On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ?
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used euphemistically since the later 1980s as a code word for associations having a legally recognised form that operate for some sensibly describable outcome. So one has large, medium and small enterprises, not-for-profit enterprises, commercial enterprises, social enterprises and so forth.
Businesses that don't adapt to external changes become fossils and die off.
The greatest threat to the survival of any organism or organisation is a change to its environment. It is because of this that widespread adoption of so much innovation is delayed using societal pressure. This is not done entirely out of narrow self-interest but from a sensible appreciation of the limits to the speed at which people can adapt to change.
As is noted elsewhere, change is inevitable. But there are many kinds of change. For instance, there is the change wrought by sudden and dramatic increases in productivity. How many here are cognisant of the fact that the O2 steel making process introduced in the 1950s lowered the labour content of a Tonne of steel by three orders of magnitude? Without that single change much of what we invisibly accept as part of the urban landscape today would not exist. Without that change it is likely that Bethlehem and Republic would still be in business. Without that change hundreds of thousands would still be employed in the steel mills of North America.
Then there is fashion.
An enterprise has its hands full with just dealing with the former type of change. It can ill afford to waste resources on the later.
With respect to RHEL7 the question is: Which are we dealing with, substance or fashion? Or rather, which type predominates?
I have no argument against claiming the switch to xfs is substance, not fashion. But then again that change over, however beneficial, is nearly invisible to most of us; subsumed as it is in the overarching effort of setting up a new system from scratch. Once a host is set up its file-system certainly has little further discernible day-to-impact upon anyone, much less end-users.
But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people. Are these substance or fashion? Do the changes they make fundamentally improve RHEL or just do the same things a little differently? How much is it worth to an Enterprise to have a similar desktop metaphor on the workstation as on a tablet? How many desktop workstations will be replaced by the smart-phone, the tablet? I do not have an answer but I suspect, not much and not many.
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? Leaving aside upstart as a sterile diversion.
I am not certain of anything here either. I have learned that my initial resistance to change, any change, is just as emotionally charged as that of the next person. So, I tend to wait and see. But, I do ask questions. If only to discover if I am alone in my concerns. I am but one person and I need the views of others, agreeable or disagreeable to my prejudices as the case may be, so as to form an informed opinion.
I am admittedly somewhat concerned about the overall direction of the RHEL product. I fundamentally disagree with their Frozen Chosen approach to key software components. And with the lock-step forced upgrades that are the result. I am not at all certain that back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most recent software could be made to run on the older release without adverse effects elsewhere.
However, I offer no answers and promote no particular course of action, saving only reflection of what is happening now and the price that is paid for it. I am simply seeking the alternative views of others on these issues.
I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me - and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS.
The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very different, hence many of the current features, or future features, should remain in one or the other and not cross over. It seems CentOS is at risk of losing features highly appreciated by its core group of users, obviously a very different type of user that depends on and appreciates Fedora.
Yes, I know CentOS is derived from RedHat and simply follows upstream development.
On January 10, 2015 9:42:49 PM EST, "James B. Byrne" byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ?
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used euphemistically since the later 1980s as a code word for associations having a legally recognised form that operate for some sensibly describable outcome. So one has large, medium and small enterprises, not-for-profit enterprises, commercial enterprises, social enterprises and so forth.
Businesses that don't adapt to external changes become fossils and die off.
The greatest threat to the survival of any organism or organisation is a change to its environment. It is because of this that widespread adoption of so much innovation is delayed using societal pressure. This is not done entirely out of narrow self-interest but from a sensible appreciation of the limits to the speed at which people can adapt to change.
As is noted elsewhere, change is inevitable. But there are many kinds of change. For instance, there is the change wrought by sudden and dramatic increases in productivity. How many here are cognisant of the fact that the O2 steel making process introduced in the 1950s lowered the labour content of a Tonne of steel by three orders of magnitude? Without that single change much of what we invisibly accept as part of the urban landscape today would not exist. Without that change it is likely that Bethlehem and Republic would still be in business. Without that change hundreds of thousands would still be employed in the steel mills of North America.
Then there is fashion.
An enterprise has its hands full with just dealing with the former type of change. It can ill afford to waste resources on the later.
With respect to RHEL7 the question is: Which are we dealing with, substance or fashion? Or rather, which type predominates?
I have no argument against claiming the switch to xfs is substance, not fashion. But then again that change over, however beneficial, is nearly invisible to most of us; subsumed as it is in the overarching effort of setting up a new system from scratch. Once a host is set up its file-system certainly has little further discernible day-to-impact upon anyone, much less end-users.
But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people. Are these substance or fashion? Do the changes they make fundamentally improve RHEL or just do the same things a little differently? How much is it worth to an Enterprise to have a similar desktop metaphor on the workstation as on a tablet? How many desktop workstations will be replaced by the smart-phone, the tablet? I do not have an answer but I suspect, not much and not many.
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? Leaving aside upstart as a sterile diversion.
I am not certain of anything here either. I have learned that my initial resistance to change, any change, is just as emotionally charged as that of the next person. So, I tend to wait and see. But, I do ask questions. If only to discover if I am alone in my concerns. I am but one person and I need the views of others, agreeable or disagreeable to my prejudices as the case may be, so as to form an informed opinion.
I am admittedly somewhat concerned about the overall direction of the RHEL product. I fundamentally disagree with their Frozen Chosen approach to key software components. And with the lock-step forced upgrades that are the result. I am not at all certain that back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most recent software could be made to run on the older release without adverse effects elsewhere.
However, I offer no answers and promote no particular course of action, saving only reflection of what is happening now and the price that is paid for it. I am simply seeking the alternative views of others on these issues.
-- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
For those who don't know, as of version 21, Fedora has split into 3 streams: workstation, server, and cloud. This addresses many of the concerns raised in this thread. See https://getfedora.org/ for details. I gather we'll see the impact of this change with CentOS-8.
Kal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? Ensuring that services are up and running?
About which sysinit are you talking btw? The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart.
systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features.
if you don't know them or if you ignore them or if you think you don't need them: fine
but don't think others don't know or need them.
HTH
Sven
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? Ensuring that services are up and running?
About which sysinit are you talking btw? The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart.
systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features.
if you don't know them or if you ignore them or if you think you don't need them: fine
but don't think others don't know or need them.
That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd. (Mine, BTW is against, and I do not feel it fair to be discounted as a stupid minority as it is implied in your post). There is no point to repeat listing of ugly sides of systemd - which you said yourself are there. As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. BTW, when "counting votes" keep in mind an existence of an army of refugees from Linux, they already have voted against ugliness here, there,...
Just my $0.02
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd.
How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes when it comes to technical superiority.
As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster
You are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running with sysvinit?
- it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the
podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain.
Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit?
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
kind regards
Sven
On 01/11/2015 01:04 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd.
How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes when it comes to technical superiority.
As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster
It is not just 3 times faster .. you can also list prereqs. So if something requires httpd to be started, you don't just mark one to start with a 10 and the other with a 15 .. then hold your breath and hope that it takes 2 seconds or less for the item marked with 10 to start before the item marked as 15 starts .. the daemon with a require does not attempt to start before the prereq as started and registered as started.
You also act like starting servers faster is no big deal .. ask Amazon if it was a big deal that the hundreds of thousands of servers they need to restart for AWS xen update took 1/3 the time to restart. Ask them how much money it cost them for things to take way longer to restart.
As any of the cloud providers how much time/money it can save if you can spin up things faster.
You are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running with sysvinit?
You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the points like they don't exist. Here is a prime example. You would need to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that sysinit does not. You need something like monit (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons.
- it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the
podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain.
Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit?
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now.
Stuff changes, get used it.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the points like they don't exist.
Anyone who already has 'enterprise' software already running on a distribution without systemd (e.g. any earlier RHEL/CentOS) clearly is able to get along without those changes.
Here is a prime example. You would need to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that sysinit does not. You need something like monit (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons.
There was a time when having one piece of software do one specific job was considered an advantage, since the complexity of large monolithic programs makes them harder to debug. I thing the way systemd will be judged in the long run will relate more to whether bug affecting a large number of systems is allowed to slip through QA. It's not impossible to get this right - Microsoft hasn't made a big mistake in a long time... But it seems risky.
But, It doesn't even simplify things. You can't just start someone with 'service program start' and know whether it worked.
I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now.
Yes, definitely - a lot of people would be vocally unhappy if a distribution dropped vi and made everyone use something different - and it is unreasonable to expect anything else. Gnome3 vs gnome2 is a practical matter, though, given that gnome3 doesn't work with x2go. It's not really about 'differences' it is about making changes that break existing infrastructure without regard to the damage to users.
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal".
Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread.
Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems.
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal".
Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread.
Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems.
There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!....) I'm just saying.
EGO II
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal".
Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread.
Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems.
There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!....) I'm just saying.
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-)
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 01/11/2015 03:09 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal".
Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread.
Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems.
There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!....) I'm just saying.
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-)
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
And that's the beauty of it...the "extending" of thoughts to achieve a common goal.....
EGO II
On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-)
Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian users are trying to do this with Devuan. It seems extremely unlikely that complaining about downstream is going to change anything.
--keith
On Sun, January 11, 2015 5:16 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-)
Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian users are trying to do this with Devuan. It seems extremely unlikely that complaining about downstream is going to change anything.
I know... But: systemd is in a mainstream kernel. All Linux distros imminently have Linux kernel... There are different levels to which I care about two different groups of boxes I maintain. One of them stays with Linux and is upgraded to the latest whenever appropriate no matter whether there is systemd or anything else I might not like. Another group... I'm talking about their issues on different mail lists for quite some time already. So, I'm happy. And wish the same to everybody else ;-)
Valeri
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
--keith
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.....even when it doesn't seem like there is!
EGO II
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.....even when it doesn't seem like there is!
I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.....even when it doesn't seem like there is!
I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?....will have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) My apologies...once again....
EGO II
On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-)
Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.....even when it doesn't seem like there is!
I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?....will have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) My apologies...once again....
No, you are correct. They would just have to figure out how to do it on their own in a way that works.
The bottom line is that every bit of the code that is used for CentOS is released to everyone. One needs to either use what is compiled or be smart enough to take the source code and make it do what they want.
That can be done .. but it is much easier to bitch about what someone else is doing that actually do something themselves .. so what you will see is a bunch whinning all over the Internet and people using whatever is released .. because the whinners are too lazy to actually work on an open source project.
On 01/11/2015 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: > PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat > if > I > look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way > back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) > admins > were fighting with the consequences of this: > http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian > machine > I > would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question > sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential > stuff > could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big > flop > never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that > would > constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something > while > one cares about it ;-) Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue.
Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.....even when it doesn't seem like there is!
I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?....will have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) My apologies...once again....
No, you are correct. They would just have to figure out how to do it on their own in a way that works.
The bottom line is that every bit of the code that is used for CentOS is released to everyone. One needs to either use what is compiled or be smart enough to take the source code and make it do what they want.
That can be done .. but it is much easier to bitch about what someone else is doing that actually do something themselves .. so what you will see is a bunch whinning all over the Internet and people using whatever is released .. because the whinners are too lazy to actually work on an open source project.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I will admit to being a bit of a whiner when I first came to Linux, and it was over the massive changes that took place in Gnome 3. it was so long ago that I can't even remember what I was complaining about,...but after like a month the issue was "reverted" back, or reinstated, and I've never complained since then. And the reason I don't complain anymore?..I had gotten an email response once (will have to dig through the millions I have to find it!...unless I deleted it..) from a person who worked on a project, it wasn't the one I had been complaining about but it was something popular, and he went into great detail as to what is needed and required of him on a daily basis just to make sure this project "worked" for the millions of people who would download it. After reading his story....I will NEVER complain again! These people dedicate a LOT of their personal time to working on these things and its kinda unfair to whine about one little feature to them when they've got bugs to fix....features to improve upon....updates to address and then make sure its compatible with not only what's current..but what's "older" as well. So yeah....you guys won't hear a peep out of me regarding systemd....or anything else for that matter....unless of course its a valid bug that needs to be dealt with! LoL!
EGO II
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:38:03PM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
'systemd' isn't part of the Linux kernel. The init system 'systemd' requires a Linux kernel (and won't work on the BSD or Solaris kernel, for example). Unless you're using 'kernel' as in the core part of the distro OS, which would include both the Linux kernel and init system... which would be either misleading or confusing. I'm hoping you understand the difference.
On Mon, January 12, 2015 8:20 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:38:03PM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
'systemd' isn't part of the Linux kernel. The init system 'systemd' requires a Linux kernel (and won't work on the BSD or Solaris kernel, for example). Unless you're using 'kernel' as in the core part of the distro OS, which would include both the Linux kernel and init system... which would be either misleading or confusing. I'm hoping you understand the difference.
This is what I was referring to: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/it-seems-that-in-future...
And after careful digesting it pretty much boils down to what I said. But again, I personally only care about it to the level I care about part of my boxes that stay Linux systemd no systemd no mater. I'm just trying to help others to realize that there is no way to build systemd free Linux distribution (that will have any future). You can hate anyone who doesn't like systemd, but you can not disagree with them when they say there will be no Linux without systemd in any observable future. To me it is merely constatation of fact ;-)
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:17:00AM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
This is what I was referring to: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/it-seems-that-in-future...
What? Did you only read the title of that page? This is what you get when you base your opinion on random forum (a slackware forum?) posts.
The Linux Kernel developers who work on the 'cgroups' code are changing the interface to cgroups. The systemd developers are adapting systemd to use that API. systemd relies on the cgroup functionality, so that's expected.
If you don't want to use systemd, eventually you'll have to use some other interface that can use the new API. Most likely there will continue to be a compatibility layer that'll let you continue to use the filesystem API for a while. Its pretty clear that the kernel developers aren't fond of that interface, both for consistency and security reasons.
I still fail to see how this makes you think that systemd is part of the Linux Kernel. Is systemd's development heavily influenced by the development in the Kernel? Sure! Does that make it part of the Kernel? I wouldn't think so. I could probably make a stronger argument that GCC is part of the Linux Kernel, since both their development seem to be intertwined.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Systemd does support managing and starting SysV init scripts. In fact, it does a better job than SysV init does -- putting them into their own cgroup and capturing stdout and stderr into the journal.
Making 'chkconfig' and 'service' work with systemd isntead of SysVinit makes it so you have a fairly minimal impact, interface-wise.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered... just once... that maybe the design of RHEL7 might have happened in a planned manner, with the full understanding of its developers? You make it seem like the multi-year development effort to produce RHEL7 was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no scrutiny by experienced linux developers.
I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad".
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 17:00 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:
I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad".
Disruption = BAD
Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD
:-)
On 01/11/2015 06:22 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Disruption = BAD Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD
Generalizations are always bad.
Some changes work best as a disruption; some changes work best as a gradual thing. It really depends upon the change.
I experienced one of the nicer things about CentOS 7 in the desktop setting today, as I hotplugged a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter connected to a projector system into my Dell Precision M6500 laptop and watched it automatically configure the resolution and extend the desktop to the projector. I experienced a similar nicety when I docked the laptop that has two DisplayPort outputs connected to two Dell 24 inch displays and automatically got three-head operation (ATI/AMD Firepro 7820 here). And when a power glitch took the dock out for 5 seconds, the laptop didn't go crazy, and everything came back up in a reasonable and elegant manner, including the network, the two external monitors, the external HD, and the external trackball. I had that happen on CentOS 6 once, and had to reboot to get the external monitor (only one at that time) back up.
Enterprise != server-exclusive. We have several EL workstations here, running a mix of EL5 through EL7, in addition to our almost-exclusively-CentOS server farm running a mix of EL5 through EL7. The user experience of EL7 has thus far been very positive on the desktop side, but I'm still gathering data on the server side. Admin on the server side has been pretty seamless, which relatively minimal retraining required. Systemd is just not that much different from upstart, really; just a couple of different paradigms to deal with and relatively minor syntax differences. It is some different from shell-script-assisted SysV init, but not in a negative way, just a neutral 'different' for the most part. It does seem to be more robust in error conditions (like the admin shut down one of a cluster for removal from the rack for cleaning or and upgrade or whatnot, and either plugged the ethernet into the wrong port or didn't plug it in at all; the EL7 box dealt with that quite elegantly, where an EL5 box had to have all services restarted.
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features.
I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation.
What about all those poor enterprise people who have been arm-twisted into agreeing to SLAs?
If you’ve agreed to provide five nines of availability, a single reboot in the old BIOS + hardware RAID + SysV init world could eat most of the ~5 minutes of downtime per year you’re allowed under that agreement. EFI + software-defined disk arrays + systemd might cut that to a minute, allowing several reboots per year.
Until we start to see hot-upgradable Linux kernels in mainstream distributions, I’d say that does amount to an “enterprise” feature.
You can extend this argument to four-nines, where you only get 4 minutes of downtime per month. Looking through the centos-announce list archive, there seems to be roughly one kernel-* RPM change per month. Do you really want to burn your entire downtime allowance on that?
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:00 am, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features.
I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation.
What about all those poor enterprise people who have been arm-twisted into agreeing to SLAs?
If youve agreed to provide five nines of availability, a single reboot in the old BIOS + hardware RAID + SysV init world could eat most of the ~5 minutes of downtime per year youre allowed under that agreement. EFI + software-defined disk arrays + systemd might cut that to a minute, allowing several reboots per year.
Oh, boy, I like this! Do we finally converge on not rebooting machines often?!
Valeri
Until we start to see hot-upgradable Linux kernels in mainstream distributions, Id say that does amount to an enterprise feature.
You can extend this argument to four-nines, where you only get 4 minutes of downtime per month. Looking through the centos-announce list archive, there seems to be roughly one kernel-* RPM change per month. Do you really want to burn your entire downtime allowance on that? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 11:20 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Oh, boy, I like this! Do we finally converge on not rebooting machines often?!
A re-BOOT a day, is the Windoze way :-)
Lindoze ... coming to screen near you.
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking’.
Danger: We’re starting to get into dictionary flame territory. “But the dictionary says…” is no substitute for thoughtful consideration, realpolitik, or empathy.
Just because the product has an “enterprise” label on it doesn’t mean it must behave according to rules set down by Merriam-Webster. Those in control of RHEL get to say what “enterprise” means.
If you don’t like how they’re defining RHEL and its role in the world, complaining that they’re using the word wrong doesn’t change what they have done.
But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people.
Perhaps some of you here think I am defending these changes for their own merit.
I actually have mixed opinions about them, but I’ve mostly kept them to myself because I realize — and have been trying to get across to others — that it is not important what anyone thinks about them.
At this point, you only get the choice of upgrading to EL7, switching to something else, or sitting tight on EL6 and hoping EL8 is better. Complaining about EL7 here accomplishes nothing. EL7 isn’t going to change, and those driving EL8 aren’t here.
The time to argue about the merits of these changes is long past. Muster whatever arguments you like, you cannot change the fact that CentOS 7 includes these technologies. You only get a choice about what to do about them, now. The earliest they could disappear again is EL8, and that’s both unlikely and 3 years away besides.
I am not at all certain that back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most recent software could be made to run on the older release without adverse effects elsewhere.
Please point to an example of an OS or OS-like software distribution that does this.
I think you find a continuum of OSes from those that mostly keep newer software at arm’s length until major version changes spaced years apart (RHEL, Debian, FreeBSD…) to those that keep very little control over what gets into the OS and as such frequently break things (Ubuntu Desktop, Arch, Cygwin, Homebrew…)
Point to an OS that strikes a better balance between these two extremes, or that proves that there doesn’t need to be a trade-off between stability and features.
-
Always Learning -
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. -
H -
James B. Byrne -
Johnny Hughes -
Jonathan Billings -
Kahlil Hodgson -
Keith Keller -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Sven Kieske -
Valeri Galtsev -
Warren Young