear away at the community rather than to build it up.
Several groups took the distribution we put out and changed it to suit their own needs just fine. ClarkConnect as an example.
Community here is a consumer of a built OS, but there is no community in how it gets built. And with this centralized power comes the takeover and payouts.
Please stop the FUD here. The centralized power you're talking about is the origin of the source. It was never ours. We, SL, Puias/SpringDale and the rest all had to go through the same motions.
If Redhat wasnt trying to block OEL or SL or trying to control CentOS and make it different, they would simply offer RHEL for free on their own. This allows them to wean the world off of CentOS at what is likely to be a glacial pace at first then by Redhat we will have all given up.
Hugely incorrect and outright FUD. The point of this is to *build* community. Offering free RHEL would fracture and destroy several communities, as well as damaging likely damaging Red Hat's reputation in the eyes of everyone inside those communities and anyone outside who wanted to throw stones.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
What we didn't do was create a support mechanism to fracture the community every time someone got an idea. That seeks only to tear away at the community rather than to build it up.
Is that how you describe every other open source project? Ones where the tools to rebuild are easily available? Are they all really that bad?
Several groups took the distribution we put out and changed it to suit their own needs just fine. ClarkConnect as an example.
I think you are missing a bit of history in that project and its clearos successor. Notably the issues around the delay of a 6.x release. Not to revisit those issues, but still everyone _must_ stay away of the dependency chain and the potential of upstream problems when that dependency is forced.
Hugely incorrect and outright FUD. The point of this is to *build* community. Offering free RHEL would fracture and destroy several communities, as well as damaging likely damaging Red Hat's reputation in the eyes of everyone inside those communities and anyone outside who wanted to throw stones.
I strongly disagree with that. Red Hat's community and reputation were just fine back in the day when they did not restrict access to binaries. In fact, if it were not for those days, we'd probably all be using debian. Their problem would be in how to enforce the requirement that all copies of RHEL in an organization have to be under paid support to have any if not for the distinction between the rebuilds and their own.
On 1/17/2014 12:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Offering free RHEL would fracture and destroy several communities,
I strongly disagree with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
I count 115 Debian/Ubuntu variants. (Could be off by a few, since my eyes started to cross there near the end.) 15 of those are directly under the Ubuntu umbrella; apparently they feel the need to capture at least a handful of these forks, to prevent their "community" from going all to pieces. That leaves a hundred non-official forks.
I count only 10 RHEL derivatives, plus RHEL itself.
If you throw in Fedora and its derivatives, then the total goes to 32, which only goes to prove my (and Jim's) point: the more "open" Fedora branch gets forked more often.
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more open than being married.
I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
I don't expect that it would ever be necessary, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult to reproduce the distro from source packages. It would require a lot of work and a lot of build time, but it's not really very difficult. The most challenging component would be the initial bootstrap build, we could produce altered trademarks packages in less than an hour. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
On 1/17/2014 13:33, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that.
You want your Linux to be under control, but not controlled. Is that it? :)
Someone has to have their hand on the tiller.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that.
You want your Linux to be under control, but not controlled. Is that it? :)
Controlled as in having a currently authoritative version, but not secret or restricted beyond not calling something different the same name.
Someone has to have their hand on the tiller.
Yes, but if the boat sinks it would be nice if the blueprints didn't go down with the ship. (Or even if it goes off in a wildly wrong direction...). Anyway, per Johnny's comment that it is all going to be published - that's all anyone could ask.
On 01/17/2014 09:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote: I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds.
That is reasonable fear, but unless you are going to build everything yourself, you can never be sure in anyone else. And even if you have an accessible build system, there is a question if it was compromised in a way that others can not notice, but producing backdoor.
So it all comes down to trust vs convenience.
On 01/17/2014 02:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Les,
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-build-reports
combined with
https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-core!bld-seven.git
and
https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git
(when everything is published ... we are getting it on there)
Those will mean that just about anyone COULD build it if they wanted to ... were we to stop.
On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated.
Complicated is a good word...
But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
There is no secret sauce to the buildsystem. It's not like we're converting TRS-80 Model II TRSDOS files to LS-DOS or anything here, where things aren't well-documented or completely undocumented.
I have reproduced to an extent the buildsystem for CentOS 5 on IA64, and with a little nudging in the right direction by some folks I was able to figure it out. The hard part, as as been said I don't know how many times, is getting the x.0's first tree's dependency tree and build sequence correct with the buildroot populated with a good starter set of packages (and this is very well documented in the Fedora documentation).
Anyway, the current work with seven.centos.org is a really good start.
But we really shouldn't feed the trolls.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Complicated is a good word...
But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
There is no secret sauce to the buildsystem. It's not like we're converting TRS-80 Model II TRSDOS files to LS-DOS or anything here, where things aren't well-documented or completely undocumented.
Hey, I could have done that with my eyes closed and in z80 code. But those were simpler times.
I have reproduced to an extent the buildsystem for CentOS 5 on IA64, and with a little nudging in the right direction by some folks I was able to figure it out. The hard part, as as been said I don't know how many times, is getting the x.0's first tree's dependency tree and build sequence correct with the buildroot populated with a good starter set of packages (and this is very well documented in the Fedora documentation).
Anyway, the current work with seven.centos.org is a really good start.
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
On 01/18/2014 04:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
There is no secret sauce to the buildsystem. It's not like we're converting TRS-80 Model II TRSDOS files to LS-DOS or anything here, where things aren't well-documented or completely undocumented.
Hey, I could have done that with my eyes closed and in z80 code. But those were simpler times.
[TRS-80 in-joke and pointer to OS source code with Les's name in the comments taken off-list...... suffice to say that Les actually has done (or worked on the code, at least for) my referenced conversion in Z80 assembler for one of the TRS-80 operating systems]
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
Is the F19 ARM build workable? (I know there are graphics module issues). I might have to try that myself on my GuruPlug or one of our Pi's. If F19 on ARM is stable enough, once the build chain is proven for x86_64 it shouldn't be too difficult for you or someone else to build from the source, taking F19 as the base for the buildsystem and initial buildroots. I would expect the build would take a long time, though.
On 01/18/2014 06:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
Is the F19 ARM build workable? (I know there are graphics module issues). I might have to try that myself on my GuruPlug or one of our Pi's. If F19 on ARM is stable enough, once the build chain is proven for x86_64 it shouldn't be too difficult for you or someone else to build from the source, taking F19 as the base for the buildsystem and initial buildroots. I would expect the build would take a long time, though.
Unfortunately forget any armv5s and pretty much through v7s. Start with armv8s or armv9s. Are you on the fedora-arm list? Remixes on 'older' arm archs are left up to parties that want to do it.
On 01/18/2014 10:12 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 01/18/2014 06:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
Is the F19 ARM build workable?
Unfortunately forget any armv5s and pretty much through v7s. Start with armv8s or armv9s.
Hmm, interesting.
Are you on the fedora-arm list?
No, but thanks for the pointer.
On 01/20/2014 08:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 01/18/2014 10:12 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 01/18/2014 06:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
Is the F19 ARM build workable?
Unfortunately forget any armv5s and pretty much through v7s. Start with armv8s or armv9s.
Hmm, interesting.
I was premature on the v7s. They are well supported, it seems.
Are you on the fedora-arm list?
No, but thanks for the pointer. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/18/2014 04:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Anyway, the current work with seven.centos.org is a really good start.
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
My understanding is that RHEL/Centos 7 is based on Fedora 19. F19 has been ported to arm, but each arm is different and needs personal attention. So PERHAPS a couple arm boards will be worked on. I will probably be in a position to do this in the spring. I am looking at a cubie2 or truck to build a pbx. Regardless if it is Centos 7 or Fedora 20, someone will have to build the FreePBX modules for arm. But if Centos 7 is running on arm, it MIGHT be easier and more stable over the long run.
Red sleeve is an ARM port. http://www.redsleeve.org On Jan 18, 2014 3:28 PM, "Les Mikesell" lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Complicated is a good word...
But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
There is no secret sauce to the buildsystem. It's not like we're converting TRS-80 Model II TRSDOS files to LS-DOS or anything here, where things aren't well-documented or completely undocumented.
Hey, I could have done that with my eyes closed and in z80 code. But those were simpler times.
I have reproduced to an extent the buildsystem for CentOS 5 on IA64, and with a little nudging in the right direction by some folks I was able to figure it out. The hard part, as as been said I don't know how many times, is getting the x.0's first tree's dependency tree and build sequence correct with the buildroot populated with a good starter set of packages (and this is very well documented in the Fedora documentation).
Anyway, the current work with seven.centos.org is a really good start.
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/18/2014 11:09 PM, David Carollo wrote:
Red sleeve is an ARM port. http://www.redsleeve.org
Home page is static from back in '12, but I see mailing list has some activity. I have a pogoplug that has f18 port on it, I will see if I can get redsleeve on it. But won't be for a couple weeks.
On Jan 18, 2014 3:28 PM, "Les Mikesell" lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Complicated is a good word...
But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
There is no secret sauce to the buildsystem. It's not like we're converting TRS-80 Model II TRSDOS files to LS-DOS or anything here, where things aren't well-documented or completely undocumented.
Hey, I could have done that with my eyes closed and in z80 code. But those were simpler times.
I have reproduced to an extent the buildsystem for CentOS 5 on IA64, and with a little nudging in the right direction by some folks I was able to figure it out. The hard part, as as been said I don't know how many times, is getting the x.0's first tree's dependency tree and build sequence correct with the buildroot populated with a good starter set of packages (and this is very well documented in the Fedora documentation).
Anyway, the current work with seven.centos.org is a really good start.
I hope someone manages an ARM build eventually. It would be fun to play with cheap hardware and reliable code.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more open than being married.
I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Maybe it might be a good idea to do some research on Debian systems?...and using them for file and system servers?......I'm just sayin' LoL!
EGO II
On 19/01/14 05:41, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more open than being married.
I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Maybe it might be a good idea to do some research on Debian systems?...and using them for file and system servers?......I'm just sayin' LoL!
When there is discernible evidence of a deterioration of service, maybe. But until then it's all just FUD.
If anything, the evidence currently points to a vastly improved picture since the delays of a few releases back. Back then there was cause for concern. At present I see far less cause for concern. Of course things can change, but at present I see no reason to be concerned. I've never been very good at predicting the future so I will stick to looking at what the present is telling me, and currently the CentOS team are doing a good job on delivering the core product in a timely fashion. That is a metric I can measure today and it tells me something meaningful. IF that changes and things observably deteriorate then there are alternatives but I'd rather make decisions based on what I observe today rather than predictions about what might happen in the future.
On 01/19/2014 07:33 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 19/01/14 05:41, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more open than being married.
I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Maybe it might be a good idea to do some research on Debian systems?...and using them for file and system servers?......I'm just sayin' LoL!
When there is discernible evidence of a deterioration of service, maybe. But until then it's all just FUD.
If anything, the evidence currently points to a vastly improved picture since the delays of a few releases back. Back then there was cause for concern. At present I see far less cause for concern. Of course things can change, but at present I see no reason to be concerned. I've never been very good at predicting the future so I will stick to looking at what the present is telling me, and currently the CentOS team are doing a good job on delivering the core product in a timely fashion. That is a metric I can measure today and it tells me something meaningful. IF that changes and things observably deteriorate then there are alternatives but I'd rather make decisions based on what I observe today rather than predictions about what might happen in the future.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Well I for one will not be "jumping ship" anytime in the foreseeable future. CEntOS (wish they would change the way it appears to the world...the "e" should be capitalized...as the "OS" is....its the start of a real word!....but I digress!) CEntOS has been good to me....and has never given me problems since installing it at 6.0's release. If anything this should solidify the fact that CEntOS is TRULY an "Enterprise Class" OS available to the masses from a Community that has the (strength?....clout?....resources?) of Red Hat Enterprise Linux...(this might make my taking the RHCSA a bit easier too!.......(wonder if there are any CEntOS certification exams?.....or would that be an "over-saturation" of the market?....like...if you're not RHCSA approved...then you go for "second string" CEntOS?......maybe its better to NOT have one then!...)
EGO II
Here is my take (just a CentOS user).
The communication from Red Hat/CentOS during this change has been somewhat poor. By reading various blog posts, etc.. A lot of people are confused about what this change actually means. When people read things like "CentOS will allow Red Hat to innovate and test new things" or however they word it, people read that to mean RHEL != CentOS.
I know to a lot of the developers CentOS is a "community" or something, a collection of repositories and whatnot, but to the average person, CentOS is a product, a clone of RHEL.
The average person wants to know this: if I download CentOS 7, and choose "Basic Server" in the installation, will I get the same packages (sans trademark) that RHEL 7 has? Will it have the same version of gcc and httpd, etc?
This hasn't been clear. If I understand the plan properly, CentOS will remain a RHEL clone, but there will be modified versions (variants?) of CentOS with added functionality, and maybe some repositories with extra goodies. If the communication was clearer, people wouldn't be as worried about Red Hat making CentOS some sort of unstable testing grounds, and you'd receive better press.
Logan
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. <eoconnor25@gmail.com
wrote:
On 01/19/2014 07:33 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 19/01/14 05:41, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com
wrote:
Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more open than being married.
I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Maybe it might be a good idea to do some research on Debian systems?...and using them for file and system servers?......I'm just sayin' LoL!
When there is discernible evidence of a deterioration of service, maybe. But until then it's all just FUD.
If anything, the evidence currently points to a vastly improved picture since the delays of a few releases back. Back then there was cause for concern. At present I see far less cause for concern. Of course things can change, but at present I see no reason to be concerned. I've never been very good at predicting the future so I will stick to looking at what the present is telling me, and currently the CentOS team are doing a good job on delivering the core product in a timely fashion. That is a metric I can measure today and it tells me something meaningful. IF that changes and things observably deteriorate then there are alternatives but I'd rather make decisions based on what I observe today rather than predictions about what might happen in the future.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Well I for one will not be "jumping ship" anytime in the foreseeable future. CEntOS (wish they would change the way it appears to the world...the "e" should be capitalized...as the "OS" is....its the start of a real word!....but I digress!) CEntOS has been good to me....and has never given me problems since installing it at 6.0's release. If anything this should solidify the fact that CEntOS is TRULY an "Enterprise Class" OS available to the masses from a Community that has the (strength?....clout?....resources?) of Red Hat Enterprise Linux...(this might make my taking the RHCSA a bit easier too!.......(wonder if there are any CEntOS certification exams?.....or would that be an "over-saturation" of the market?....like...if you're not RHCSA approved...then you go for "second string" CEntOS?......maybe its better to NOT have one then!...)
EGO II _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/19/2014 5:25 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
.(wonder if there are any CEntOS certification exams?.
No, since Redhat does not recommend CentOS for production environments only RHEL. More is mention in the FAQ:
http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/#_centos_and_red_hat_enterprise_linux
"You ARE aware that RepoForge is forzen solid because Dag Wieers does not want to release control to others but has no time to build packages ready for build"
There is quite a bit of open-source surrounding rpmforge and rpmforge doesn't have the work "Community" it its very name.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/Re-CentOS-CentOS-announce-CentOS-Project... Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 01/17/2014 05:05 PM, IonPacepa wrote:
"You ARE aware that RepoForge is forzen solid because Dag Wieers does not want to release control to others but has no time to build packages ready for build"
There is quite a bit of open-source surrounding rpmforge and rpmforge doesn't have the work "Community" it its very name.
I am on repoforge mailing list from 2008, and I know times when no package was built for several months, and guy working with Dag saying why got no responses from him. And when he has responded with "I do not have time", they where denied any option to build packages without him.
If you are ignorant of this, then you need to dig into mailing list and learn true status, this being one-man show with helpers. If anything changed, I somehow missed it.
Sorin Srbu Sorin.Srbu@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
My first thought as well. Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground. So for Redhat acquiring another free distribution makes me
wary,
unnecessarily so maybe...
One thing that struck me in Karanbir's message was the marketing mumbo-jumbo such as "the next generation of emerging technologies" and "a platform that is easily consumed".
Karanbir usually writes better than that, so I suppose that someone else had a important role in drafting the message.
Yves Bellefeuille
hi,
On 01/08/2014 02:47 PM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
One thing that struck me in Karanbir's message was the marketing mumbo-jumbo such as "the next generation of emerging technologies" and "a platform that is easily consumed".
Karanbir usually writes better than that, so I suppose that someone else had a important role in drafting the message.
i am sorry about that - some of those things came through in my attempt to reduce the post from just over 2400 words to under 1000. I didnt make it, it was still over a 1k words. But i do mean that, lots of really cool stuff was bootstrapped on CentOS, but not here - and in many cases, so far away from the project that people had to do it again and again.
the voip setup for home/small users is the best example. if asterisk@home were done as a part of the centos community, how cool would that have been?
the next generation of cool stuff is all also happening out there, and I really do want to bring as much of that into the centos community as possible - after all, we are a user and problem lead community, not a developer led one where someone is just churning out new code to see what works and what does not.
its been hard to do in the past, mostly down to the constraints - Red Hat TM issues, protect the buildservice, handle 100+ sponsors, work on community issues, get that update out in the 45 min between dinner time and kid's bedtime etc.
And remember, a critical artifact of this group : we are a user led community, not a developer led one. Massive win, in my opinion. But the lack of developer density has been a problem. And I dont know how much of that we will get access to, but at >0 we are already winning. right ?
Now 'easily consumed'... becuase we can start opening up the buildsystem, publish all the scripts we write, post instance and image specs - and anyone/everyone is welcome to join the effort since the needs of privacy and secrecy are dramatically reduced ( i assure you, this is one of the top wins in my books ).
Come join me in an officehours meetup ( http://wiki.centos.org/OfficeHours ) - lets talk about these things :)
- KB
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
the voip setup for home/small users is the best example. if asterisk@home were done as a part of the centos community, how cool would that have been?
I'd throw SMEserver, ClearOS, and the old (up to CentOS5) version of K12LTSP in that bucket too. Maybe someone will roll a new K12LTSP that comes up working as installed again now.
Is this likely to result in Scientific Linux converging with the base version?
On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'd throw SMEserver, ClearOS, and the old (up to CentOS5) version of K12LTSP in that bucket too. Maybe someone will roll a new K12LTSP that comes up working as installed again now.
The focus from the project side is going to be creating the infra and resources that allows arbitary stuff like that to come in and be successful at doing what they are doing on CentOS.
But keep in mind that opportunities to get involved will come up on both sides - ie. help the CentOS project do the buildout as well as on the SIG's side to do the work that people like k12ltsp folks need to consume those resources.
Is this likely to result in Scientific Linux converging with the base version?
That would be nice. And they are certainly welcome.
On 01/09/2014 12:38 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi,
On 01/08/2014 02:47 PM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
One thing that struck me in Karanbir's message was the marketing mumbo-jumbo such as "the next generation of emerging technologies" and "a platform that is easily consumed".
Karanbir usually writes better than that, so I suppose that someone else had a important role in drafting the message.
i am sorry about that - some of those things came through in my attempt to reduce the post from just over 2400 words to under 1000. I didnt make it, it was still over a 1k words. But i do mean that, lots of really cool stuff was bootstrapped on CentOS, but not here - and in many cases, so far away from the project that people had to do it again and again.
the voip setup for home/small users is the best example. if asterisk@home were done as a part of the centos community, how cool would that have been?
the next generation of cool stuff is all also happening out there, and I really do want to bring as much of that into the centos community as possible - after all, we are a user and problem lead community, not a developer led one where someone is just churning out new code to see what works and what does not.
its been hard to do in the past, mostly down to the constraints - Red Hat TM issues, protect the buildservice, handle 100+ sponsors, work on community issues, get that update out in the 45 min between dinner time and kid's bedtime etc.
And remember, a critical artifact of this group : we are a user led community, not a developer led one. Massive win, in my opinion. But the lack of developer density has been a problem. And I dont know how much of that we will get access to, but at >0 we are already winning. right ?
Now 'easily consumed'... becuase we can start opening up the buildsystem, publish all the scripts we write, post instance and image specs - and anyone/everyone is welcome to join the effort since the needs of privacy and secrecy are dramatically reduced ( i assure you, this is one of the top wins in my books ).
Is this for real? Oracle are apparently a thorn in the side to RH and thus all the changes to C6 that caused lots of delays ...... if this changes as indicated, doesn't that negate all those changes and give Oracle a leg up to getting their clone to market sooner? I guess I'm missing something
Come join me in an officehours meetup ( http://wiki.centos.org/OfficeHours ) - lets talk about these things :)
- KB
On 01/09/2014 08:34 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Is this for real? Oracle are apparently a thorn in the side to RH and thus all the changes to C6 that caused lots of delays ...... if this changes as indicated, doesn't that negate all those changes and give Oracle a leg up to getting their clone to market sooner? I guess I'm missing something
I really dont know how oracle's linux rebuild effort works - but as far as I -do- know, the sources are available at the same time to everyone right ? its a case of what you do with them and how you do it.
Also, i think people are reading too far into the delays for C6 were caused by redhat - it was also down to limited resources, machines, time and almost no QA infra at .centos.org :: that contributed quite a lot. Things that we have overcome and built up in the last few years.
Might also be worth noting that we have a centos7beta up internally already.
Look at it another way - we are not working with the RHEL teams, we are working with the RH open source and standards team ( that has no real input into RHEL ) - to expand what we do with the platform, rather than carry on with the single focus of the platform. And I think being more open and more community driven, we -can- improve across the board.
As I see it, more and more alternatives to Oracle are in the market. Hadoop, is cutting into Oracle's revenue.
So, RH needs to concentrate on promoting JBOSS and a version of HADOOP. Don't worry about Oracle.
Regards
Leslie
Mr. Leslie Satenstein
From: Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org To: centos@centos.org Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project joins forces with Red Hat
On 01/09/2014 08:34 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Is this for real? Oracle are apparently a thorn in the side to RH and thus all the changes to C6 that caused lots of delays ...... if this changes as indicated, doesn't that negate all those changes and give Oracle a leg up to getting their clone to market sooner? I guess I'm missing something
I really dont know how oracle's linux rebuild effort works - but as far as I -do- know, the sources are available at the same time to everyone right ? its a case of what you do with them and how you do it.
Also, i think people are reading too far into the delays for C6 were caused by redhat - it was also down to limited resources, machines, time and almost no QA infra at .centos.org :: that contributed quite a lot. Things that we have overcome and built up in the last few years.
Might also be worth noting that we have a centos7beta up internally already.
Look at it another way - we are not working with the RHEL teams, we are working with the RH open source and standards team ( that has no real input into RHEL ) - to expand what we do with the platform, rather than carry on with the single focus of the platform. And I think being more open and more community driven, we -can- improve across the board.
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 9 January 2014 13:35, Leslie S Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
As I see it, more and more alternatives to Oracle are in the market. Hadoop, is cutting into Oracle's revenue.
So, RH needs to concentrate on promoting JBOSS and a version of HADOOP. Don't worry about Oracle.
Fedora 20 allows for installation of the latest hadoop with yum. I don't know if this is in CentOS 7 but i can't see it in the SotB.
I am gearing up for a project based on using a hadoop cluster (along with HiveQL) and my current plan was going to use fedora 20 for the nodes with CentOS used for everything else. I wasn't overly happy about the prospect of the inevitable churn but this good news has made me reconsider.
I am willing to bet my time that the trade off between helping maintain hadoop/hbase/hive/avro/mahout/zookeeper as part of a CentOS SIG in the "new era" against the reduced change control required to avoid fedora breakage will be worth it.
I'll drop by #centos-devel
regards
mike
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 01/09/2014 08:34 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Is this for real? Oracle are apparently a thorn in the side to RH and thus all the changes to C6 that caused lots of delays ...... if this changes as indicated, doesn't that negate all those changes and give Oracle a leg up to getting their clone to market sooner? I guess I'm missing something
I really dont know how oracle's linux rebuild effort works - but as far as I -do- know, the sources are available at the same time to everyone right ? its a case of what you do with them and how you do it.
Also, i think people are reading too far into the delays for C6 were caused by redhat - it was also down to limited resources, machines, time and almost no QA infra at .centos.org :: that contributed quite a lot. Things that we have overcome and built up in the last few years.
Might also be worth noting that we have a centos7beta up internally already.
Look at it another way - we are not working with the RHEL teams, we are working with the RH open source and standards team ( that has no real input into RHEL ) - to expand what we do with the platform, rather than carry on with the single focus of the platform. And I think being more open and more community driven, we -can- improve across the board.
At this point I really don't see why RedHat doesn't just offer RHEL + updates + extra channels for free and then only charge for support. This would put them on a real equal ground with Canonical. It would save money and time freeing up all the duplicated effort of ripping out all the redhat logos and rebuilding the core OS and then rebuilding all the updates. The core CentOS team and volunteers working on CentOS would be freed up and could focus their effort on extending third party open source projects mentioned earlier in the thread to work better with RHEL. Just my 2 cents. In any case, this is interesting news. Ever since the CentOS team got everything going smoothly for CentOS 6.x version, my biggest concern was Redhat’s continued use of extra paid for channels like software collections. I hope that things like software collections packages start getting timely releases with CentOS too. As always thank you so much for all the hard work!
David C Miller.
On 1/9/2014 11:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
At this point I really don't see why RedHat doesn't just offer RHEL + updates + extra channels for free and then only charge for support. This would put them on a real equal ground with Canonical.
I suspect doing so would cut heavily into their revenue stream, as many business IT operations types who are told they have to run RHEL because ___ requires it would just install it and never pay for support. by keeping the free version separately branded, however slight the actual difference, discourages this except by those in the know.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:37 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 1/9/2014 11:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
At this point I really don't see why RedHat doesn't just offer RHEL + updates + extra channels for free and then only charge for support. This would put them on a real equal ground with Canonical.
I suspect doing so would cut heavily into their revenue stream, as many business IT operations types who are told they have to run RHEL because ___ requires it would just install it and never pay for support. by keeping the free version separately branded, however slight the actual difference, discourages this except by those in the know.
Probably has something to do with being able to require paid support for _all_ instances of RHEL you are running to get any. It then takes at least a little effort on the user's end to install CentOS on the less critical hosts instead of just cloning everything and paying for support on one copy.
On 01/09/2014 08:26 PM, David Miller wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 01/09/2014 08:34 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Is this for real? Oracle are apparently a thorn in the side to RH and thus all the changes to C6 that caused lots of delays ...... if this changes as indicated, doesn't that negate all those changes and give Oracle a leg up to getting their clone to market sooner? I guess I'm missing something
I really dont know how oracle's linux rebuild effort works - but as far as I -do- know, the sources are available at the same time to everyone right ? its a case of what you do with them and how you do it.
Also, i think people are reading too far into the delays for C6 were caused by redhat - it was also down to limited resources, machines, time and almost no QA infra at .centos.org :: that contributed quite a lot. Things that we have overcome and built up in the last few years.
Might also be worth noting that we have a centos7beta up internally already.
Look at it another way - we are not working with the RHEL teams, we are working with the RH open source and standards team ( that has no real input into RHEL ) - to expand what we do with the platform, rather than carry on with the single focus of the platform. And I think being more open and more community driven, we -can- improve across the board.
At this point I really don't see why RedHat doesn't just offer RHEL + updates + extra channels for free and then only charge for support. This would put them on a real equal ground with Canonical. It would save money and time freeing up all the duplicated effort of ripping out all the redhat logos and rebuilding the core OS and then rebuilding all the updates. The core CentOS team and volunteers working on CentOS would be freed up and could focus their effort on extending third party open source projects mentioned earlier in the thread to work better with RHEL. Just my 2 cents. In any case, this is interesting news. Ever since the CentOS team got everything going smoothly for CentOS 6.x version, my biggest concern was Redhat’s continued use of extra paid for channels like software collections. I hope that things like software collections packages start getting timely releases with CentOS too. As always thank you so much for all the hard work!
I see 2 problems with this. First is that it would create a conflict between free RHEL and CentOS, and would be seen as attempt in destroying CentOS.
Second is "supported on RHEL" for many products. Today, when they want security/peace of mind/business insurance, you buy both RHEL and app to have support for app. With free RHEL they could only buy app and have that support without paying for RHEL support.
It is same with SuSE and OpenSuSE, right?
David Miller wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 01/09/2014 08:34 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
<snip>>
Look at it another way - we are not working with the RHEL teams, we are working with the RH open source and standards team ( that has no real input into RHEL ) - to expand what we do with the platform, rather than carry on with the single focus of the platform. And I think being more open and more community driven, we -can- improve across the board.
At this point I really don't see why RedHat doesn't just offer RHEL + updates + extra channels for free and then only charge for support. This would put them on a real equal ground with Canonical. It would save money
That's an *easy* one to answer: try selling "we can use it for free, we just download it from the net and install it....
Right. You want to see 66.6% of CTOs, much less 95% of CEOs, go with that as a business plan? They almost comprehensively want Someone To Get On The Phone (and I do *not* mean someone in India, with a heavy accent, asking if they're rebooted their computer) to resolve this within an SLA.
Tell them you can try it out, and if they like the results, they can pay for a license and support for RHEL, the "real" thing, and that's a *lot* easier sell.
mark
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:18:10PM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Tell them you can try it out, and if they like the results, they can pay for a license and support for RHEL, the "real" thing, and that's a *lot* easier sell.
Especially if there's a migration script to convert existing CentOS images to point to RHEL repos and refresh packages :-)
On 1/8/2014 01:14, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground.
True, but Fedora is a bleeding-edge Linux, while CentOS is a stable Linux. Both have their place.
Red Hat knows there are pieces of the Linux market it will never be able to grab significant share in. Low-end web hosting, for example.
Think about it: is it better for Red Hat to spike CentOS' wheels on the hope that people will go running to RHEL, or is it better for Red Hat to make sure the CentOS project runs smoothly, so that it can keep some kind of fingerhold on these sections of the market?
I know people like conspiracy theories, but do you think the pain of getting CentOS 6 out the door did Red Hat any real good? No. All that did was make Red Hat look bad.
I think that's the real reason Red Hat is doing this: they want to make sure CentOS 7 launches smoothly, and are helping out the best way they can.
Another good reason for Red Hat to do this is that they now have a serious answer to Ubuntu Server and Debian. Before, they were saying, "Well, if you want no-cost Red Hattish Linux, you can go to *those* people over *there*." Now they can point to an official Red Hat sponsored offering. When/if those people want commercial support and such, they can use CentOS as an on-ramp to RHEL.
This is a good thing.
Warren Young wrote:
On 1/8/2014 01:14, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground.
True, but Fedora is a bleeding-edge Linux, while CentOS is a stable Linux. Both have their place.
1++ (and boy, do I *hate* bleeding edge)
<snip>
I think that's the real reason Red Hat is doing this: they want to make sure CentOS 7 launches smoothly, and are helping out the best way they can.
Another good reason for Red Hat to do this is that they now have a serious answer to Ubuntu Server and Debian. Before, they were saying, "Well, if you want no-cost Red Hattish Linux, you can go to *those* people over *there*." Now they can point to an official Red Hat sponsored offering. When/if those people want commercial support and such, they can use CentOS as an on-ramp to RHEL.
Yup. And since RH's big thing, like many old computer companies, is service... and with this, the shops that are CentOS only will be more likely to buy a RHEL license or two, to get guaranteed response to issues... which makes it a lot more palatable to upper management, who often only knows WinDoze.
This is a good thing.
If that's it, I agree. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.
mark
On 01/08/2014 03:01 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
On 1/8/2014 01:14, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground.
True, but Fedora is a bleeding-edge Linux, while CentOS is a stable Linux. Both have their place.
1++ (and boy, do I *hate* bleeding edge)
Some years back I REALLY tried living with Centos on my notebook. I now put up with the Fedora eol joys. Just jumped from 17 to 20. You just got to love, ahem, what the Gnome team is doing....
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 01/08/2014 03:01 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
On 1/8/2014 01:14, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground.
True, but Fedora is a bleeding-edge Linux, while CentOS is a stable Linux. Both have their place.
1++ (and boy, do I *hate* bleeding edge)
Some years back I REALLY tried living with Centos on my notebook. I now put up with the Fedora eol joys. Just jumped from 17 to 20. You just got to love, ahem, what the Gnome team is doing....
No. (And if you *had* to do fedora, why not 19?)
A thought: have you considered trying to install dual boot with the current CentOS? I've been considering redoing my netbook, with the thought of getting rid of the Ubuntu netbook remix....
mark
On 01/08/2014 04:37 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 01/08/2014 03:01 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
On 1/8/2014 01:14, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Redhat already has Fedora as a testing ground.
True, but Fedora is a bleeding-edge Linux, while CentOS is a stable Linux. Both have their place.
1++ (and boy, do I *hate* bleeding edge)
Some years back I REALLY tried living with Centos on my notebook. I now put up with the Fedora eol joys. Just jumped from 17 to 20. You just got to love, ahem, what the Gnome team is doing....
No. (And if you *had* to do fedora, why not 19?)
Because it will be eol before you blink. So even if f20 is brand new, you at least live with it for a while before the next update. Plus i got to find a bug with NVRAM update with my Lenovo x120e which is now an RFE for f21. If I had been on f19, might not have caught this, or had a bigger struggle to get them to realize that the NVRAM update should be the LAST step of the installation, not so early, so if it fails you still have a bootable install. I got some good help to get things working.
A thought: have you considered trying to install dual boot with the current CentOS? I've been considering redoing my netbook, with the thought of getting rid of the Ubuntu netbook remix....
Well since I am now running on an SSD drive, I have my old HD to test with. Maybe. Or maybe I will wait until Centos 7 comes out. ;)
On 01/09/2014 09:01 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
This is a good thing.
If that's it, I agree. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.
I can think of 101 different reasons as to why this move is good for RedHat, and no reason why them picking up CentOS only to kill it would be good for them. If RedHat were to kill CentOS it would just leave the door open to other clones to step in and fill the gap, other ones such as SL or puias which are not as strict in cloning RHEL, so could give RedHat a bad name if the clone has problems, or worse yet, Oracle.
The worst thing I can see happening here is that RedHat may decide at some point in the future that the relationship isn't working out and will simply release CentOS back as a fully community-driven project, they've done this before on other projects and it's not a malicious move that kills the project it's just going separate ways. If this were to happen then CentOS would be no worse off than it was before the move to RedHat in the first place.
Peter
On 1/8/2014 12:23 PM, Peter wrote:
If this were to happen then CentOS would be no worse off than it was before the move to RedHat in the first place.
well, it would find itself having to scramble to reestablish independent infrastructure.
-
Alain Péan -
Always Learning -
Andrew Wyatt -
David Carollo -
David Miller -
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. -
Edward M -
Florian La Roche -
IonPacepa -
Jim Perrin -
Johan Vermeulen -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Leslie S Satenstein -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Logan McNaughton -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Michael Simpson -
Ned Slider -
Peter -
Rob Kampen -
Robert Moskowitz -
Sorin Srbu -
Stephen Harris -
Warren Young -
Yves Bellefeuille