2011/4/4 Gilbert Sebenste sebenste@weather.admin.niu.edu:
Karanbir said on the Twitter account (and elsewhere) roughly 3 weeks after CentOS 5.6 gets released, and that will be hopefully by tomorrow. He says all but 30 packages are OK with CentOS 6, but 5.6 is their first priority.
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
-- Hendrik
On 04/04/2011 07:26 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
If you have a problem with things - feel free to then ignore my updates.
- KB
Funny. When no news is given, people don't like it. When news is given, people still don't like it: it's inaccurate. However, people really, really don't like the 100% accurate estimate: "When it's ready"
Le 04/04/2011 20:31, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
On 04/04/2011 07:26 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
If you have a problem with things - feel free to then ignore my updates.
- KB
Karanbir,
You are one of the few who care to give updates, so thanks for that.
Alain
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Alain Péan wrote:
Le 04/04/2011 20:31, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
On 04/04/2011 07:26 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
If you have a problem with things - feel free to then ignore my updates.
You are one of the few who care to give updates, so thanks for that.
Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.
On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.
That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
- KB
yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.
That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the efforts going into the solution.
Really, try stopping reading for a few weeks. You might surprise yourself.
- KB
yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the efforts going into the solution.
And you do not seem to provide me with the answers. Same old, same old.
Communication is issue #1, and you're not helping.
On 04/06/2011 11:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
And you do not seem to provide me with the answers. Same old, same old.
Actually, i dont need to provide *you* with anything :)
But i disagree on the same old. Its definitely the same old from you. On the other hand, how many qa tests have you written and which part of the distro are you looking to adopt and help with ? About 35 other people have taken up the task, I dont see you doing anything at all.
- KB
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/06/2011 11:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
And you do not seem to provide me with the answers. Same old, same old.
Actually, i dont need to provide *you* with anything :)
Correct, but if you claim I don't know anything about the issues, the problem and the efforts to solve them (which I contest, btw) it would have been honest to tell me what you think are the issues, the problem and the efforts to solve them. It's not fair to blame my ignorance and keeping me ignorant at the same time.
It's avoiding an open discussion.
Mind you that for more than 2 years the issues I have brought up, have been largely the same, but they have been ignored and avoided. I can provide you with a list of excuses and future promises which didn't stand the test of time up till now.
But i disagree on the same old. Its definitely the same old from you. On the other hand, how many qa tests have you written and which part of the distro are you looking to adopt and help with ? About 35 other people have taken up the task, I dont see you doing anything at all.
Apart from the fact I did a lot in the past for CentOS (I hope you are not disclaiming any of that) I don't think I need to be an active contributor to voice my opinion about the need for more transparency, better communication and timely releases.
You know very well why I left the project (read my resignation letter again if you will) and as long as the project is not improving on those basic and fundamental problems, it pretty much feels as another disappointment hitting me in the face if I would become involved again.
I prefer not to loose any more sleep over CentOS for the time being.
That said, there are many options to solve the above, but the discussion has been largely avoided and you attack people for bringing them up with vague claims and belittling eg. my involvement just to ditch the questions.
On 04/06/2011 03:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.
That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
The proper solution is for you to stop using CentOS. You are obviously not happy with it.
We provide it for you (as is, when we can) to use if it meets your needs. if it does not, then you are free to use SOMETHING ELSE. You are also free to take your petty little quips to another mailing list.
I guarantee that if I came to your mailing lists and posted the bullcrap there that you post here, you would not be appreciative.
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
This is the exact reason I quit helping out on the wiki, and now after reading all the drama on this mailing list, I think it just might be time to unsubscribe from this one as well.
Regards, Max
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
+1
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On 07/04/11 15:11, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
Fully agree! Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux. It doesn't provide 100% binary compatibility, compared to CentOS. But I'm also not using software packages which should depend on that.
I'm saddened to see how CentOS have developed over time, just because of fundamental issues in building a real community around itself. This really must change, or else CentOS will loose even more users over time. And what worse is, this comment from Johnny is not unique, and he is involved in the packaging/development of CentOS.
CentOS developers might scream for help as much as they want, but people won't help out when not being treated nicely, or seeing that others are not being treated respectfully. I was a even on the #centos IRC channel for a short while, but left it due to quite similar negative attitudes there as well. If telling people to f*** **f is a considered a nice behaviour by developers, I'm sorry, I'm not interested in such abuse.
I've raised my voice in regards to this topic enough times now. The only hope I have left is that Karanbir Singh is able to correct the course before it is too late. I see very few other alternatives right now. Unfortunately. And I do hope CentOS will improve with time. However, it's too late for me now. Maybe I'll come back, maybe I won't.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of David Sommerseth Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.
[Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:
Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...
On 07/04/11 14:41, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/04/11 15:11, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
Fully agree! Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux. It doesn't provide 100% binary compatibility, compared to CentOS. But I'm also not using software packages which should depend on that.
Ahem, but as far as I'm aware, CentOS (at least 5) has never provided 100% binary compatibility either (yes, I've checked).
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of CentOS, sometimes it's just not possible to maintain 100% binary compatibility when RHEL is built and linked against some package version that have never been made publicly available. Anyone who has ever rebuilt packages from RHEL will know and understand this.
CentOS AIMS to be 100% binary compatible and for the most part it is, but I'm tired of seeing this misnomer repeated over and over like some holy grail. Personally I'm with Russ on this one that whilst an admirable goal I think the importance of binary compatibility is sometimes overstated and often misunderstood.
BTW I've not checked SL binaries so I have no idea if their distribution is any more or less binary compatible with upstream than CentOS but it's easy enough to do so for anyone interested.
On 4/7/2011 3:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
CentOS AIMS to be 100% binary compatible and for the most part it is, but I'm tired of seeing this misnomer repeated over and over like some holy grail. Personally I'm with Russ on this one that whilst an admirable goal I think the importance of binary compatibility is sometimes overstated and often misunderstood.
Plus, if there is anything that is broken about what you get by rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
On 07/04/11 21:38, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/7/2011 3:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
CentOS AIMS to be 100% binary compatible and for the most part it is, but I'm tired of seeing this misnomer repeated over and over like some holy grail. Personally I'm with Russ on this one that whilst an admirable goal I think the importance of binary compatibility is sometimes overstated and often misunderstood.
Plus, if there is anything that is broken about what you get by rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Huh? Red Hat never claimed RHEL to be self hosting wrt (re)building itself.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Off topic here as to what RHEL and its vendor should or should not do, Les.
And 'self-hosting' has NEVER been a goal of the upstream's full product line [and indeed cannot be, as parts of it include binary blobs for which sources are not released]
-- Russ herrold
On 4/7/2011 3:55 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Off topic here as to what RHEL and its vendor should or should not do, Les.
OK, I'll rephrase. What they do do should be made public.
And 'self-hosting' has NEVER been a goal of the upstream's full product line [and indeed cannot be, as parts of it include binary blobs for which sources are not released]
And yet, there are probably people who believe that RH releases sources that can be rebuilt to usable binaries and make decisions based on that.
on 4/7/2011 2:28 PM Les Mikesell spake the following:
On 4/7/2011 3:55 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Off topic here as to what RHEL and its vendor should or should not do, Les.
OK, I'll rephrase. What they do do should be made public.
And 'self-hosting' has NEVER been a goal of the upstream's full product line [and indeed cannot be, as parts of it include binary blobs for which sources are not released]
And yet, there are probably people who believe that RH releases sources that can be rebuilt to usable binaries and make decisions based on that.
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
Scott Silva wrote:
on 4/7/2011 2:28 PM Les Mikesell spake the following:
On 4/7/2011 3:55 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Off topic here as to what RHEL and its vendor should or should not do, Les.
OK, I'll rephrase. What they do do should be made public.
And 'self-hosting' has NEVER been a goal of the upstream's full product line [and indeed cannot be, as parts of it include binary blobs for which sources are not released]
And yet, there are probably people who believe that RH releases sources that can be rebuilt to usable binaries and make decisions based on that.
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
If you compile RH sources, you *will* get usable distro, just not binary compatible with RHEL.
Ljubomir
On 4/7/2011 5:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
on 4/7/2011 2:28 PM Les Mikesell spake the following:
On 4/7/2011 3:55 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
Off topic here as to what RHEL and its vendor should or should not do, Les.
OK, I'll rephrase. What they do do should be made public.
And 'self-hosting' has NEVER been a goal of the upstream's full product line [and indeed cannot be, as parts of it include binary blobs for which sources are not released]
And yet, there are probably people who believe that RH releases sources that can be rebuilt to usable binaries and make decisions based on that.
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
If the source code won't build the binary they release, have they really released the matching source? GPL requirements always apply to a 'work as a whole'. Of course not everything is under GPL, and it might not apply to things like using a specially tweaked compiler so no one else could duplicate your results, but if there are static libs and similar embedded components involved, any GPL-covered package should have all of the matching source available.
On 04/07/11 3:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
indeed, the fact that they release the source as SRPMs that at least in theory build the RPMs is a ++. GPL would tolerate them releasing one giant nasty tar.gz of the whole mess without a Makefile.
On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.
You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want to read the sections on 'What are "scripts used to control compilation"?' and 'What are "scripts used to control installation"?'
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jerry Franz jfranz@freerun.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.
You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want to read the sections on 'What are "scripts used to control compilation"?' and 'What are "scripts used to control installation"?'
Interesting. I wonder how would RedHat respond to this.
" The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. "
Sounds like theres quite a case here, no?
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Lucian Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:07 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jerry Franz jfranz@freerun.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.
You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want to read the sections on 'What are "scripts used to control compilation"?' and 'What are "scripts used to control installation"?'
Interesting. I wonder how would RedHat respond to this. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
________________________________
This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. It is intended only for the addressees. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system.
On 08/04/11 03:06, Lucian wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jerry Franzjfranz@freerun.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also release any magic spells they use to compile it.
Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.
You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want to read the sections on 'What are "scripts used to control compilation"?' and 'What are "scripts used to control installation"?'
Interesting. I wonder how would RedHat respond to this.
As I seem to have started this little subsection of the thread, please let me give just one small example to help clarify the situation as it appears there is still a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.
Let's look at kernel modules, kmod packages. They are built against one specific kernel and then weak link against all other kernels that are kABI compatible. For example, in CentOS 5.6, kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release kernel:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
but when we compare that to the upstream package:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
we see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta kernel and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild their package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.
There is absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel that was part of their build environment.
The package builds fine for CentOS against the release kernel. In all likelihood it will function identically to the upstream packages, but there is always a possibility that some weird corner-case bug will affect one package that doesn't affect the other.
This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red Hat invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary compatible.
I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding this issue.
As I seem to have started this little subsection of the thread, please let me give just one small example to help clarify the situation as it appears there is still a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.
Let's look at kernel modules, kmod packages. They are built against one specific kernel and then weak link against all other kernels that are kABI compatible. For example, in CentOS 5.6, kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release kernel:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
but when we compare that to the upstream package:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
we see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta kernel and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild their package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.
There is absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel that was part of their build environment.
The package builds fine for CentOS against the release kernel. In all likelihood it will function identically to the upstream packages, but there is always a possibility that some weird corner-case bug will affect one package that doesn't affect the other.
This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red Hat invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary compatible.
I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding this issue.
According to wikipedia....
"In computing, a computer that can run the same binary code intended to be run on another computer is said to be binary-compatible."
By this definition a well written emulator and the emulated machine are "binary-compatible", yet the build environments and other under the hood stuff can and are wildly different. So "different" does not mean it is not binary compatible.
Is CentOS working to a different definition? e.g. byte for byte identical (save for trademarks). Maybe that is the only way to reduce the risk of incompatibility, I don't know.
On 04/08/2011 07:25 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
As I seem to have started this little subsection of the thread, please let me give just one small example to help clarify the situation as it appears there is still a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.
Let's look at kernel modules, kmod packages. They are built against one specific kernel and then weak link against all other kernels that are kABI compatible. For example, in CentOS 5.6, kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release kernel:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
but when we compare that to the upstream package:
$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
we see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta kernel and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild their package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.
There is absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel that was part of their build environment.
The package builds fine for CentOS against the release kernel. In all likelihood it will function identically to the upstream packages, but there is always a possibility that some weird corner-case bug will affect one package that doesn't affect the other.
This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red Hat invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary compatible.
I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding this issue.
According to wikipedia....
"In computing, a computer that can run the same binary code intended to be run on another computer is said to be binary-compatible."
By this definition a well written emulator and the emulated machine are "binary-compatible", yet the build environments and other under the hood stuff can and are wildly different. So "different" does not mean it is not binary compatible.
Is CentOS working to a different definition? e.g. byte for byte identical (save for trademarks). Maybe that is the only way to reduce the risk of incompatibility, I don't know.
The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.
We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are not able to be linked against the same environment.
Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc. In those cases, we will do the best we can.
We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address each one that we can.
The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.
We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are not able to be linked against the same environment.
Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc. In those cases, we will do the best we can.
We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address each one that we can.
Thanks for the response. Sounds like you go to significant lengths.
Imagine if you were to take any GPL source code for which you don't own copyright and modify it such that that it would only be compile-able using your highly modified secret compiler. If you then distributed the executable and the useless source without the secret compiler, are we suggesting that is allowable under the GPL? A bit of googling suggests it is. :(
While this is an extreme example, it kinda sounds like what you suggest RH do.
On 04/10/2011 07:36 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.
We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are not able to be linked against the same environment.
Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc. In those cases, we will do the best we can.
We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address each one that we can.
Thanks for the response. Sounds like you go to significant lengths.
Imagine if you were to take any GPL source code for which you don't own copyright and modify it such that that it would only be compile-able using your highly modified secret compiler. If you then distributed the executable and the useless source without the secret compiler, are we suggesting that is allowable under the GPL? A bit of googling suggests it is. :(
While this is an extreme example, it kinda sounds like what you suggest RH do.
Well, I do not think they do it on purpose.
They have a repository that they point at to build packages. It contains all the latest released packages.
This build system will likely also have a "Staged" feature, so that as they build packages, new packages will use the previously compiled (and yet unreleased) packages to build on.
If they are building updates and they, for example, build 2 versions of GCC in this process. Then maybe they only release to the public the 2nd version of GCC which they built. So, some of their packages (the ones between the time the first gcc was compiled and the 2nd gcc was compiled) would be build using a non released gcc. The "real world impact" of this is probably zero ... except that things that this (in /var/log/messages) will be different:
Linux version 2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 (gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-48)) #1 SMP Wed Jan 26 08:03:38 PST 2011
(If that version of GCC was the first one compiled in my example above, CentOS will not have it, but it is used to compile an upstream kernel ... note, this example is not a real case issue, just hypothetical to show how it happens)
It could introduce some incompatibility (they changed the package for some reason) ... which is why we try to minimize it, but generally the difference is only cosmetic.
Below, please find much praise for the developers who really deserve it!
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 03:24:22 AM Johnny Hughes wrote:
The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.
We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are not able to be linked against the same environment.
Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc. In those cases, we will do the best we can.
We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address each one that we can.
The first distro I used that wasn't directly from Red Hat was White Box Enterprise Linux. It worked well, until Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and from that day forward, not much happened. =/
After several dry runs in a sandbox environment, I switched my (then, one) production server to CentOS. It was hard to believe that all I had to do was switch a few RPMS. That same server and software image is still in production to this day!
Times have changed, my needs have changed with them. I now have some 20 production servers, all still running CentOS 4. Updates have been timely, and the servers have been incredibly stable. Our primary cluster has sustained much better than 99.99% uptime for years, a combination of good quality, white label hardware, (usually SuperMicro) appropriate redundancy, careful software design, and CentOS that holds up very well in the real world.
In truth, I wish that RedHat had a $5/month option like they did originally. It was cost-effective, and I never wanted or needed additional support. But the obscene amounts Red Hat currently wants for their "Enterprise" line is a non- starter for an organization the size of mine.
So, CentOS has been a life-saver for me! It's rock-solid stable, security is excellent, and the quality shows every single day as I serve millions of hits on our extensive, web-based application with confidence and flair. The wait for EL 6 has only been a nail-biter because Red Hat took so long to release RHEL 6 in the first place. (I waited almost 2 years before there was an EL 6 beta to play with!) I look forward to a complete rollout/replacement of all my EL4 servers with EL6 as soon as it's available and suitable regression testing has taken place, with the task hopefully complete by Christmas 2011.
I wish to offer my deepest thanks and appreciation to a job well done to the developers and administrators of the CentOS project.
Keep up the good work!
-Ben
On 04/07/2011 08:11 AM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.
For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.
What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
On 04/07/2011 07:02 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:11 AM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post to this list.
This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than others trying to open up communications between a projects members and the developers.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.
Good.
For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.
What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.
I don't think anybody wants a SLA from CentOS.
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
It's all about the money is it?
Johnny, why do you always reply with "don't use it" ? Or now i see "give me money and i'll do it" ?
Instead I would reply with a link to "here's how we do the rebuild now, here's the tools we use, and here's where we are at, help us out!" .
Instead of telling users to leave CentOS, ask for their help. Why not do that? I'm not sure, maybe all these resources are already online and I am not aware of them. That might very well be the case. However I am certain that if you would reply with an URL which states where the project is at, everybody would be happy, and you won't be seeing any "when is this ready?" questions.
If CentOS project is not so "closed" as it seems to be, please enlighten me.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
Politeness costs nothing, though, doesn't it?
Ian Murray wrote:
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
Politeness costs nothing, though, doesn't it?
I can see that ability to drive people (devs in this case) mad/sick of asking questions also costs nothing.
I own small WISP and when I started my link to upstream ISP (their gear) would brake dozens of times every night. And I had customers that wanted perfect internet experience and would call me all the time to bash at me even when I constantly told them that I am not able to impact current state of the link (and I poured a lot of money into various solutions). I even had one "mental patient" that whined if he was not able to ALWAYS have 100% of paid throughput even thou I never committed to that level of service.
Then I learned my lesson and my answer was: "You do not like how it works? OK, I will HELP you move to another provider (that was in fact worst then me), just that I could have my peace of mind. Some even protested, but each and every one were moved/disconnected and I was able to have normal private life.
So I know exactly how CentOS devs feel when people here (very very very very small percentage of millions of CentOS installations around the world) constantly bash at them that they are incompetent (That IS what you/they constantly say). I am really getting sick of that attitude, and I actually planned to convert 90-100% of my currently used CentOS 5.5 servers and desktops to CentOS 6.0 in late December.
My entire schedule (that involves tiding up my business clients and my residence relocation to nearby town) was planed around CentOS 6.0 release in 2010. But I choose not to bash on them like the "broken records" here. "I want my FREE stuff NOW, NOW, NOW...", etc...
Ljubomir
On 4/7/2011 11:02 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those resources is if you are paid personally. But maybe I'm reading too much into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to share the build environment.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
Would all the contributors of mirror infrastructure, etc., be OK with the project becoming a personal profit center for you? If you weren't serious about demanding money for performance, why bring it up?
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/7/2011 11:02 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those resources is if you are paid personally. But maybe I'm reading too much into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to share the build environment.
<snip> I think you're reading his reply the wrong way, Les. I see it as "this is a volunteer project, and I'm doing the best I can. You want guarantees, then you can buy RHEL, or you can pay me for support, and then I'll have the time to do that, and not have to worry about how to pay my bills if I'm not at my day job."
mark, waiting to find out if the Republicans shut down the gov't, and his paycheck....
mark, waiting to find out if the Republicans shut down the gov't, and his paycheck....
There are as many Democrats as Republicans preventing success.
Brian, who doesn't consider yet another bloating of the budget deficit to be a success.
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On 4/7/2011 12:05 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those resources is if you are paid personally. But maybe I'm reading too much into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to share the build environment.
<snip> I think you're reading his reply the wrong way, Les. I see it as "this is a volunteer project, and I'm doing the best I can. You want guarantees, then you can buy RHEL, or you can pay me for support, and then I'll have the time to do that, and not have to worry about how to pay my bills if I'm not at my day job."
Probably - if he were serious about taking money I'd expect to see contracts on the web site, but there is still a disconnect between saying it could be done better given certain resources and refusing to let the project accept the offers of help it gets or distribute it's build environment.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.
For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.
What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:
This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not do. Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and mock from the sidelines
Johnny has told people how to rebuild; I have told people how to do so; and KB has done so. Over and over and over again. Ditto how to participate. 'Spoonfeeding answers' has been demonstrated to be a no-win proposition for this project -- it killed the value of the main IRC channel in short order when that 'nicer' approach was adopted. Check the wiki for further thoughts on the topic. The tome of this list has driven several CentOS team members away from participating here regularly
As to kernel (and other package) build issues on a CentOS 6, I am sure I've mentioned here it is just not an issue ... continuing a 'centosplus' patched kernel 'just like before' may be trickier, but I am sure if enough folks are interested in scratching that itch, it will be solved
The Anaconda changes are nastier, as anaconda has grown wayyy too ornate, and an installer is a pretty necessary part of a distribution. Chopping out parts comes to mind
http://www.mikelockett.com/stories.php?action=view&id=12
The QA folks get (and seemingly enjoyed during the 5.6 stabilization) indigestion from some early batches of the bread, and work to help the project release only 'production ready' bread
Was the little red hen wrong to eat first?
The pig, the dog and the cat were lucky that digital goods are infinitely identically replicable, and that the hen had a mirror network that Ralph and Tru take the lead in maintaining
The CentOS hens have grown a hard set of feathers, as a result
In drafting this, I considered also building analogies on: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html
and one on this quote from a well-known morality play although it is harder to construct in a 'friendly' fashion: I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!
But then, friendly trolls are an oxymoron, right? ;)
-- Russ herrold
On 4/7/2011 1:05 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
Johnny has told people how to rebuild; I have told people how to do so; and KB has done so. Over and over and over again.
Nobody wants to make the same builds that will fail QA over and over again. Where have you shared the information that would enable work that does not repeat known mistakes? Or where the problem is in the contents of the unspecified build environment, which of the likely suspects have been tried, and where to find other possibilities?
Was the little red hen wrong to eat first?
Didn't she offer to share access to the garden/tools/kitchen? Not quite the same here.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, R P Herrold herrold@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:
This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not do. Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and mock from the sidelines
It's not a question of ease, it's a question of professionalism and image. The IT manager of a company where I've installed some CentOS boxes asked me about doing new installs and upgrades given that RHEL 6's out. I told him that CentOS 6 hadn't been published yet. He did some googling, read some centos and centos-devel threads and emailed me that "the developers are f-ing jerks."
It's the second time that I point out that the CentOS communication policy (if you there is one) is completely unprofessional. You can let off steam by saying "we're volunteers, so we can tell you to use another distro if you're unhappy" but you do yourselves more harm than good.
Tom H wrote:
It's the second time that I point out that the CentOS communication policy (if you there is one) is completely unprofessional. You can let off steam by saying "we're volunteers, so we can tell you to use another distro if you're unhappy" but you do yourselves more harm than good.
If by doing so they harm the project, what is opposite of that? What they *gain* by following "proper" etiquette? Financial benefits? Gift? Glory?
What I do not understand is, if they tell you to use that they are devoting their *spare/family* time to *if you like it*, or use something else if you do not, *WHY* don't "you/those" go and use that better product/project (in this case SL is constantly cited)?
If you do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to other one. If you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you will go and by from other bakery.
What is so tempting in CentOS that forces to bash at devs every single day (and I mean every complainant every day) and saying SL is better, raising blood pressure to devs (which is why they are loosing their temper), but keeps bashers wanting CentOS over the SL? I do not get it (and never will).
Ljubomir
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 04:27:20 PM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
What is so tempting in CentOS that forces to bash at devs every single day (and I mean every complainant every day) and saying SL is better, raising blood pressure to devs (which is why they are loosing their temper), but keeps bashers wanting CentOS over the SL? I do not get it (and never will).
Study up on what a troll really is. Trolls are ineffective when nobody responds. A troll *wants* to raise everybody's blood pressure. There are a few amateur trolls, and at least one professional, represented here. No, I'm not naming names.
CentOS lists have proven over the years to be good trolling grounds, unfortunately.
If you do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to other one. If you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you will go and by from other bakery.
I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
On 4/8/11, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If you do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to other one. If you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you will go and by from other bakery.
I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
While I do agree that the dev team's public communications skills could do with some improvement, I would like to say that perhaps we need to consider that.
1. They probably have been repeating the same thing over and over again. 2. They're doing this on top of their day job, so that's added stress factor 3. From what I can tell, pushing out a new release takes a lot of repetitive work which is probably quite tedious and therefore wearing on the team 4. It is more frustrating when people are breathing down your neck during a process that can't really be made any faster.
The current situation isn't quite the same as a baker telling the first customer that the bread's too hot. It's more like the same baker, while juggling hot from the oven trays, being asked by the hundredth customer the same question, who heard basically the answer to the same question asked by the other 99 who are still crowding around the bakery.
The dev teams are human after all and sometimes short and sharp responses can seem rather rude or offensive, especially without accompanying body language.
That said, I do hope the dev teams can work out some kind of system of regular updates on the public channels to alleviate these sort of situations in the future.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ian Murray wrote:
hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
-- Russ herrold
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:58 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ian Murray wrote:
hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
-- Russ herrold _______________________________________________
Isn't that what you've beeb telling people this whole time?
On 4/8/11, Rudi Ahlers Rudi@softdux.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:58 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
Isn't that what you've beeb telling people this whole time?
I think the problem here is people can see the bread is still steaming hot at the bakery. Unfortunately the current situation is that we don't see the bread here and it's been so long that people feel it should be cool enough to slice and too many of them didn't hear the brief and far in between mutters that says bread had to be reheated to kill bacterias detected. ;)
on 4/7/2011 2:08 PM Emmanuel Noobadmin spake the following:
On 4/8/11, Rudi Ahlers Rudi@softdux.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:58 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
Isn't that what you've beeb telling people this whole time?
I think the problem here is people can see the bread is still steaming hot at the bakery. Unfortunately the current situation is that we don't see the bread here and it's been so long that people feel it should be cool enough to slice and too many of them didn't hear the brief and far in between mutters that says bread had to be reheated to kill bacterias detected. ;)
It's more like they are still fixing the oven, and mixing the dough
R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ian Murray wrote:
hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
-- Russ herrold
+1
----- Original Message ----
From: R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Thu, 7 April, 2011 21:58:08 Subject: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ian Murray wrote:
hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it
was
too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back
if I
wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
and so we should tell people: We will ship it when it is done; please come back then
Got it. Great idea
I did say she explained when to come back, i.e. she gave me a time frame. The irony is I have never waited. But she always tells me how long... and never refuses to tell me next time or makes a sarcastic remark about me not coming back so why should she waste her time telling me in future.
Ian Murray wrote:
If you do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to other one. If you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you will go and by from other bakery.
I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
And how many times have you returned to ask if that same bread was ready? And in what intervals were you coming back to ask? Every 5 minutes? And how many people also came to same bakery to ask if your bread was ready?
There is an sketch (TV joke): Guy comes every morning and asks for 500 pretzels and when baker says no he goes unhappy. After 5-10 days of this, baker one day bakes 500 more pretzels and waits for that customer. Guy comes, looks around at hung pretzels and asks again if they have 500 pretzels. Baker says yes. Guys mouth widens in broad grin and he says: I wonder how you are going to sell all of those and turns around and leaves the bakery.
My point is that devs are human, and when pricked they bleed, and when (constantly) provoked (by mostly the same few people) they lash out.
Ljubomir
On 04/07/2011 03:46 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
If you do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to other one. If you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you will go and by from other bakery.
I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
And in each of those circumstances, you are PAYING for a service, not getting if for free. You are also NOT making the hairdresser or the baker tell you HOW they bake bread or cut hair.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.
And in each of those circumstances, you are PAYING for a service, not getting if for free. You are also NOT making the hairdresser or the baker tell you HOW they bake bread or cut hair.
I've never seen any posting from Johnny Hughes or Karanbir that I thought insulting or belittling, and I am very grateful to them for the work they have done, since CentOS-5.6 is working faultlessly for me, as previous versions did.
However, I do think it is a political or PR mistake to offer this "It's free, so take it or leave it" line. It's only a short step from that to "It's free, so don't expect it to work very well".
In my experience, much of the best software is free, and there is no need at all to make excuses for it. I ran a Windows Server OS, admittedly for a very short time, and found it far less reliable than CentOS.
I think Karanbir made a small PR error in naming or implying dates for CentOS-5.6 and CentOS-6. To my mind, it would have been much better just to say something like, "We're working hard on CentOS-6, and will get it out as soon as possible, given that this is a part-time activity for us".
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think Karanbir made a small PR error in naming or implying dates for CentOS-5.6 and CentOS-6. To my mind, it would have been much better just to say something like, "We're working hard on CentOS-6, and will get it out as soon as possible, given that this is a part-time activity for us".
But all devs DO SAY that, at least initially. That is THE release date.
But they are also helpful so they do give (g)estimates when they EXPECT to finish, when asked politely, so we know what is *minimum* time it will take. When I go to some repairman, and he hesitates to give me time estimate, I ask him to sayuntil when he *surely* will not be finished, so I do not pester him every day, and so I can think of repaired item as unavailable until then.
If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are offended and complain about "it will be ready when it is ready" attitude of devs.
Ljubomir.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are offended and complain about "it will be ready when it is ready" attitude of devs.
I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red Hat and purchasing RHEL then.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are offended and complain about "it will be ready when it is ready" attitude of devs.
I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red Hat and purchasing RHEL then.
Not that this has not been suggested before, but: that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either. There's a series of betas and then, at some point, a new release comes out. (AFAIK). ;-) I think these people should change to OpenBSD. Usually, there's a release on May 1st and November 1st. Isn't that what everybody wants?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:56, rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are offended and complain about "it will be ready when it is ready" attitude of devs.
I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red Hat and purchasing RHEL then.
Not that this has not been suggested before, but: that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either.
It does - to an extent. Red Hat has a policy of releasing a major release every 18-24 months (I know RHEL-6 has slipped outside of this window), and customers will be have communication from their account team as to expected release dates (not specific of course, but to the quarter) which simply does not exist with CentOS, and nor should there be pressure on the developers of CentOS to answer these questions imo.
Great release with 5.6 btw!
Cheers, Chris
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:02:52 PM Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
It does - to an extent. Red Hat has a policy of releasing a major release every 18-24 months (I know RHEL-6 has slipped outside of this window),
A total of 3 years, 8 months of time elapsed between EL5 and EL6. That's well over 2x 18 months, and only 4 months shy of 2x the "24 month" part of their timetable. Their reasons for this large delay are, no doubt, significant. They had every financial incentive to release RHEL 6 years ago, but they didn't. This fact bespeaks an intense amount of integrity which I, for one, admire, respect, and appreciate.
This same integrity is something I've come to expect from CentOS, as well.
Let's be fair; Red Hat exists to make money, to which they are entitiled. But they've done a wonderful job supporting the spirit and letter of the GPL in their RHEL and related software projects.
I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat,
if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be here, now would we?
-Ben
On 4/19/2011 1:39 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat,
if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be here, now would we?
Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1231269&hq_l=12&h...
If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:
"Enterprise-class is partially true, as the project takes great pains to be binary compatible with RHEL. So let’s give half points for that one. The other half of “enterprise-class” is that updates arrive in a timely fashion, which is notably false for the 5.x series. If I understand correctly, there have been a handful of updates prior to the release of CentOS 5.6 for the 5.x series — but nothing else. So, if you consider timely updates a requirement for “enterprise-class,” we can count CentOS out now."
OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands.
And: "Nobody Got Fired for Buying IBM: You Might for Deploying CentOS" with some elaboration about how the question from your boss about when a known vulnerability will be patched might go.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands.
Unless I'm mistaken there has *always* been a delay in certain patches when the CentOS team is rebuilding the point updates. Again, unless I misunderstand, many of the updates for 5.6 (for example) apply to the packages in the 5.6 updates (not the packages in 5.5). So you would, in effect, be updating files on CentOS that don't yet exist in CentOS. I did notice a few updates before 5.6 came out. I would assume these were critical security updates.
I always notice that, once a point update comes out, many patches follow shortly after. I'm sure it would be possible to use a "rolling update" system, but this is never how the CentOS rebuild process has been done. (At least this is my understanding.)
Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1231269&hq_l=12&h...
If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:
Wow, that must smart. Still, should come as no surprise as it has all been said on here before... many times and over several releases.
Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
Zonker's email must be filled with similar flame and hatemail that I received for making similar comments to his. But I doubt it.
On 04/19/2011 05:27 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1231269&hq_l=12&h...
If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:
Wow, that must smart. Still, should come as no surprise as it has all been said on here before... many times and over several releases.
Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
Zonker's email must be filled with similar flame and hatemail that I received for making similar comments to his. But I doubt it.
People get to choose what they want ... life is about choices.
If they want CentOS, they get CentOS. If they want something else, they can get that.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect.
John
Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect.
Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".
Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs.... assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done.
As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".
Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs.... assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done.
No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced" chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real" work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.
// Brian Mathis
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html
No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced" chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
I was just trying to be fair, otherwise I get flamed.
As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to
me
comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
Totally agree, but I don't see it changing any time soon.
It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they would make you take out all references just like RH do.
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real" work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
I have long since concluded that the devs do it for their own reasons and certainly not for any altruistic reasons.
// Brian Mathis
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different.
[sigh]
CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible). No reason to change; the name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time. This is not new.
Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know isn't going to happen.
----- Original Message ----
From: Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 21:32:35 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one
thing
(i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different.
[sigh]
CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible). No reason to change; the name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time. This is not new.
Sounds perfect. Why does the website say something so different, then?
Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know isn't going to happen.
I believe it will never, I hope I am wrong.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
----- Original Message ----
From: Garry Dale garry.dale@gmail.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:37:33 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
(someone) wrote:
Why does the website say something so different, then?
Seriously? Are people really this retarded?
Retarded enough to take what a disty website takes at face value? Are YOU being serious?
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they would make you take out all references just like RH do.
It sounds to me like "your big beef" is that you can't run the CentOS distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or Scientific Linux.
As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS name.
It sounds to me like "your big beef" is that you can't run the CentOS distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in
No, I would just like the name and website to match the facts. I would suggest that anybody that calls centOS "enterprise-ready" might have a different concept to what an enterprise is to me. Enterprise to me is at least a 1000 users and dozens of live servers. If CentOS is only suitable for test environment then I don't really class that as enterprise-ready, either.
As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS name.
I was just trying to illustrate a point, rather than actually wanting to do it.
-- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
No, I would just like the name and website to match the facts. I would suggest that anybody that calls centOS "enterprise-ready" might have a different concept to what an enterprise is to me. Enterprise to me is at least a 1000 users and dozens of live servers. If CentOS is only suitable for test environment then I don't really class that as enterprise-ready, either.
"Dozens" ? What a small environment. My concept of enterprise is thousands of servers.
CentOS, as an Operating System, is most definitely enterprise ready. It can scale to 1000s of servers quite easily. Tools are available to let you build and deploy on an automated basis. You could deploy CentOS to a thousand servers with ease; you could deploy a blade farm with dynamic provisioning very quickly and easily.
What the CentOS project is _not_ is an enterprise level _support_ service. It doesn't pretend to be. That's where the "community" aspect comes in. If you want enteprise level support then you probably need to pay for it. (which is why my employer uses RedHat and not CentOS; we want to be able to phone someone and bitch at them until they fix stuff)
If you consider "enterprise ready" to be a combination of "enterprise scalable and enterprise level support" then, sure, you'll not find CentOS meeting your needs. But if you want an enterprise quality OS then CentOS fills that gap nicely.
Its pretty funny how flaming any thread with Centos 6 in it can get.
So the devs do/do not communicate, who cares.
When Centos 6 does come out, many will say "O big daddy, thank you sooo much, I love you... " or something like that.
And the old adage about "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" may hold true today but it should be re written as "When you buy IBM, people get laid off".
Jesus, the prices for IBM and even Oracle gear these days, WTF...
- aurf
And think about how the Plutonians feel after there home was bumped down from planet to moon, or was cold worthless chunk rotating the Sun.
- aurf
On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:22 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
And think about how the Plutonians feel after there home was bumped down from planet to moon, or was cold worthless chunk rotating the Sun.
Equal rights for Pluto!
Sheee ku, thats what I be sayin.
- aurf
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Information needed to rebuild is, and has been for quite some time, in the archives of this and the -devel mailing lists.
Johnny has posted such information. Russ has posted information. There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know of, and likely many more that I don't.
There is no magic.
While it can be argued (and I would actually be in agreement) that such information should be wikified the fact is that the information _is_ out there.
John
----- Original Message ----
From: John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 2:58:36 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never
give me
sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Information needed to rebuild is, and has been for quite some time, in the archives of this and the -devel mailing lists. Johnny has posted such information. Russ has posted information. There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know of, and likely many more that I don't. There is no magic. While it can be argued (and I would actually be in agreement) that such information should be wikified the fact is that the information _is_ out there.
The point was the attitude, not the availability. As far as I can gather, some if it is out of date, anyway.
What are these 5 rebuilds then, apart from SL?
On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others.
CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more than is required by the GPL.
CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing Lists and IRC.
On 04/20/2011 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others.
CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more than is required by the GPL.
CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing Lists and IRC.
The is the description of the project on the main page: ==================================================== CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.) CentOS is free.
CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers. In turn the core developers are supported by an active user community including system administrators, network administrators, enterprise users, managers, core Linux contributors and Linux enthusiasts from around the world. ====================================================
Where does that say it is the goal of CentOS to provide step by step instructions to teach other projects how to rebuild the upstream sources?
What that says is the the devs build CentOS and the Community provides support ....
How am I misreading it?
On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them?
Why? Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and improve_ what they do. Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do closed development.
Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others.
Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them?
Why? Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and improve_ what they do. Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do closed development.
> Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
we give to others.
Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?
What's stopping you and others from going to Red Hat and doing what those who started CentOS did?
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
"any" user? Or users who keep repeating again and again the same boring old stuff?
I think that we now all know what to expect and what not to expect from CentOS. And that some here are frustrated with it, while some aren't.
Is there anything else relevant to add?
Is there anything else relevant to add? _______________________________________________
Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 05:51:46 PM Ian Murray wrote:
Is there anything else relevant to add?
Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list.
Irrelevant.
*plonk*
On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
Is there anything else relevant to add? _______________________________________________
Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list.
you're the one going on ad nausem. seriously, enough already.
----- Original Message ----
From: John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 23:04:50 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
Is there anything else relevant to add? _______________________________________________
Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the
distribution
for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone
has
read about it ad nausem on this list.
you're the one going on ad nausem. seriously, enough already.
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
How about I write you a check to just go away?
John
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:01:22PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
How about I write you a check to just go away?
Is it really that easy?!? I'm going to start whinging constantly till you write me a check! ;-)
--keith
----- Original Message ----
From: John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:01:22 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll
finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
How about I write you a check to just go away?
Please make it payable to "Dag's Rebuild Fund". (JOKE)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even use CentOS any more? (Serious question.)
----- Original Message ----
From: Ron Blizzard rb4centos@gmail.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:59:19 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even use CentOS any more? (Serious question.)
Detest? Hate? I have nothing against the distribution and yes I do still use it on several virtual server and look after several other CentOS based systems, i.e. SME and AsteriskNOW. I can't be bothered to migrate off, but would think twice about any new public facing installs. That applies to all rebuilds at the moment, as I am not convinced about the model for the moment.
In case nobody noticed, I am only responding to other comments. If I was constantly starting threads of the same topic, I would agree that it would be trolling.
Not the first time that attempts are made to silence someone through discreditation, though.
-- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:18:21AM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced" chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
It's perfectly acceptable when it's the same vocal few over and over again. Matter of fact, I commend him on the restraint he's shown so far. It's a point of fact that some people are too thick-skulled to understand any other way; tact doesn't always work - at times you need to be brutally honest and blunt.
It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
What caliber of firearm is pointed at your skull keeping you here?
By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it.
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real" work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
Oh please.
Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.
But yet... here you are.
This begs the question:
Why are you still here? No, really. Why? You've nothing good to say. Ever. Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your fingers endears you to the CentOS team? Do you think they care? Do you think you're important to them? Let me disabuse you of something: the answer to all 3 items above is "no". As difficult as it may be for you to accept the truth is you're irrelevant. As I've pointed out in the past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in the least. You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed. Do you think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is going to cause anyone any loss of sleep? Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?
John
On 4/21/11, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.
Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word.
Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.
The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.
By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it.
They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs, without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months, would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies, even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.
This begs the question: Why are you still here? No, really. Why?
I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others extra incentive ;)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:19:12PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word.
I'll take that bet.
I'd be curious to see some stats on downloads now that 5.6 is out; along with torrent activity. While neither are a definitive view as to how popular the disto remains they provide some insight how popular CentOS 5 remains.
Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.
I'll take this bet, as well. While I admit that there is an emotional aspect that comes into play when someone has indeed spent time/emotional energy on a project I will bet you real dollars that those doing the most complaining aren't in that group.
The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.
Possible? Sure as anything's possible. The moon could break out of orbit tonight as well. However I'm going to go with "There are other factors at play that are contributing to the illustrated 'decline' of CentOS-based web servers that have nothing to do with the supposed problems that people perceive to be wrong with the CentOS distribution.".
They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs, without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months, would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies, even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.
Please keep in mind that CentOS, be it the project or the distribution, is not a company. It's not recruiting "customers". There is no break-even point or sales quota requirements. People use it if they want. Also, another point is that the CentOS devs don't really provide the support; support, almost exclusively, is a community effort. Note that by "community" I include the forum moderators that have a closer relationship with the CentOS devs than the average community member. And no matter what anyone may think of the project or the developers, community support is as good or better than that provided by the majority of commercial enterprises I've dealt with in the past 30 years as a *nix admin/engineer.
I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others extra incentive ;)
We'll see :)
John
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.admin@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word.
That doesn't necessarily follow. If you look at who has been complaining, a select few names span several years -- even when there are no point releases pending, they complain. Anyone who has ever used a newsgroup knows that some people "delight" in disrupting the process. They're called "trolls" on newsgroups. When someone continually repeats the same thing over and over and over, *ad nauseum*, then I would not conclude that they speaking for nine others who are silent.
Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.
Doubtful. Some people have an extremely negative outlook or they have an agenda that they hope achieve by being the constantly "squeaking wheel." Or, as in newsgroups, they have a need to be always "stirring the pot." and this is how they stroke their egos. Whatever it is, many complainers are never satisfied, even when they get what they want. That's just their personality and it's not going to change.
The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.
I haven't been following the mailing list that closely lately, but when the same people constantly harp on the same subject it tends to get under your skin. I would imagine when the developers (who have had two point releases and a major release thrown at them all at one time) are already tired due to the extra work, the ungrateful and repetitious bitching from the same few complainers would tend to be extremely irritating.
<snip.
And does anyone really think trying to nuke a project with constant, public criticism is really going to groom these whiners to be great "cheerleaders" when (if) they ever get their way? Sorry, but some of them have the destructive personality of gossips. They've already shown their true colors.
And I'm not saying this about everyone, especially not those who've occasionally complained about a specific issue and are often airing a legitimate gripe. It's those who have been "fed up" with CentOS for years and are going to leave "any millennium now" if they don't immediately get their way. I don't think I need to mention any names. You've seen them (again and again) here and at just about any public forum they can use to harm CentOS.
This begs the question:
Why are you still here? No, really. Why? You've nothing good to say. Ever. Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your fingers endears you to the CentOS team? Do you think they care? Do you think you're important to them? Let me disabuse you of something: the answer to all 3 items above is "no". As difficult as it may be for you to accept the truth is you're irrelevant. As I've pointed out in the past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in the least. You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed. Do you think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is going to cause anyone any loss of sleep? Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?
Because -- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965)
On 4/20/11 8:53 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.
If he had wanted to be really critical he would have quoted project members suggesting that if people needed security fixes they should have their operators build their own untested versions or pay someone to do one-off builds for them.
By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it.
Previously that decision might have been made on the basis of CentOS having a history of timely security updates. Now you can't say that for any sane definition of timely.
On 04/20/2011 09:18 AM, Brian Mathis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".
Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs.... assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done.
No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced" chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real" work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.
For the record, I brought KB into this project ... not the other way around.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect.
I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.
You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists.
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles...
Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect.
I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.
You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists.
You obviously wanted to say "reflection of the persistent complainers on the CentOS lists".
CentOS is pinned down with "friendly fire" aimed mostly at Oracle and other free riders on RHEL. Red Hat wants more money, and this is the only way they can do that.
As for those asking for transparent process, my only conclusion is that they want to find out how they can recreate RHEL so they can create a fork of CentOS. And that is happening because they are not competent enough (or lack money/time) to do it on their own. Why haven't they got all information from Scientific Linux? If SL is better and faster with releases, then they should ask SL devs to give them access to their machines, or to publish their entire build system. I have not seen that happening so far. Why?
Also, are you aware that RHEL 6.0 itself is very late?
Info from wikipedia: - RHEL 2 -> 3 took 18 months. - RHEL 3 -> 4 took 19 months. - RHEL 4 -> 5 took 25 months. - but RHEL 5 -> 6 took whooping 44 months.
- CentOS delay for 3.1 was 5 months, - CentOS delay for 4 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 5 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 6 is currently 5 months and counting,
So if for RHEL took almost 2,5 times the amount of time to release new version (6.0), why is there so much fuss about CentOS team taking it so long to untangle the web Red Hat produced, including parallel releases of 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0, an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from the previous version, and initial delay of publishing SRPMS?
I also wish CentOS 6 was released at least in the end of January, but mea culpa, it is what it is.
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.
I have read some of his articles in the past and I speak from the point of knowledge of his past writings; and also knowledge of his past involvement with a different linux distribution. He's apparently got an axe to grind against the CentOS project. That's fine, this is a free country and he can write and say whatever he wants. But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note. That type of writing, much like the constant complainers on this list that, for whatever reason, stay with CentOS when alternatives exist eventually turns into nothing more than noise.
You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists.
No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice.
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles...
No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications "policy" or not. However having someone actually posting updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing. And preferably someone that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list).
John
But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note.
Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/
(For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6)
Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.
You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists.
No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice.
And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles...
No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications "policy" or not.
In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every community project irrespective of governance would get "these" types of articles and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!
John-- The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to have any.
-- Katharine Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:25:06PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/
I've read the articles; I've no need to re-read them.
(For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6)
You didn't look very hard.
Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.
The project is fine for what I need it for. And, again, it's only a tiny fraction of the user base that has a problem with the project and the project management that are making a big stink about things.
And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.
I've never said that there weren't issues. Matter of fact I've agreed that there are indeed communication problems that I hope will be resolved. The difference is I'm not crying about the sky falling.
And do us a favor? Take your own advice.
John
And do us a favor? Take your own advice.
I always try to state "as far as I know", "as far as I can tell", "in my opinion/belief".
Can we recall that I commented on the fact that a major Linux magazine had put up a pretty damning article. I don't know why I am getting attacked for that. Write to Linux Mag.
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:25 +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note.
Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/
(For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6)
Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.
---- He doesn't seem like a hack to me either. I checked his archive and he seems to be genuine and expressed his concern about the lack of a release back in February so it's a logical extension to be even more concerned that here we are in late April and still nothing. ----
You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists.
No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice.
And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.
---- I think many people don't want to publicly state and appear to be ungrateful.
I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about the timeliness now.
If someone actually wanted to get a better view of the opinions, there are open source polling tools. ----
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles...
No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications "policy" or not.
In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every community project irrespective of governance would get "these" types of articles and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!
---- It seems that unless/until the CentOS leaders agree that 3 months on point releases and 6 months on new releases are a problem then they aren't likely to try to solve it.
I would agree that this type of article would exist even if there were better communications offered by CentOS governance.
Speaking only for myself, I am starting to lose faith.
Craig
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about the timeliness now.
Yeah, "genuinely concerned." And that "concern" is supposedly best served by bad-mouthing CentOS at every opportunity? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:19 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles...
No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications "policy" or not. However having someone actually posting updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing. And preferably someone that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list).
I'm cleaning up my inbox and found this reply (that I somehow missed earlier).
I'm sorry about the lateness of the reply but felt that I should clarify a misunderstanding.
By "communication policy," I don't mean giving updates of the progress of an upcoming release (especially given Karanbir's explanation of the difficulty in estimating the completion point); I mean not telling people "if you're unhappy, use another distribution" or making similar types of comments and creating problems for themselves (like the negative article posted in this thread) and those who promote their distribution (I have two companies where I consult in which the IT managers have asked me to switch to Debian).
On 4/10/11 1:56 PM, rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevicoffice@plnet.rs wrote:
If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are offended and complain about "it will be ready when it is ready" attitude of devs.
I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red Hat and purchasing RHEL then.
Not that this has not been suggested before, but: that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either. There's a series of betas and then, at some point, a new release comes out. (AFAIK). ;-) I think these people should change to OpenBSD. Usually, there's a release on May 1st and November 1st. Isn't that what everybody wants?
No, I don't think anybody wants the product to change or the developers to have to put in more effort. But, is anything so good that it can't be improved?
Most of the discussion here has been about the closed nature of the process that may be limiting possible improvements or the ability to add resources. It just doesn't seem likely to change though, unless the people controlling the process see a problem with it, and as long as the scheduled goal is 'whenever it is done', how can they see a problem? If 'whenever' really is the target goal, not just an unfortunate temporary circumstance, it should be explained on the project web sight for fairness to users, though.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
day (and I mean every complainant every day) and saying SL is better, raising blood pressure to devs (which is why they are loosing their temper), but keeps bashers wanting CentOS over the SL? I do not get it
Actually I just finished an email to Connie and Troy over at SL, sharing some detail on project management with them
They are each friends, and it does not cause me a moment's pain or raised blood pressure when SL is mentioned or when someone 'threatens' to use their project's approach
[I suppose I should be concerned for them 'receiving' a whiner, and worry for THEIR blood pressure ;) ]
-- Russ herrold
Actually I just finished an email to Connie and Troy over at SL, sharing some detail on project management with them
They are each friends, and it does not cause me a moment's pain or raised blood pressure when SL is mentioned or when someone 'threatens' to use their project's approach
[I suppose I should be concerned for them 'receiving' a whiner, and worry for THEIR blood pressure ;) ]
There are a number of differences why I don't think that will happen.
1. They appear to always be polite and helpful even if the question was easily google-able.
2. They don't advertise their distribution is "enterprise grade"
3. They don't suggest it is community based yet tell people to take a hike when they hear something they don't like.
3. They have recently expanded their team to four. Not sure of the reason behind it, but I would like to think that they responded to the changing demands of their distribution. Good to see they can recognise any weakness and try to rectify it; to invest in other people to lesson the individual burden and lower the overall risk, if that is the reasoning.
4. Their motivations appear to be more transparent, i.e. I wouldn't say they are in it for the glory or to be superheros. Not saying anybody.
You might want to modify the CentOS front page, because there are some statements that are stretching the truth in my opinion. Namely:-
< CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources......>
Subjective, but not Enterprise-class in my opinion as the security patching is too unpredictable. Not a criticism, just a suggested reframing of the project. < CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers.....>
Growing, is it?
< CentOS has numerous advantages over some of the other clone projects including: developers who are contactable and responsive...>
Er, no. Sorry. I don't think anybody could agree that statement to be true these days.
I told you all before.... just get rid of the above mis-information and rename the project to RJK Linux and all will be well with the world!
Just my opinion.
Ian Murray hits the point. now i followed this list for some mounth and im gonna change also my last boxes to SL. I've never seen so strange and useless comments from devs in any other mailinglist before. The information politic is just horrible bad, devs act very ignorant and insult people, reject offers from people that want to help. This is everything else then enterprise-class. Good luck with this direction.
2011/4/7 Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk:
Actually I just finished an email to Connie and Troy over at SL, sharing some detail on project management with them
They are each friends, and it does not cause me a moment's pain or raised blood pressure when SL is mentioned or when someone 'threatens' to use their project's approach
[I suppose I should be concerned for them 'receiving' a whiner, and worry for THEIR blood pressure ;) ]
There are a number of differences why I don't think that will happen.
- They appear to always be polite and helpful even if the question was easily
google-able.
They don't advertise their distribution is "enterprise grade"
They don't suggest it is community based yet tell people to take a hike when
they hear something they don't like.
- They have recently expanded their team to four. Not sure of the reason behind
it, but I would like to think that they responded to the changing demands of their distribution. Good to see they can recognise any weakness and try to rectify it; to invest in other people to lesson the individual burden and lower the overall risk, if that is the reasoning.
- Their motivations appear to be more transparent, i.e. I wouldn't say they are
in it for the glory or to be superheros. Not saying anybody.
You might want to modify the CentOS front page, because there are some statements that are stretching the truth in my opinion. Namely:-
< CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources......>
Subjective, but not Enterprise-class in my opinion as the security patching is too unpredictable. Not a criticism, just a suggested reframing of the project. < CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers.....>
Growing, is it?
< CentOS has numerous advantages over some of the other clone projects including: developers who are contactable and responsive...>
Er, no. Sorry. I don't think anybody could agree that statement to be true these days.
I told you all before.... just get rid of the above mis-information and rename the project to RJK Linux and all will be well with the world!
Just my opinion. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/08/2011 01:12 AM, Tamada Wilder wrote:
Ian Murray hits the point. now i followed this list for some mounth and im gonna change also my last boxes to SL. I've never seen so strange and useless comments from devs in any other mailinglist before. The information politic is just horrible bad, devs act very ignorant and insult people, reject offers from people that want to help. This is everything else then enterprise-class. Good luck with this direction.
+1
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:31:10AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
+1
For the love of whatever $deity you believe in...
If you're going to leave then go ahead and leave. But could you do so quietly and spare the rest of us your lamenting stories of it? I assure you, we don't care.
John
On 04/08/2011 01:34 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:31:10AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
+1
For the love of whatever $deity you believe in...
If you're going to leave then go ahead and leave. But could you do so quietly and spare the rest of us your lamenting stories of it? I assure you, we don't care.
John
Instead of leaving, I was hoping to get some answers from Johnny regarding that build process. Many of us asked those questions. But it looks like he keeps avoiding those.
I guess leaving will be the choice for many of us. I'm still hoping this project can be saved though.
i am pretty sure that my story is more interesting compared to your useless statement.
2011/4/8 John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:31:10AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
+1
For the love of whatever $deity you believe in...
If you're going to leave then go ahead and leave. But could you do so quietly and spare the rest of us your lamenting stories of it? I assure you, we don't care.
John
-- I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.
-- DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:41:14AM +0200, Tamada Wilder wrote:
i am pretty sure that my story is more interesting compared to your useless statement.
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16 specifically item #2 in guidelines. Here, let me summarize it for you: "Do Not Top Post".
If you're unhappy, leave. Go elsewhere. You won't be missed. Sorry to burst your bubble of importance here but...
The vocal ones in this mailing list that are complaining about CentOS, whether it's legit or unfounded, are a tiny fraction of the installed user base and are insignificant; leaving will have absolutely _no_ effect on the CentOS project. None. Not even as much as a single drop of water affects any of the world's oceans. You won't be missed. At all.
So telling this list how you're picking up your toys and going home is supposed to serve what purpose, exactly? We already know you're not happy; you've made that point abundantly clear with your ever-present messages.
In the course of the past 2 or 3 months this list has gone from a valuable resource to being almost completely useless and without any merit at all. Because of the complainers. Go complain elsewhere; the majority of us are sick and damned tired of hearing it. SL may welcome you. I know for a fact Redhat will. Go there. Please. Just do it quietly.
John
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16 specifically item #2 in guidelines. Here, let me summarize it for you: "Do Not Top Post".
KB top posted yesterday. Did you correct him? Thought not. If your going to be anything, please be fair.
If you're unhappy, leave. Go elsewhere. You won't be missed. Sorry to burst your bubble of importance here but... The vocal ones in this mailing list that are complaining about CentOS, whether it's legit or unfounded, are a tiny fraction of the installed user base and are insignificant; leaving will have absolutely _no_ effect on the CentOS project. None. Not even as much as a single drop of water affects any of the world's oceans. You won't be missed. At all.
Yeah, who cares about minorities anyway.
In the course of the past 2 or 3 months this list has gone from a valuable resource to being almost completely useless and without any merit at all. Because of the complainers. Go complain elsewhere; the majority of us are sick and damned tired of hearing it. SL may welcome you. I know for a fact Redhat will. Go there. Please. Just do it quietly.
John, please stop cluttering the list with your complaining. It's making a right mess for those of that wish to discuss the project and its direction.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:03:48AM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
KB top posted yesterday. Did you correct him? Thought not. If your going to be anything, please be fair.
You're assuming I read whatever KB post you are referring to; silly assumption.
Yeah, who cares about minorities anyway.
Oh, please. You don't want to play that card, trust me.
John, please stop cluttering the list with your complaining. It's making a right mess for those of that wish to discuss the project and its direction.
Wow. Pot? Kettle? So, let me get this straight. People are able to bitch, whine, complain and needlessly threaten to leave the project to their heart's content and that's ok. But when I point out how idiotic and irrelevant it is to publicly threaten to leave, or inform the list membership that they are leaving, that's not?
Really? If you're serious about this you're a complete tool.
In fact there is no if here, you're just a tool.
Simply... Wow.
John
John, please stop cluttering the list with your complaining. It's making a right mess for those of that wish to discuss the project and its direction.
Wow. Pot? Kettle? So, let me get this straight. People are able to bitch, whine, complain and needlessly threaten to leave the project to their heart's content and that's ok. But when I point out how idiotic and irrelevant it is to publicly threaten to leave, or inform the list membership that they are leaving, that's not? Really? If you're serious about this you're a complete tool. In fact there is no if here, you're just a tool. Simply... Wow.
Obviously the irony/sarcasm was too subtle for you.
In my opinion, you absolutely need to get your own house in order. The value of that last post was *zero*. As for bitching, whining and complaining, your last post had the lot. As for the name calling... as you say "wow", yeah, simply wow. I expect that was my fault for 'making you' do it, was it?
As for the "leaving" stuff, I haven't suggested that myself in this thread. In a normal community discussion, I think it reasonable for somebody to comment if they feel the project isn't meeting its stated goals *in their opinion*... It is called Free Speech. It doesn't matter if it gets said a thousand times by different people.
I use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, CentOS (4,5) and SL depending on the particular circumstances. That general approach hasn't and won't change. So there is not "leaving" for me.
you're helping a lot making this list more and more useless with your "great" answers.
2011/4/8 John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:41:14AM +0200, Tamada Wilder wrote:
i am pretty sure that my story is more interesting compared to your useless statement.
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16 specifically item #2 in guidelines. Here, let me summarize it for you: "Do Not Top Post".
If you're unhappy, leave. Go elsewhere. You won't be missed. Sorry to burst your bubble of importance here but...
The vocal ones in this mailing list that are complaining about CentOS, whether it's legit or unfounded, are a tiny fraction of the installed user base and are insignificant; leaving will have absolutely _no_ effect on the CentOS project. None. Not even as much as a single drop of water affects any of the world's oceans. You won't be missed. At all.
So telling this list how you're picking up your toys and going home is supposed to serve what purpose, exactly? We already know you're not happy; you've made that point abundantly clear with your ever-present messages.
In the course of the past 2 or 3 months this list has gone from a valuable resource to being almost completely useless and without any merit at all. Because of the complainers. Go complain elsewhere; the majority of us are sick and damned tired of hearing it. SL may welcome you. I know for a fact Redhat will. Go there. Please. Just do it quietly.
John
I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. It might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit.
-- John Steinbeck (1902-1968), American writer, Nobel laureate, Pultizer Prize awardee, "...like captured fireflies" (1955)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Tamada Wilder wrote:
Ian Murray hits the point. now i followed this list for some mounth and im gonna change also my last boxes to SL. I've never seen so strange and useless comments from devs in any other mailinglist before. The information politic is just horrible bad, devs act very ignorant and insult people, reject offers from people that want to help. This is everything else then enterprise-class. Good luck with this direction.
You see, when ever I asked for time frame I was given civil answer. Not even once I received rude comment (that I can think off). But I am aware of what is happening behind the scenes. I do not have inside info, just have compiling knowledge, I read everything that was posted and I use my own brain to full capacity. I do not have bone to pick with devs, I do not think I am God given and all-knowing and I always keep in mind that this is something they do in their *spare* time. Just think how would you feel is you would read 10-20 e-mails per day about how you suck and how you are not capable to produce results. After how many attacks on you would you snap? Don't just look at obvious, at consequences, look also at the source of the problem (with too strong replies from dev team ). How long would you allow proverbial lady with the feather on her hat to tickle your face/nose until you would grab that feather and broke it in two when lady would shrug you off as a mad man for asking her to take the hat off?
SL's developers do that for a living, they are paid to create SL (Fermi Linux actually). Also, take notice that SL 5.6 is in *TEST* phase, they did release 6.0 before CentOS, but they are still to finish 5.6 which most of people here wanted done first.
Karanbir already said he will document and publish everything about rebuild process once CentOS 6.0 (6.1 most likely) is finished, and they will see what can be done to involve more people. And has this stopped those bashing at them? No. They keep it going.
I know they are provoking devs on purpose (saying something multiple times does not make it more true/clever), but I keep responding so that people like you do not think they are automatically right because they voice their side of the story over and over again. I (with my entire country) was victim of tendentious news reports about the civil war in my country. I have seen vicious false reporting and I can not stand such approach on either side in this flame war.
Devs do respond to harsh for my taste, but I understand where their pent up negative energy is coming from. So I forgive them their humanity (being only human).
Ljubomir
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
Tom H wrote:
It's the second time that I point out that the CentOS communication policy (if you there is one) is completely unprofessional. You can let off steam by saying "we're volunteers, so we can tell you to use another distro if you're unhappy" but you do yourselves more harm than good.
If by doing so they harm the project, what is opposite of that? What they *gain* by following "proper" etiquette? Financial benefits? Gift? Glory?
The satisfaction of a job well done.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:
This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not do. Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and mock from the sidelines
When people state the project can do better, who did translate "the project" to "Johnny" or "Karanbir" ? Nobody did, except Johnny and Karanbir.
Nobody is asking Johnny or Karanbir to work harder, that's the fallacy.
But only Johnny and Karanbir can change how this project is organized at the moment and the project is currently organized in such a way that if we want more timely releases and updates, or we want better communication, or we want more transparancy, Johnny and Karanbir will have to work harder.
It doesn't have to be like this, but it feels like certain forces want to keep things framed like this in discussions.
on 4/7/2011 1:02 PM Dag Wieers spake the following:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:
This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not do. Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and mock from the sidelines
When people state the project can do better, who did translate "the project" to "Johnny" or "Karanbir" ? Nobody did, except Johnny and Karanbir.
Nobody is asking Johnny or Karanbir to work harder, that's the fallacy.
But only Johnny and Karanbir can change how this project is organized at the moment and the project is currently organized in such a way that if we want more timely releases and updates, or we want better communication, or we want more transparancy, Johnny and Karanbir will have to work harder.
It doesn't have to be like this, but it feels like certain forces want to keep things framed like this in discussions.
Are they resistant to change, or maybe just really don't know where to start? It looks like the latter may apply a little better.
Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right direction. I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm looking for alternatives.
Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.
For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.
What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.
If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my dealings with you in that case too.
When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to you, guess what ...
You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or Novell.
If this is all about money and what isn't, why don't you try and start accepting cash donations to the project which have been disabled for a couple of years now? Some extra income for the devs with no strings attached. You may even set financing targets the way wikipedia does it. What's wrong with that?
On 04/04/2011 02:26 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
Oh here we go again...
CentOS == "It'll release when it's ready, not before". What is so very hard to understand about this?
David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for? Whining is easy, build something on your own.
I have built/tried Fedora packages missing from CentOS 5.x and it would in some case took me several days just to realize that dependencies needed would change base files, and none of the versions of packages will work.
And I was the only one to compile Skype 2.1.0.81 rpm for CentOS/RHEL 5.x (as far as I know).
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Because I value my time, and there is no way that I can or will devote my life to reinventing the proverbial wheel. The more likely outcome is a Scientific Linux migration for my production environment over the next 12-24 months.
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:50 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Because I value my time, and there is no way that I can or will devote my life to reinventing the proverbial wheel. The more likely outcome is a Scientific Linux migration for my production environment over the next 12-24 months.
SL didn't pass the muster in our env in terms of a drop in replacement for Centos.
On the other hand, we have simply dropped in Centos in place of RHEL w/ o issue.
Our env is a rather complex CGI/VFX based pipeline that is not trivial to design or support.
So if you have 12-24 months, I'd wait, seriously man, what's the rush?
You got ants in yo pants?
- aurf
"SL didn't pass the muster in our env in terms of a drop in replacement for Centos.
On the other hand, we have simply dropped in Centos in place of RHEL w/ o issue.
Our env is a rather complex CGI/VFX based pipeline that is not trivial to design or support.
So if you have 12-24 months, I'd wait, seriously man, what's the rush?"
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, David Brian Chait wrote:
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
That may have been the whole point of this exercise. Red Hat profits !
On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:11 PM, David Brian Chait wrote:
"SL didn't pass the muster in our env in terms of a drop in replacement for Centos.
On the other hand, we have simply dropped in Centos in place of RHEL w/ o issue.
Our env is a rather complex CGI/VFX based pipeline that is not trivial to design or support.
So if you have 12-24 months, I'd wait, seriously man, what's the rush?"
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
Get over yourself.
Buy RHEL then Mr. "provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure".
- aurf
"Get over yourself.
Buy RHEL then Mr. "provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure"."
Why would I do that when I have an alternative? It isn't like I actually budgeted for a significant number of RHEL licenses this year, the money has to come from somewhere.
on 4/4/2011 3:11 PM David Brian Chait spake the following:
"SL didn't pass the muster in our env in terms of a drop in replacement for Centos.
On the other hand, we have simply dropped in Centos in place of RHEL w/ o issue.
Our env is a rather complex CGI/VFX based pipeline that is not trivial to design or support.
So if you have 12-24 months, I'd wait, seriously man, what's the rush?"
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
If you need the "real thing" for business cases, then you shouldn't be looking at copies and knockoffs. You should buy direct from the manufacturer, RedHat...
On 4 April 2011 23:11, David Brian Chait dchait@invenda.com wrote:
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
Yet you can. The only 5.6 update that has been rated as critical has been firefox. The previous critical update was exim which was for 5.5 which we had. I would place this firefox update at low priority as i would guess that close to 100% of the millions of installations will be running CentOS on servers rather than on workstations. Whilst i use CentOS for my desktops, and appreciate the complete stability that i have enjoyed since deploying 5.0 on these platforms i really care about my internet facing production servers and these are not impacted at all by waiting for 5.6 (or 6).
I am looking forward to 6 coming out but just so that i can play with it and install it on some boxen that i have waiting in their packaging but i am in no rush. In the same way i would rather have 5.6 when it is done. Therefore the business process for remaining on 5 doesn't change especially with php53 and bind97 in testing so already available
Based on previous experience, if there was a critical update for a core server service (or if there was an issue which was going to be critical to systems within a certain time zone &c) then it would be pushed sooner.
If your business process demands some feature of 6 (kvm / tpm / power savings / storage drivers) then you have enough money to buy some licences for rhel 6 to enable your testing and the beauty of CentOS is knowing that you can then replicate and upscale your testing environment to production on CentOS 6 without worrying about having to go though another full testing cycle due to the promise of full binary compatibility, not sure that you can do that with SL as they have a different raison d'etre
With regards to communication to the community IMHO you can assume that the lack of it indicates the effort required to get 4.9, 5.6 and 6 out the door and underlines the devs determination to get it right first time. As evidence of this, follow CentOS mailing list and look at how many "help" threads are from problems with the core product.
It must be quite a burden to know that releasing CentOS that isn't bug for bug compatible with RHEL or is flawed in some way could cause many, many production servers to fall over.
I would like to thank the devs for all their time and effort
mike
Quoting Michael Simpson mikie.simpson@gmail.com:
see my remarks below
On 4 April 2011 23:11, David Brian Chait dchait@invenda.com wrote:
I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole "when it's ready" mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it.
Yet you can. The only 5.6 update that has been rated as critical has been firefox. The previous critical update was exim which was for 5.5 which we had. I would place this firefox update at low priority as i would guess that close to 100% of the millions of installations will be running CentOS on servers rather than on workstations. Whilst i use CentOS for my desktops, and appreciate the complete stability that i have enjoyed since deploying 5.0 on these platforms i really care about my internet facing production servers and these are not impacted at all by waiting for 5.6 (or 6).
I am looking forward to 6 coming out but just so that i can play with it and install it on some boxen that i have waiting in their packaging but i am in no rush. In the same way i would rather have 5.6 when it is done. Therefore the business process for remaining on 5 doesn't change especially with php53 and bind97 in testing so already available
Based on previous experience, if there was a critical update for a core server service (or if there was an issue which was going to be critical to systems within a certain time zone &c) then it would be pushed sooner.
If your business process demands some feature of 6 (kvm / tpm / power savings / storage drivers) then you have enough money to buy some licences for rhel 6 to enable your testing and the beauty of CentOS is knowing that you can then replicate and upscale your testing environment to production on CentOS 6 without worrying about having to go though another full testing cycle due to the promise of full binary compatibility, not sure that you can do that with SL as they have a different raison d'etre
With regards to communication to the community IMHO you can assume that the lack of it indicates the effort required to get 4.9, 5.6 and 6 out the door and underlines the devs determination to get it right first time. As evidence of this, follow CentOS mailing list and look at how many "help" threads are from problems with the core product.
It must be quite a burden to know that releasing CentOS that isn't bug for bug compatible with RHEL or is flawed in some way could cause many, many production servers to fall over.
I would like to thank the devs for all their time and effort
mike
sure, me too. I run CentOS servers and do all the patches every day and get great value for the money. But that doesn't make me deaf dumb and blind, the project management badly needs work. The firefox issue is a bit misleading for reasons mike points out, but for instance I can't deploy Drupal 7, for which there is a lot of demand, unless I open up non-CentOS repos. Not the end of the world, but one more avenue into the system and one more thing to watch out for. I mean I'd be happy to make a cash donation to get more bodies on the problem (when taken with all the other well-wishers and would-be supporters) but it doesn't seem as if there is a way.
Dave
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/04/2011 08:23 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
And I was the only one to compile Skype 2.1.0.81 rpm for CentOS/RHEL 5.x (as far as I know).
thats interesting. Care to point us at the source for skype ?
- KB
rpm is here: http://rpms.plnet.rs/centos5-i386/RPMS.plnet/skype-2.1.0.81-1.el5.noarch.rpm
source rpm is now currently publicly available since I rearranged my repository links/path but haven't finished.
Ljubomir
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
rpm is here: http://rpms.plnet.rs/centos5-i386/RPMS.plnet/skype-2.1.0.81-1.el5.noarch.rpm
source rpm is now currently publicly available since I rearranged my repository links/path but haven't finished.
Since when did skype become noarch?
I'm assuming this is just a wrapper around the presumably rearranged binaries that skype ship. Source RPM then becomes a bit of a misnomer.
jh
John Hodrien wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
rpm is here: http://rpms.plnet.rs/centos5-i386/RPMS.plnet/skype-2.1.0.81-1.el5.noarch.rpm
source rpm is now currently publicly available since I rearranged my repository links/path but haven't finished.
Since when did skype become noarch?
I'm assuming this is just a wrapper around the presumably rearranged binaries that skype ship. Source RPM then becomes a bit of a misnomer.
jh
Sorry for late post, to much to do.
Yes, skype rpm is only wrapper for staticly compiled skype, but with some additional files. I will reassert srpm as soon as possible, in a day or two I hope.
Ljubomir
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for? Whining is easy, build something on your own.
Too strongly stated. I am aware of at least two private rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in the last 4 months. But those efforts have not sought to replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the upstream ships insofar as possible
But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible, because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]
CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten people whining for something, anything, at the expense of potentially harming millions of installations
There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS
-- Russ herrold
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for? Whining is easy, build something on your own.
Too strongly stated. I am aware of at least two private rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in the last 4 months. But those efforts have not sought to replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the upstream ships insofar as possible
But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible, because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]
CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten people whining for something, anything, at the expense of potentially harming millions of installations
There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS
-- Russ herrold
Russ,
Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear:
The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or "whining" as you put it) is: ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** about what is going on.
No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months.
All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand that.
// Brian Mathis
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for? Whining is easy, build something on your own.
Too strongly stated. I am aware of at least two private rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in the last 4 months. But those efforts have not sought to replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the upstream ships insofar as possible
But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible, because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]
CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten people whining for something, anything, at the expense of potentially harming millions of installations
There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS
-- Russ herrold
Russ,
Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear:
The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or "whining" as you put it) is: ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** about what is going on.
No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months.
All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand that.
// Brian Mathis _______________________________________________
and prolong development even further..........
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:29:21AM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
and prolong development even further..........
It doesn't take more than a couple minutes to post a brief update if someone would be so inclined.
John
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:33 AM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:29:21AM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
and prolong development even further..........
It doesn't take more than a couple minutes to post a brief update if someone would be so inclined.
but to send out an email to the list, for every bloody thing the devs do (even make coffee, but the sounds of the of the demands here?) do eventually add-up.
And, judging by some of the comments it looks like the devs would have to start doing some of these people's work for them as well....
P.S. What I'm getting at is that many of the demands form some people are getting ridiculous
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Rudi Ahlers Rudi@softdux.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:33 AM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:29:21AM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
and prolong development even further..........
It doesn't take more than a couple minutes to post a brief update if someone would be so inclined.
but to send out an email to the list, for every bloody thing the devs do (even make coffee, but the sounds of the of the demands here?) do eventually add-up.
And, judging by some of the comments it looks like the devs would have to start doing some of these people's work for them as well....
P.S. What I'm getting at is that many of the demands form some people are getting ridiculous
Rudi,
Cut the crap. You're intentionally changing the context of the discussion, so please stop posting. No one has "demanded" that the Devs send an email every time they take a shi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H make a cup of coffee, as you have said. In fact no one has "demanded" anything. Requests, yes. A post once in a while with some real information (other than "we're working on it") would be nice.
Also I don't see any comments demanding anyone do anyone else's work for them. Again, you have twisted the conversation to become more of a flamefest by making things up that are not true. Not one post has "demanded" anything.
Everyone is here because they care about the project. That's what is constantly missing in the replies by those who continue to browbeat and deride anyone simply looking for information. It's a symptom of a deeper problem that will only be made worse by that kind of treatment.
// Brian Mathis
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
Rudi,
Cut the crap. You're intentionally changing the context of the discussion, so please stop posting. No one has "demanded" that the Devs send an email every time they take a shi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H make a cup of coffee, as you have said. In fact no one has "demanded" anything. Requests, yes. A post once in a while with some real information (other than "we're working on it") would be nice.
Also I don't see any comments demanding anyone do anyone else's work for them. Again, you have twisted the conversation to become more of a flamefest by making things up that are not true. Not one post has "demanded" anything.
Everyone is here because they care about the project. That's what is constantly missing in the replies by those who continue to browbeat and deride anyone simply looking for information. It's a symptom of a deeper problem that will only be made worse by that kind of treatment.
// Brian Mathis
Brian, since you take it so personal, you should cut the crap. And grow up.
Have you actually followed, properly, what has been said the past few weeks about the last updates (i.e. 4.9 / 5.6 & 6.0?) about people leaving CentOS cause other products are better and how the devs should step up to keep up with the rest of the world?
I personally, as well as many others (looking at their comments) are more than happy to wait for the next release - exactly when it released. I rely on CentOS for one reason - it's stability and security. I don't want a half-ass-baked distro.And I frankly don't care what you think about it. If you don't like it, then move on. Get RedHat, or Novell or Debian, or whatever fits your needs. BUT PLEASE, stop putting extra pressure on the devs cause you have some personal vendetta against how quickly they release their updates. Surely, when you started using CentOS, you knew exactly what it was and what it's relationship was with it's upstream vendor. Now, due to their changes, CentOS updates gets delayed. Live with it, or get in touch with Red Hat and take it out on them.
The last thing I want to see if CentOS coming to a grinding halt because the demand for half-tested-and-released-too-soon-releases and everyone want an update every 5 days have become too so great the devs can't get to doing their work properly anymore.
On 05/04/11 01:29, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???
Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for? Whining is easy, build something on your own.
Too strongly stated. I am aware of at least two private rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in the last 4 months. But those efforts have not sought to replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the upstream ships insofar as possible
But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible, because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]
CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten people whining for something, anything, at the expense of potentially harming millions of installations
There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS
-- Russ herrold
Russ,
Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear:
The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or "whining" as you put it) is: ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** about what is going on.
No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months.
All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand that.
and prolong development even further..........
Wow! I didn't know the hard core CentOS supporters was so sensitive to delays that they would complain about developers spending 30 minutes every now and then to write a status update. Their time must be precious ...
What happened to the "It comes when it comes" mantra?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:22:43PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand that.
Couple questions for you, if you wouldn't mind?
Do you complain to Redhat about similar issues? Do you complain to your sales rep about when the next release is going to drop, or what the hold-up on a release is?
Assuming that you're a customer you would be quite dissatisfied with their reply, or to be more accurate, their lack of a reply.
Why must CentOS be held to a different set of standards than the upstream? Redhat posts NO status updates and publishes NO timelines but yet CentOS gets no end of grief over their lack of the same.
I do personally wish that there would be more status updates from TPTB but to be demanding of more updates is ridiculous.
John
On 05/04/11 01:29, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:22:43PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand that.
Couple questions for you, if you wouldn't mind?
Do you complain to Redhat about similar issues? Do you complain to your sales rep about when the next release is going to drop, or what the hold-up on a release is?
Assuming that you're a customer you would be quite dissatisfied with their reply, or to be more accurate, their lack of a reply.
Why must CentOS be held to a different set of standards than the upstream? Redhat posts NO status updates and publishes NO timelines but yet CentOS gets no end of grief over their lack of the same.
Maybe because CentOS and Red Hat are different entities with different goals? Maybe that Red Hat has a much bigger responsibility for their stock holders and that any public exposure of RHEL related things might impact the market speculations which again could hurt the stock price.... you probably get the point ... fact is: CentOS do not have such constraints, being a community project.
And the parts where Red Hat is and can be open about the development phase is in Fedora. Most of you know by now that RHEL6 is based on a Fedora 12/13 base.
I do personally wish that there would be more status updates from TPTB but to be demanding of more updates is ridiculous.
I don't interpret it as a demand, more like a wish for a more open development process and progress - which is not a unreasonable request for a community project. There is nothing bad about voicing this. And I am convinced Brian is correct about that these regular explosions threads with "when does it come" would be considerably reduced with more transparency in the development process.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
I didn't realize it was already CentOS bashing day... oh, it's just Monday.
Really, guys... give it a rest.
I've seen the posts over and over again about "when is 6 going to be out?" I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os available. My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it really matter? 5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it? Other than being able to say" you have the latest and greatest version, are you really gaining anything? Is your machine going to suddenly stop working if you don't get ver. 6 on your machine right now? I don't think so. I'm a small business owner, and I don't have a large IT team to handle software deployments. I have to do it all myself. I'm not looking forward to another OS upgrade, and all the backing up beforehand that goes with it. I just don't see what all the fuse is over.
Jim
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:43 -0700, Ryan Ordway wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now...
I didn't realize it was already CentOS bashing day... oh, it's just Monday.
Really, guys... give it a rest. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/04/2011 06:51 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I've seen the posts over and over again about "when is 6 going tobe out?" I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os available. My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it really matter? 5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it? Other than being able to say" you have the latest and greatest version, are you really gaining anything? Is your machine going to suddenly stop working if you don't get ver. 6 on your machine right now? I don't think so. I'm a small business owner, and I don't have a large IT team to handle software deployments. I have to do it all myself. I'm not looking forward to another OS upgrade, and all the backing up beforehand that goes with it. I just don't see what all the fuse is over.
Jim
A similar, anecdotal story.
I wanted to move to Xen 4.0 and RHCS 3 and decided to jump up to Fedora while waiting for CentOS 6. I spent a lot of time getting this working, and finally did. Against my own best advice, I even put a couple internal clusters into production. I stayed one release back from Fedora's bleeding edge, hoping to stay more secure.
And it was a miserable failure.
So now I've gone back to CentOS 5.5, and Xen 3 / RHCS 2 is very, very stable. My cluster *just works*.
There is a reason it's called the "bleeding edge". It takes time to get things right, and CentOS 5.5 is stable. You won't get cut staying with it.
Besides, I can't think of any X.0 release that was very stable, anyway. If the CentOS devs are working to sort out what Red Hat has changed, then when they get it, they will be largely "there" for 6.1, which is already in beta. They'll likely get CentOS 6.1 out relatively fast, and I expect it will be much more stable that 6.0 on either RH or CentOS.
So all of this is a +1 to Jim's comments.
"You want it done right, or do you want it done right now?"
On 05/04/11 00:51, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I've seen the posts over and over again about "when is 6 going tobe out?" I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os available. My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it really matter? 5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it?
Maybe because the RHEL/CentOS 5.5 kernel got several security issues already?
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0017.html
For some of us CentOS users, this is critical. Especially when there has been no security updates for CentOS 5 since early January.
It was the right decision to postpone CentOS 6 to get CentOS 5.6 out first. But it still have taken a lot longer than what we've been used to.
And for people going to do fresh installs of CentOS, it would be most likely better to aim directly for CentOS 6 than CentOS 5.5/5.6. But the waiting without knowing what to expect when, that is a frustration amplifier, especially for those having project deadlines.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
on 4/4/2011 10:35 AM Hendrik spake the following:
2011/4/4 Gilbert Sebenste sebenste@weather.admin.niu.edu:
Karanbir said on the Twitter account (and elsewhere) roughly 3 weeks after CentOS 5.6 gets released, and that will be hopefully by tomorrow. He says all but 30 packages are OK with CentOS 6, but 5.6 is their first priority.
If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
-- Hendrik
REALLY? More of this crap?
Dear Centos Developers,
Thank you.
I am grateful for all your hard work in providing an enterprise-level OS for my small business. I desire 6.0 for it's ext4/NFS4 support but beggars can't be choosers (Red Hat costs way out of my league).
I have joined the Centos Announce list and will just wait my time. A donation may even be possible if my Wife will let me.... _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Alain Péan -
Anton Parol -
aurfalien＠gmail.com -
Benjamin Smith -
Brian Mathis -
Brunner, Brian T. -
Christopher J. Buckley -
Craig White -
Dag Wieers -
Dave Stevens -
David Brian Chait -
David Sommerseth -
Digimer -
Emmanuel Noobadmin -
Garry Dale -
Greg Neumann of Warwick -
Hendrik -
Ian Murray -
Jerry Franz -
Jimmy Bradley -
John Hodrien -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Keith Keller -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Lucian -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mathieu Baudier -
Max Hetrick -
Michael Simpson -
Ned Slider -
R P Herrold -
R P Herrold -
Radu Gheorghiu -
rainer＠ultra-secure.de -
Raymond Lillard -
Ron Blizzard -
Rudi Ahlers -
Ryan Ordway -
Scott Silva -
Sorin Srbu -
Stephen Harris -
Tamada Wilder -
Timothy Murphy -
Toby Bluhm -
Tom H -
Александр Кириллов