-------- Original Message --------
From: Alex White prata@kuei-jin.org Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:45 PM To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Johnny Hughes wrote: | | No ... not at all. RedHat does not spend any time making sure that the | people who use CentOS can get free updates. | | They did not put together a world wide mirror network for free that | everyone can use to get free enterprise level software. | | I am sick and tired of people minimizing the work that the CentOS | Developement Team does. | | If you don't want to use CentOS, then don't use it ... but it is not | easy to maintain a distro based on RHEL ... (or anything else for that | matter). | | So, no, if you like and use CentOS, you should vote for CentOS. | | A couple hundred thousand people use it ... and hopefully they | appreciate the amount of work it takes to maintain.
Johnny,
I certainly appreciate all of the work that has gone into CentOS. I've not done that ballot just yet, but I will certainly be casting my vote for CentOS.
Thanks Johnny for the work.
I appreciate it as well. In fact I plan on donating one of these days when I get the money. And I'm definitely recommending it to all my friends/family who use Linux. Yes, Red Hat creates RHEL. But by that logic shouldn't the credit be given to each contributor to each individual project that goes into a distro? Red Hat doesn't create mySQL, do they? Or Apache? How about Firefox? Is that Red Hat's baby? Point is, if you keep on saying "give credit where credit is due" you have to pass it down the line to the individual developers, testers, bug-fixers, etc. for the thousands of projects that go into RHEL. Not to mention all the brave Fedora users.
So in the end, all things being equal and considering the above, my vote goes for CentOS.
Preston
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 17:52 -0600, me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
From: Alex White prata@kuei-jin.org Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:45 PM To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Johnny Hughes wrote: | | No ... not at all. RedHat does not spend any time making sure that the | people who use CentOS can get free updates. | | They did not put together a world wide mirror network for free that | everyone can use to get free enterprise level software. | | I am sick and tired of people minimizing the work that the CentOS | Developement Team does. | | If you don't want to use CentOS, then don't use it ... but it is not | easy to maintain a distro based on RHEL ... (or anything else for that | matter). | | So, no, if you like and use CentOS, you should vote for CentOS. | | A couple hundred thousand people use it ... and hopefully they | appreciate the amount of work it takes to maintain.
Johnny,
I certainly appreciate all of the work that has gone into CentOS. I've not done that ballot just yet, but I will certainly be casting my vote for CentOS.
Thanks Johnny for the work.
I appreciate it as well. In fact I plan on donating one of these days when I get the money. And I'm definitely recommending it to all my friends/family who use Linux. Yes, Red Hat creates RHEL. But by that logic shouldn't the credit be given to each contributor to each individual project that goes into a distro? Red Hat doesn't create mySQL, do they? Or Apache? How about Firefox? Is that Red Hat's baby? Point is, if you keep on saying "give credit where credit is due" you have to pass it down the line to the individual developers, testers, bug-fixers, etc. for the thousands of projects that go into RHEL. Not to mention all the brave Fedora users.
So in the end, all things being equal and considering the above, my vote goes for CentOS.
Preston
Well said, my vote for Centos is in.
Ted
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 17:52 -0600, me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Yes, Red Hat creates RHEL. But by that logic shouldn't the credit be given to each contributor to each individual project that goes into a distro?
I said the same thing. We all stand on the shoulders of others. At least in the GPL world.
Red Hat doesn't create mySQL, do they?
Coincidentally, despite MySQL being GPL, MySQL AB actually gets demonized pretty good too. Ironic because MySQL used to not be GPL, or at least the current releases weren't.
Now Red Hat _does_ support PostgreSQL, especially after the commercial endeavor behind PostgreSQL died off (within 18 months of inception). And PostgreSQL is a nice complement to MySQL for those that want more of an ACID-level db.
Or Apache?
Actually, Apache is a massive project umbrella. Apache could be considered somewhat of an entity "like Red Hat," projects of projects under one umbrella.
How about Firefox?
Now hold on there. Now we're getting a little off-track. Firefox is _not_ GPL or "GPL compatible" exactly. ;->
Be careful what doors you open there! ;-ppp
Is that Red Hat's baby?
No. But Red Hat does maintain a lot of the "core goods." As did Cygnus before Red Hat bought them out (and bloated 3x in size). Without Cygnus, I don't think the GNU world would be where it is at today.
Point is, if you keep on saying "give credit where credit is due" you have to pass it down the line to the individual developers, testers, bug-fixers, etc. for the thousands of projects that go into RHEL.
Agreed. Although don't belittle what Red Hat does. It might not be "sexy" -- but when has Red Hat been about maintaining the "sexy" projects? ;-ppp
Not to mention all the brave Fedora users.
Just like all the brave Red Hat Linux users before them too. ;-ppp
So in the end, all things being equal and considering the above, my vote goes for CentOS.
I think we can all agree we all are working together in the GPL community. But be _careful_ of giving praise or scorn -- especially using non-GPL or non-GPL compatible projects as examples.
Not everything GPL is always sexy, but it's very important.
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 21:40 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 17:52 -0600, me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Yes, Red Hat creates RHEL. But by that logic shouldn't the credit be given to each contributor to each individual project that goes into a distro?
I said the same thing. We all stand on the shoulders of others. At least in the GPL world.
Actually, you've been saying something kind of animal farm-ish.
We all stand on the shoulders of others. However, some shoulders are more equal than others.
Red Hat doesn't create mySQL, do they?
Coincidentally, despite MySQL being GPL, MySQL AB actually gets demonized pretty good too. Ironic because MySQL used to not be GPL, or at least the current releases weren't.
Now Red Hat _does_ support PostgreSQL, especially after the commercial endeavor behind PostgreSQL died off (within 18 months of inception). And PostgreSQL is a nice complement to MySQL for those that want more of an ACID-level db.
My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
Or Apache?
Actually, Apache is a massive project umbrella. Apache could be considered somewhat of an entity "like Red Hat," projects of projects under one umbrella.
You know what I meant. The original apache project was the httpd server. Anyway..
My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
How about Firefox?
Now hold on there. Now we're getting a little off-track. Firefox is _not_ GPL or "GPL compatible" exactly. ;->
Be careful what doors you open there! ;-ppp
My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
Is that Red Hat's baby?
No. But Red Hat does maintain a lot of the "core goods."
Red Hat is responsible for all the gnu software?
Point is, if you keep on saying "give credit where credit is due" you have to pass it down the line to the individual developers, testers, bug-fixers, etc. for the thousands of projects that go into RHEL.
Agreed. Although don't belittle what Red Hat does. It might not be "sexy" -- but when has Red Hat been about maintaining the "sexy" projects? ;-ppp
That's not the point. The point is these pissing contests are invariably stupid since we're all part of one large community composed of lots of little communities. For SuSE or Red Hat to take credit for the new kernel or KDE is silliness because it ignores the reality of how these projects get debugged, tested and developed.
So in the end, all things being equal and considering the above, my vote goes for CentOS.
I think we can all agree we all are working together in the GPL community. But be _careful_ of giving praise or scorn -- especially using non-GPL or non-GPL compatible projects as examples.
Who's talking about the GPL? I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that Red Hat isn't personally responsible for every single line of code that goes into their distribution. Nothing more.
Preston
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 23:29 -0700, Preston Crawford wrote:
Actually, you've been saying something kind of animal farm-ish. We all stand on the shoulders of others. However, some shoulders are more equal than others.
Maybe so. But why argue about it? I don't think it's worth it at all. CentOS, Red Hat, etc..., we're all part of the community of GPL endeavors.
I think you're thinking of others than myself on that. Please note that I have tried to be neutral.
My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
Very true. And I didn't disagree with that either, in fact, I also confirmed it. But for those who assume Red Hat doesn't "pull it weight," which seems to be quite commonplace, it's not at all.
You know what I meant. The original apache project was the httpd server.
CERN httpd -> a-patchy -> etc...
Anyway.. My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
Correct. Again, I think you're beef isn't with me on that, but others. I said we're all part of the same GPL world, and we all need to work together.
My point being that there's plenty of software in the distro that wasn't created by Red Hat.
Correct. And any other distro for that matter.
Red Hat is responsible for all the gnu software?
Maintainer of GCC (since Cygnus was so designated back in the late '90s). And Red Hat does provide a lot of the developers for other, major core GNU projects too.
But not all, no. Don't belittle them. This is the problem, why can't we find some "common ground" here?
Apparently some people want to understate Red Hat's significance and then others want to overstate it in return. Why do we have to do this? Really, why?
I've said it really does _not_ matter. I've said it to both who want to give credit to Red Hat for CentOS as well as people who don't think Red Hat does anything, or at least not of any significance.
That's not the point. The point is these pissing contests are invariably stupid since we're all part of one large community composed of lots of little communities.
[ I'm dumbfounded ]
Didn't I bascially already say that in this thread? I think you're blaming me for things _others_ said on "credit." It was _not_ me who said that Red Hat should get "credit" for CentOS.
Can we _please_ find some "common ground" on this thread?
Who's talking about the GPL? I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that Red Hat isn't personally responsible for every single line of code that goes into their distribution. Nothing more.
More absolutes. Sigh.
Howdy all:
I recently upgraded one of my dev machines (A Dell Power 420SC with a single Seagate 80GB SATA drive) to 4.x, hoping that the latest release would have support for my sata drives. I read up on it, and they're not technically support yet (on this page http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#testinghelp, under FireWire, USB, and SATA disks/systems).
The question I have is whether anyone has any insight into whether libata support (and therefore smartd) for Sata Drives is fourthcoming. Other than writing the developer personally (generally annoying to the developer), I'm not sure whom to ask.
Does anyone have any insite into this issue? I've got about 20 of these machines in production, and many, many more coming, and I'd like to be able to use smartd to monitor their disks, but short of applying kernel patches (generally not a good idea when some clients also have root), I'm kind of twizzled on the issue.
Thanks in advance, as always.
-- Jonathan
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Jonathan -
me＠prestoncrawford.com -
Preston Crawford
-
Ted Kaczmarek