Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of the iso link. please help......
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:34:42AM +0300, ramazan arslan wrote:
Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of the iso link. please help......
CentOS 6 is not yet available. When it is it will be announced on the mailing lists as well as on http://www.centos.org. I recommend you check the website for updates as to the availability.
John
Thank you...
2011/7/8 John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:34:42AM +0300, ramazan arslan wrote:
Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of the
iso
link. please help......
CentOS 6 is not yet available. When it is it will be announced on the mailing lists as well as on http://www.centos.org. I recommend you check the website for updates as to the availability.
John-- We have joy, we have fun, we have Linux on our Sun!
-- Ralf Hildebrandt
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/07/11 10:34 PM, ramazan arslan wrote:
Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of the iso link. please help......
afaik, it hasn't been released yet. when its released, it will be on all the usual sites, the DVD ISO will likely be torrent only initially to reduce the load on the servers
On 8 July 2011 15:22, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 07/07/11 10:34 PM, ramazan arslan wrote:
Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of the iso link. please help......
afaik, it hasn't been released yet. when its released, it will be on all the usual sites, the DVD ISO will likely be torrent only initially to reduce the load on the servers
According to this http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa the mirrors started syncing last Tuesday. How long does it normally take for everything to sync up?
Mark Bradbury wrote:
On 8 July 2011 15:22, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com mailto:pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 07/07/11 10:34 PM, ramazan arslan wrote: > Where can I download centos 6. where to find the current version of > the iso link. please help...... afaik, it hasn't been released yet. when its released, it will be on all the usual sites, the DVD ISO will likely be torrent only initially to reduce the load on the serversAccording to this http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa the mirrors started syncing last Tuesday. How long does it normally take for everything to sync up?
It should be 2-3 days, but since C6 is larger then C4, C5, it might be 3-4 days. So I would guess that announcement is due today or tomorrow, but this is just guessing, not the statement. They will make first make sure all of the mirrors are properly synced and only then announced availability.
Ljubomir
On 07/08/2011 09:25 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: ...
It should be 2-3 days, but since C6 is larger then C4, C5, it might be 3-4 days. So I would guess that announcement is due today or tomorrow, but this is just guessing, not the statement. They will make first make sure all of the mirrors are properly synced and only then announced availability.
I don't think the sync to mirrors has started yet.
The mirror I run hasn't received anything yet.
Mogens
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
I don't think the sync to mirrors has started yet.
The mirror I run hasn't received anything yet.
It is synced in the background so you do not download anything corrupted or to create the confusion. Once they sync all mirrors they will make those directories visible on all of them.
Ljubomir
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
I don't think the sync to mirrors has started yet.
The mirror I run hasn't received anything yet.
It is synced in the background so you do not download anything corrupted or to create the confusion. Once they sync all mirrors they will make those directories visible on all of them.
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be able to download, since there where last minute changes to some packages and sync to external mirrors should have started last night and should last for 2-3 days. Keep in mind this is only my estimate.
Ljubomir
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
I don't think the sync to mirrors has started yet.
The mirror I run hasn't received anything yet.
It is synced in the background so you do not download anything corrupted or to create the confusion. Once they sync all mirrors they will make those directories visible on all of them.
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be able to download, since there where last minute changes to some packages and sync to external mirrors should have started last night and should last for 2-3 days. Keep in mind this is only my estimate.
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard This is what people were asking for, now we have it! So please, if you want to know about C6 go visit the website, but don't post here... thank you.
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be
able to download, since there where last minute changes to some packages and sync to external mirrors should have started last night and should last for 2-3 days. Keep in mind this is only my estimate.
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard This is what people were asking for, now we have it! So please, if you want to know about C6 go visit the website, but don't post here... thank you.
Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
Really this whole release cycle has been a complete balls up.
the little information we have such as http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa has no history, and changed every week.
now the you have posted some new information at http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard of which I, and I would say most others, were unaware of, which implies that the release has been delayed yet again.
For goodness sake I hope that the next release will be more transparent and professional. It really does not look good for CentOS and open source in general.
.
Mark Bradbury wrote:
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be
> able to download, since there where last minute changes to some packages > and sync to external mirrors should have started last night and should > last for 2-3 days. Keep in mind this is only my estimate. right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard This is what people were asking for, now we have it! So please, if you want to know about C6 go visit the website, but don't post here... thank you.Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
Really this whole release cycle has been a complete balls up.
the little information we have such as http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa has no history, and changed every week.
now the you have posted some new information at http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard of which I, and I would say most others, were unaware of, which implies that the release has been delayed yet again.
since you replied to my post I guess you're talking to me? If so you're wrong: *I* didn't post anything on qaweb.dev.centos.org , I'm just a centos user that went looking for information on that site, clicked on a few links/tabs and found the information I was looking for. Wasn't too hard, no neuronal overheat to report. But I still posted the direct link, so you and others can follow the progress without posting here every other day.
since you replied to my post I guess you're talking to me?
If so you're wrong: *I* didn't post anything on qaweb.dev.centos.org , I'm just a centos user that went looking for information on that site, clicked on a few links/tabs and found the information I was looking for. Wasn't too hard, no neuronal overheat to report. But I still posted the direct link, so you and others can follow the progress without posting here every other day.
I apologise my email was not directed at you
On 7/9/11, Mark Bradbury mark.bradbury@gmail.com wrote:
So
IS IT OUT YET :)
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
IS IT OUT YET :)
Wouldn't it be simpler to add all these little extras together, and enter "Probable appearance on mirrors" on the calendar?
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 12:08:13PM -0300, Edson - PMSS wrote:
Please fix your mail program to operate within RFC guidelines; your mail was only in html, that's not compliant with the standards - it requires a plain text version of your text as well. Please note that this mailing list has a policy against html-only mail:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16
CentOS-6 is not released yet; you are using leaked content which is subject to recall and reissue at any point before the official announcement on this mailing list as well as on http://www.centos.org.
Hopefully the CentOS project will address the issues of the leaking mirrors at some point; from memory I seem to recall nexicom doing this in the past as well. Mirror admins should know better.
John
On Friday, July 08, 2011 10:48 PM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be
> able to download, since there where last minute changes to some packages > and sync to external mirrors should have started last night and should > last for 2-3 days. Keep in mind this is only my estimate. right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard This is what people were asking for, now we have it! So please, if you want to know about C6 go visit the website, but don't post here... thank you.Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
Really this whole release cycle has been a complete balls up.
the little information we have such as http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa has no history, and changed every week.
now the you have posted some new information at http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard of which I, and I would say most others, were unaware of, which implies that the release has been delayed yet again.
For goodness sake I hope that the next release will be more transparent and professional. It really does not look good for CentOS and open source in general.
ascendos is that way ---->
On 7/8/11, Mark Bradbury mark.bradbury@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
Really this whole release cycle has been a complete balls up.
the little information we have such as http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa has no history, and changed every week.
now the you have posted some new information at http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard of which I, and I would say most others, were unaware of, which implies that the release has been delayed yet again.
For goodness sake I hope that the next release will be more transparent and professional. It really does not look good for CentOS and open source in general.
The fact the devs did do something about the complaints, putting up the qaweb is working towards the right direction. Qaweb was mentioned on the mailing list several times already and there is a history of comments posted on it, so we can see where progress is made or issues ran into.
Much better than the total blackout from before.
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
For goodness sake I hope that the next release will be more transparent and professional. It really does not look good for CentOS and open source in general.
The fact the devs did do something about the complaints, putting up the qaweb is working towards the right direction. Qaweb was mentioned on the mailing list several times already and there is a history of comments posted on it, so we can see where progress is made or issues ran into.
Much better than the total blackout from before.
QA web site is also mentioned on CentOS's Facebook page, tweeter and numerous sites (Google gives 1570 hits on "+centos +status +qaweb").
As for professionalism, search in centos-devel mailing list (there are many sites that archive mailinglists) and you will find about 200-300 mails directly connected to this issue and about 20-30 that explain why there is so much delay.
Ljubomir
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7/8/11, Mark Bradbury mark.bradbury@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
Really this whole release cycle has been a complete balls up.
For goodness sake I hope that the next release will be more transparent and professional. It really does not look good for CentOS and open source in general.
The fact the devs did do something about the complaints, Much better than the total blackout from before.
Something is better than nothing, for sufficiently large values of something.
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
//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 7/9/11, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Something is better than nothing, for sufficiently large values of something.
No matter how small the values of something, relatively it is always infinitely better than nothing ;)
On 07/08/2011 03:48 PM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
Reading QA web site, fair estimate is it will take 2-3 days for us to be
Bollocks. this IS the only place to post to, as information is sorely lacking.
the centos user list isnt the best place to communicate process stuff. It has zero tolerance for constructive development around. if you just want stuff coming down to you, subscribe to the rss feed from the qaweb interface.
- KB
On 07/08/2011 01:48 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard
This site is excellent. Now, if I could only adjust the time zone displayed to match my own, so as to make more sense of the timestamps on the various posts in there, that would be perfect. :)
On 7/9/11, Florin Andrei florin@andrei.myip.org wrote:
This site is excellent. Now, if I could only adjust the time zone displayed to match my own, so as to make more sense of the timestamps on the various posts in there, that would be perfect. :)
I think it seems to be on some European time. Based on the 3:38pm 8th July post, it doesn't seem likely to be NA since it's not yet 3pm in most NA places. Given the server's organisation is listed as Belgium maybe that's the time zone :D
Any devs care to enlighten us?
Florin Andrei wrote:
On 07/08/2011 01:48 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard
This site is excellent. Now, if I could only adjust the time zone displayed to match my own, so as to make more sense of the timestamps on the various posts in there, that would be perfect. :)
+1
How is the site excellent if it changes nearly every other day, displays zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people to register and be a part of the community or development process (Now before anyone says its not a development cycle and its only "repackaging" you're full of crap. You're linkedin says you're developing, so that will no longer fly).
It's the most closed source project for open source software I've ever seen.
It's a lack of responsibility, if you don't want to make a commitment, move over; don't keep playing it up like you're doing something positive.
Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6. * Scientific Linux 6 * Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks) * Clear-OS Core (Which is ran by a professional organization instead of a group if you're into that)
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Florin Andrei florin@andrei.myip.orgwrote:
On 07/08/2011 01:48 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard
This site is excellent. Now, if I could only adjust the time zone displayed to match my own, so as to make more sense of the timestamps on the various posts in there, that would be perfect. :)
-- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 04:59:37PM -0400, Steven Crothers wrote:
How is the site excellent if it changes nearly every other day, displays
Um... Perhaps it's just me...
But the QA calendar says "QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These dates are not official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target dates are subject to change."
That indicates, to me at least, that changes should be expected. I would be more concerned if changes did not occur.
zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people to register and be a part of the community or development process (Now before anyone says its not a development cycle and its only "repackaging" you're full of crap. You're linkedin says you're developing, so that will no longer fly).
Linkedin has nothing to do with this and you're just grasping at straws. It's been quite clear that you've no actual understanding of what goes into a respin; in fact, since you've nothing but dirt to sling how about this? I publicly challenge you to put out your own respin. You apparently think that it's easy, so put your money where your mouth is and do it.
It's the most closed source project for open source software I've ever seen.
And yet... You're still here blathering and crying.
It's a lack of responsibility, if you don't want to make a commitment, move over; don't keep playing it up like you're doing something positive.
And where, might I ask, is your contribution? Or do you just like to cry? Should I send you a cartoon of Kleenex?
- Scientific Linux 6
How does SL6 have anything at all to do with "coming out of" CentOS? It's a separate and distinct project with dissimilar goals.
- Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks)
With no updates unless you pay. Yes, that's quite useful for the enterprise.
John
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Steven Crothers steven.crothers@gmail.com wrote:
Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6.
- Scientific Linux 6
- Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks)
- Clear-OS Core (Which is ran by a professional organization instead of a
group if you're into that)
Uh... Scientific Linux didn't "come from" CentOS. It's been in existence since 2004. Oracle Linux? Go for it, if supporting a parasitical, ungrateful corporation is your thing and if you like to pay for updates to them (I would just use Red Hat, if it were me). Clear-OS Core? Strange, I don't see its 6.0 version available for download yet. They've got an alpha out there, but it remains to be seen how will they'll rebuild Red Hat and how long their rebuilding project will last. I'm guessing they'll find it's a lot of work, go back to using CentOS and put their time back into their main product line. But we'll see.
PLEASE STOP. WE DO NOT NEED THIS AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SO CLOSE TO RELEASE.
-☙ Brian Mathis ❧-
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4centos@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Steven Crothers steven.crothers@gmail.com wrote:
Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6.
- Scientific Linux 6
- Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks)
- Clear-OS Core (Which is ran by a professional organization instead of a
group if you're into that)
Uh... Scientific Linux didn't "come from" CentOS. It's been in existence since 2004. Oracle Linux? Go for it, if supporting a parasitical, ungrateful corporation is your thing and if you like to pay for updates to them (I would just use Red Hat, if it were me). Clear-OS Core? Strange, I don't see its 6.0 version available for download yet. They've got an alpha out there, but it remains to be seen how will they'll rebuild Red Hat and how long their rebuilding project will last. I'm guessing they'll find it's a lot of work, go back to using CentOS and put their time back into their main product line. But we'll see.
-- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote: PLEASE STOP. WE DO NOT NEED THIS AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SO CLOSE TO RELEASE.
Except it won't end with the release of 6.0. The same people will immediately go into whining about the release of 6.1. It's FUD -- for what purpose, I don't know.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Brian Mathis wrote:
PLEASE STOP. WE DO NOT NEED THIS AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SO CLOSE TO RELEASE.
+10000000000000000000000000000
FWIW, traffic on the mirror list says C6 is being rsync'd to the external mirrors as I type this.
Regards,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 04:59:37PM -0400, Steven Crothers wrote:
Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6.
- Scientific Linux 6
- Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks)
Yuppers, but not free to update. (I was confused by the site, as they talked about their open yum repo or whatever they called it, but it turned out to be nothing more than what is on the original download, just allowing you to use yum to install it.)
Just mentioning this to hopefully help others avoid the samem misunderstanding.
On 07/08/2011 01:59 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
How is the site excellent if it changes nearly every other day, displays zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people
Take a break, breathe deeply.
Quoting Steven Crothers steven.crothers@gmail.com:
How is the site excellent if it changes nearly every other day, displays zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people to register and be a part of the community or development process (Now before anyone says its not a development cycle and its only "repackaging" you're full of crap. You're linkedin says you're developing, so that will no longer fly).
It's the most closed source project for open source software I've ever seen.
probably no one here wants to take on your personal experiences, no matter how vivid they may be to you...
It's a lack of responsibility, if you don't want to make a commitment, move over; don't keep playing it up like you're doing something positive.
Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6.
Not a complete disaster. CentOS is a viable free/libre OS that serves nicely as an alternative to a paid version and is a handy incubator for Red Hat regardless of that not being a project goal. I have made some criticisms of the release and development model on this list but I also made a suggestion of how to address it and am willing to work toward resolving some problems I see. All points absent from your mail.
What in particular do you suggest?
Dave
- Scientific Linux 6
- Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks)
- Clear-OS Core (Which is ran by a professional organization instead of a
group if you're into that)
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Florin Andrei florin@andrei.myip.orgwrote:
On 07/08/2011 01:48 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
right, there is a website with status updates, and Jeff and others are doing a great job at keeping it up to date (thanks!). http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard
This site is excellent. Now, if I could only adjust the time zone displayed to match my own, so as to make more sense of the timestamps on the various posts in there, that would be perfect. :)
-- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- Steven Crothers steven.crothers@gmail.com
On 07/08/2011 09:59 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people to register and be a part of the community or development process
What there makes you think that is the case ? Plenty of people have joined the efforts in the recent months and have made a massive impact on stuff. I think you are just taking a dig at those people for making the efforts and for actually doing something constructive.
or if you think there is some aspect of that site which causes people to think that they cant help or get involved, then do share - lets see how we can improve that.
there is definitely a lot of scope for people to join, help and make things better - and quite a few have.
- KB
I intend to use the iso images I downloaded for testing and not in a production environment. As there was not found the md5sum and sha1sum files to check the isos. I agree with your recommendation, because in terms of safety, it is best to wait a little longer. I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0. The big advantage is that it aroused the interest of other Linux distributions such as Scientific, ClearOS and Oracle Linux.
Em 09-07-2011 13:02, Karanbir Singh escreveu:
On 07/08/2011 09:59 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
zero useful information on the development cycle, and discourages people to register and be a part of the community or development process
What there makes you think that is the case ? Plenty of people have joined the efforts in the recent months and have made a massive impact on stuff. I think you are just taking a dig at those people for making the efforts and for actually doing something constructive.
or if you think there is some aspect of that site which causes people to think that they cant help or get involved, then do share - lets see how we can improve that.
there is definitely a lot of scope for people to join, help and make things better - and quite a few have.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:23 -0300, Edson - PMSS wrote:
distributions such as Scientific, ClearOS and Oracle Linux.
Scientific Linux, like Centos, is entirely free whilst the remaining two are de facto parasites - attempting to re-sell (for commercial profit) the freely distributed work of Red Hat Inc.
Always Learning wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:23 -0300, Edson - PMSS wrote:
distributions such as Scientific, ClearOS and Oracle Linux.
Scientific Linux, like Centos, is entirely free whilst the remaining two are de facto parasites - attempting to re-sell (for commercial profit) the freely distributed work of Red Hat Inc.
ClearOS is open source, and an excellent product. It's target is Firewall/gateway, or All-in-one with excellent web configuration front-end and marvelous integration of Servers, database, users... Especially suited for noob's or people not wanting to spend time learning administration.
What they charge are additional services like AntiVirus, backup, MX backup, On-line domain copy.... If you do not need them, you don't pay anything. And they used CentOS 5.x for base when they changed from ClarkConnect (with Home and paid Office and Enterprise versions) to ClearOS Foundation.
If it was not for ClarkConnect (rpm based, RHEL at the core), my first Linux server/router/firewall, I might not choose CentOS and might not learn so much about iptables, etc.
Ljubomir
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Always Learning centos@u6.u22.net wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:23 -0300, Edson - PMSS wrote:
distributions such as Scientific, ClearOS and Oracle Linux.
Scientific Linux, like Centos, is entirely free whilst the remaining two are de facto parasites - attempting to re-sell (for commercial profit) the freely distributed work of Red Hat Inc.
Oracle is selling for a profit but the goal of ClearOS Core is to be free just like Scientific Linux and Centos are. Even the ClearOS Enterprise is a free product. If you want additional services on top of ClearOS Enterprise it may cost you but the Core product is and will remain a free product.
-Shad
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
Quoting Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that,
please say what those changes are
and prevent this sort of a situation. But
there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/09/2011 06:34 PM, Dave Stevens wrote:
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that,
please say what those changes are
For one, a lot more people are involved - we have a much more streamlined process in place ( with plenty more scope for improvement ) - and there should be even more info coming through moving forward from 6.0 to 6.1, and more of an opportunity for even more - diverser - set of people to get involved.
btw, artwork is one place where we could really use a hand, right now.
- KB
On 07/09/2011 01:59 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
For one, a lot more people are involved - we have a much more streamlined process in place ( with plenty more scope for improvement )
- and there should be even more info coming through moving forward from
6.0 to 6.1, and more of an opportunity for even more - diverser - set of people to get involved.
btw, artwork is one place where we could really use a hand, right now.
- KB
Are there any published guidelines for artwork?
On 07/09/2011 07:03 PM, Digimer wrote:
btw, artwork is one place where we could really use a hand, right now.
Are there any published guidelines for artwork?
http://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork is a good place to start, I would also recommend grabbing the relevant .src.rpm and working through that.
- KB
On 07/09/2011 01:32 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
Sorry for thread-jacking, but I wanted to start this thread in relation to your comment.
As I understand it, a lot of the delay came from reproducing Red Hat's build environment. That being needed for the binary compatibility. With each new major release, the number of packages, and in turn, the amount of complexity grows.
Is that a correct understanding? If so, then EL7 will be even harder to sort out and will lead to an even longer delay in release.
I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far as updates are concerned.
Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to Red Hat.
If Red Hat could be convinced to help the CentOS team with things like setting up their build environment, they would help foster this potential customer base while investing minimal time and effort. Has anyone in the CentOS team approached Red Hat to discuss some sort of arrangement like this?
As an anecdotal example; We've built our entire infrastructure on CentOS. Now, our clients who are doing well, we are moving to Red Hat proper while still using a lot of CentOS internally and for smaller clients. It's a very smooth fit and transition, thanks to CentOS's binary compatibility.
Just an idea. Thanks for the hard work and I'm anxious to play with CentOS 6!
Digimer wrote:
I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far as updates are concerned.
Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to Red Hat.
My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
And I do agree with you about what Red Hat should do.
Ljubomir
On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Digimer wrote:
I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far as updates are concerned.
Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to Red Hat.
My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
That's nonsense.
Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder, they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal customers from Red Hat.
The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
Ned Slider wrote:
On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Digimer wrote:
I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far as updates are concerned.
Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to Red Hat.
My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
That's nonsense.
Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder, they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal customers from Red Hat.
The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6?
Ljubomir
On 09/07/11 19:35, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
That's nonsense.
Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder, they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal customers from Red Hat.
The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6?
That's just a by-product of the fact that it's never been a goal of upstream to make RHEL a self-hosting distribution. It's not a deliberate act designed to thwart rebuilders, be it Oracle or CentOS or anyone else. And even if it were, then it obviously failed given Oracle, SL and now CentOS have managed to successfully rebuild RHEL-6 (minus trademarks and artwork).
Your comment came across, at least to me, as if Red Hat had deliberately tried to make it harder to rebuild RHEL with some changes they made to 6, and that's simply not the case.
Ned Slider wrote:
That's just a by-product of the fact that it's never been a goal of upstream to make RHEL a self-hosting distribution. It's not a deliberate act designed to thwart rebuilders, be it Oracle or CentOS or anyone else. And even if it were, then it obviously failed given Oracle, SL and now CentOS have managed to successfully rebuild RHEL-6 (minus trademarks and artwork).
I did say harder, not hard or impossible.
Your comment came across, at least to me, as if Red Hat had deliberately tried to make it harder to rebuild RHEL with some changes they made to 6, and that's simply not the case.
Even Oracle had to work on it for 4-5 months before release, enough for Red Hat to assert it self as the way to go if you want "the real thing". That and change in how Kernel is distributed now (all patches are inside one tar file, and not separate as they are in 5.x) tells me that something IS going on, but limited enough not to show Red Hat as the bad wolf. They are business owned by greedy shareholders after all is said and done.
Anyhow, that is my personal impression and opinion, sharpened by many years of double standards, blackmails, attacks, armed conflicts, corrupted politicians and common thieves masked as fighters for democracy, "civil and ascended" NGO's telling us we are all bunch of murderers, etc., my country (Serbia) had endured (and still endures) in last 20 years, all because we refused to surrender to NATO. In first world war we lost 1/3 of the population fighting against Axis countries. In second we lost 1/4 of population fighting against same Axis and bombings of western side of Alied forces at the end of the war. Then in 1990 we endured western-intelligence-agencies-enticed civil war. Then we were bombed in operation "Merciful Angel" in 1999 that bombed our hospitals with cassette and uranium bombs, and you are now telling me that world is in fact pink and corporations all play fair... If I am wrong than I will have to start visiting shrink(s).
Ljubomir
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:23:57AM +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Diatribe about Serbia removed.
Is this really the appropriate list for this type of political pontification?
John
John R. Dennison wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:23:57AM +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Diatribe about Serbia removed.
Is this really the appropriate list for this type of political pontification?
I was one mail away from being shunned as just another crackpot conspiracy theorist because I always look for ulterior motives. People who never been exposed to systematic lying can not comprehend the dept of lies or deceptions and are quick to dismiss anything that is not in their comfort zone. So my intention was to say that I been through a lot since I was 16-17, lied or deceived constantly and in order to stay sane and safe learned to view any appearance from multiple standpoints.
But if I had said it like my last sentence, I would be challenged that it could not be so bad and that I must indeed be paranoid. So I added just a small part of what is sitting on my back and forming my opinion.
The actual point I wanted to make is not what "western world" has done to my country, that has been, is now (Libya for instance) and will be, and I am not moping about that. But looking from the other side of the presented truth (by corporate media) I have witnessed deliberate and opened lies from every single news media from *every* country including mine and from politicians and corporations, so perception that (even) Red Hat is not trying to undermine those he sees as enemies/competitors is for me false.
Since I can only speak from personal experience, I focused on events in my former and current country.
For next few paragraphs forget parties involved and weigh the facts. This is can bee found somewhere on the net.
For example, one picture from Bosnian war where you see Serbian soldiers in in front of the barb wire and hungry civilians behind it was presented to entire world as horrible genocide comparable to Nazi's.
Truth: Serbian television responded to that picture by broadcasting video footage of that same barb wire at the same time at the same place. Video showed soldiers standing *inside* the small open storage surrounded by barb wire and civilians standing around it leaning on to the wire and talking to the members of the press, both western and local. Civilians were some starved refugees given food and crud shelter.
I am sure you can find countless examples just like this one, in each war and on the every side of those wars. I for one have seen numerous accounts in last 20 years only in 600km radius (ex Yugoslavia). But we are oblivious to them and believe news media unless we actually witness some open lie, at witch time we forever stop trusting people explicitly.
I hope this clears things a bit and convince you I was focusing on deception and not the any political agenda.
Ljubomir
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:41 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
The actual point I wanted to make is not what "western world" has done to my country, that has been, is now (Libya for instance) and will be, and I am not moping about that. But looking from the other side of the presented truth (by corporate media) I have witnessed deliberate and opened lies from every single news media from *every* country including mine and from politicians and corporations, so perception that (even) Red Hat is not trying to undermine those he sees as enemies/competitors is for me false.
I hope this clears things a bit and convince you I was focusing on deception and not the any political agenda.
Redhat does not try to undermine enemies/competitors. They get open source and GPL and they have an entire business model based on these two concepts. They do not need to undermine anybody because that is impossible with open source and especially so with software under GPL.
Redhat has gone BEYOND the GPL. The GPL only requires that you make the source and build scripts available to those that you distribute to. Nor are you required to make the source/build scripts available for free. The fact that you can get your grubby hands on the source rpms without even downloading RHEL let alone use/install RHEL is testimony to the fact that Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any would be enemy/competitor. Think about it.
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:41 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
The actual point I wanted to make is not what "western world" has done to my country, that has been, is now (Libya for instance) and will be, and I am not moping about that. But looking from the other side of the presented truth (by corporate media) I have witnessed deliberate and opened lies from every single news media from *every* country including mine and from politicians and corporations, so perception that (even) Red Hat is not trying to undermine those he sees as enemies/competitors is for me false.
I hope this clears things a bit and convince you I was focusing on deception and not the any political agenda.
Redhat does not try to undermine enemies/competitors. They get open source and GPL and they have an entire business model based on these two concepts. They do not need to undermine anybody because that is impossible with open source and especially so with software under GPL.
Redhat has gone BEYOND the GPL. The GPL only requires that you make the source and build scripts available to those that you distribute to. Nor are you required to make the source/build scripts available for free. The fact that you can get your grubby hands on the source rpms without even downloading RHEL let alone use/install RHEL is testimony to the fact that Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any would be enemy/competitor. Think about it.
I see it as excellent business model that helped them be where they are now. The benefit for us/world is indisputable, and I am deeply grateful for that, but be aware that their business is based on giving *service* to their customers, and that board of directors is responsible for bringing ever increasing profit margin to their shareholders. They have found excellent balance, but were pressed from Oracle and they needed more time to distinctively separate from the crowd so customers are reminded that they *are* the leader. But it is only my view of the events, and I might be wrong. Or we both might be partially right.
Ljubomir
Christopher Chan wrote:
Redhat has gone BEYOND the GPL. The GPL only requires that you make the source and build scripts available to those that you distribute to. Nor are you required to make the source/build scripts available for free. The fact that you can get your grubby hands on the source rpms without even downloading RHEL let alone use/install RHEL is testimony to the fact that Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any would be enemy/competitor. Think about it.
1. Red Hat, commercially, has to survive as a financially viable entity. Meaning it must make a profit.
2. Competitors especially large ones like Oracle potentially, if not actually, threaten Red Hat's profit making ability. The potential or actual damage to Red Hat's profits may be small but the more established Oracle's Red Hat Linux becomes, the greater the financial damage to the essential profit making ability of Red Hat. Reduced profits at Red Hat can adversely affect Red Hat's operation and inevitably Centos will suffer to our detriment.
3. Therefore, contrary to your assertion
" Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any " would be enemy/competitor. Think about it."
Red Hat must always consider how to "undermine any would be enemy/competitor" because, ultimately, Red Hat's own survival depends on exactly that type of action. No profits = No Red Hat.
Always Learning wrote:
- Therefore, contrary to your assertion
" Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any " would be enemy/competitor. Think about it."
Red Hat must always consider how to "undermine any would be enemy/competitor" because, ultimately, Red Hat's own survival depends on exactly that type of action. No profits = No Red Hat.
Hey, you are on my side. You should be replying to Chan, not me :-D
you: sorry me: it's ok, no harm done
(just to save few mails ;-) )
Ljubomir
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:31 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 17:29 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Hey, you are on my side.
We are Europeans so we should be bothers AND we both like Centos :-)
OH yes, you lot should be BOTHERS. :-D
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:23 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Redhat has gone BEYOND the GPL. The GPL only requires that you make the source and build scripts available to those that you distribute to. Nor are you required to make the source/build scripts available for free. The fact that you can get your grubby hands on the source rpms without even downloading RHEL let alone use/install RHEL is testimony to the fact that Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any would be enemy/competitor. Think about it.
- Red Hat, commercially, has to survive as a financially viable entity.
Meaning it must make a profit.
- Competitors especially large ones like Oracle potentially, if not
actually, threaten Red Hat's profit making ability. The potential or actual damage to Red Hat's profits may be small but the more established Oracle's Red Hat Linux becomes, the greater the financial damage to the essential profit making ability of Red Hat. Reduced profits at Red Hat can adversely affect Red Hat's operation and inevitably Centos will suffer to our detriment.
- Therefore, contrary to your assertion
" Redhat does not need to and has never tried to undermine any " would be enemy/competitor. Think about it."
Red Hat must always consider how to "undermine any would be enemy/competitor" because, ultimately, Red Hat's own survival depends on exactly that type of action. No profits = No Red Hat.
Redhat closing their bugzilla to clients only or merging all patches to the kernel they maintain for RHEL into one and sans comments is undermining the competition? Oracle can still get the source rpm and rebuild the very same kernel that Redhat puts out there.
Redhat making Oracle do their own legwork as respects kernel maintenance and finding/fixing bugs outside of Redhat knowledge is undermining the competition? You just don't get Redhat do you?
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:41 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
For example, one picture from Bosnian war where you see Serbian soldiers in in front of the barb wire and hungry civilians behind it was presented to entire world as horrible genocide comparable to Nazi's.
Truth: Serbian television responded to that picture by broadcasting video footage of that same barb wire at the same time at the same place. Video showed soldiers standing *inside* the small open storage surrounded by barb wire and civilians standing around it leaning on to the wire and talking to the members of the press, both western and local. Civilians were some starved refugees given food and crud shelter.
Journalists - some are good, some insipid and crap and some are bad - have been known to deliberately "pose" photographs. Some of these fakes have been deliberately misleading. Some of the fakes were motivated by a genuine desire to attempt to convey the seriousness of a situation which they were able to photograph or film themselves.
The war, hopefully the last in Europe, is over. We can not live in the past. Now is time for reconciliation and peace. Soon Serbia will be the 30th? member of the European Union. Remember the words to the EU anthem about brothers (Ode to Joy from Ludwig van Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Van Beethoven is a Dutch name yet Beethoven, born in Bonn, was a German.)
European Unity means peace.
Best regards,
Paul.
Always Learning wrote:
The war, hopefully the last in Europe, is over. We can not live in the past. Now is time for reconciliation and peace. Soon Serbia will be the 30th? member of the European Union. Remember the words to the EU anthem about brothers (Ode to Joy from Ludwig van Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Van Beethoven is a Dutch name yet Beethoven, born in Bonn, was a German.)
AFAIK, Europe will ask us to give up on our province Kosovo in order to enter the Union. If Europe do that, there is not a single Serbian politician brave enough to accept that and end his carrier if not even his life.
Please lets go off-list with this. Thanks.
Ljubomir
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 10:23 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Anyhow, that is my personal impression and opinion, sharpened by many years of double standards, blackmails, attacks, armed conflicts, corrupted politicians and common thieves masked as fighters for democracy, "civil and ascended" NGO's telling us we are all bunch of murderers, etc., my country (Serbia) had endured (and still endures) in last 20 years, all because we refused to surrender to NATO. In first world war we lost 1/3 of the population fighting against Axis countries. In second we lost 1/4 of population fighting against same Axis and bombings of western side of Alied forces at the end of the war. Then in 1990 we endured western-intelligence-agencies-enticed civil war. Then we were bombed in operation "Merciful Angel" in 1999 that bombed our hospitals with cassette and uranium bombs, and you are now telling me that world is in fact pink and corporations all play fair... If I am wrong than I will have to start visiting shrink(s).
Having been very emotional distraught circa 1992-1994 when I repeatedly argued passionately with my work colleagues that western (i.e. British) aircraft attacking Serbian tanks and artillery would stop the massacre of thousands of civilians from all parts of Yugoslavia, I wish to assert that genocide and mass murders by any bunch of people is fundamentally wrong. It is still happening today in Africa and probably elsewhere.
I saw the horrific scenes from Yugoslavia on television night after night while the rest of the world was uncaring and inactive despite the urgency of a determined military response to protect the civilians.
When limited UN Forces intervened, I remember with pride a British army colonel (now a Conservative MP (member of the British Parliament)) angrily telling the murdering military that unless they stopped he would instruct his force to open fire on them.
I visited Beograd during the UN sanctions and witnessed the run-down conditions and the ad hoc petrol filling stations along the main roads - cars parked at 90 degrees to the road with a large plastic container on the bonnet. They said Hungarian petrol (bezine) was best because it contained less water.
I stayed at the Beograd hotel where people were gunned-down. I had a meeting in a building in the middle of the freezing winter with all the windows wide open because the stench of dead bodies from the floor beneath us was overpowering.
I am glad peace has come and I hope Europe never ever again tolerates such a shameful period in its history.
Being friends, working together and respecting others is best.
Always Learning wrote:
Having been very emotional distraught circa 1992-1994 when I repeatedly argued passionately with my work colleagues that western (i.e. British) aircraft attacking Serbian tanks and artillery would stop the massacre of thousands of civilians from all parts of Yugoslavia, I wish to assert that genocide and mass murders by any bunch of people is fundamentally wrong. It is still happening today in Africa and probably elsewhere.
I will be very brief, but we can communicate off-list. That was misconception. JNA, Yugoslav army, was at that time multi-national, mixed on purpose from all sides of the country. In Slovenia, first to secede, JNA soldiers were sent in tanks without ammunition and were gunned down by sedition soldiers.
I saw the horrific scenes from Yugoslavia on television night after night while the rest of the world was uncaring and inactive despite the urgency of a determined military response to protect the civilians.
Civilians were fighting each other. JNA was actually a buffer at the first part of the civil war but was attacked for their superior weapons.
When limited UN Forces intervened, I remember with pride a British army colonel (now a Conservative MP (member of the British Parliament)) angrily telling the murdering military that unless they stopped he would instruct his force to open fire on them.
I visited Beograd during the UN sanctions and witnessed the run-down conditions and the ad hoc petrol filling stations along the main roads - cars parked at 90 degrees to the road with a large plastic container on the bonnet. They said Hungarian petrol (bezine) was best because it contained less water.
I stayed at the Beograd hotel where people were gunned-down. I had a meeting in a building in the middle of the freezing winter with all the windows wide open because the stench of dead bodies from the floor beneath us was overpowering.
That must have been some organized crime related shooting. Belgrade was 200km away from fighting.
I am glad peace has come and I hope Europe never ever again tolerates such a shameful period in its history.
Being friends, working together and respecting others is best.
I totally agree on this one.
I apologies for such off-topic violation to everybody, I am done with this tread on-list. Please send replies to my personal mail if you feel the need to respond.
Ljubomir
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
On 07/09/2011 01:32 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
Sorry for thread-jacking, but I wanted to start this thread in relation to your comment.
As I understand it, a lot of the delay came from reproducing Red Hat's build environment. That being needed for the binary compatibility. With each new major release, the number of packages, and in turn, the amount of complexity grows.
Is that a correct understanding? If so, then EL7 will be even harder to sort out and will lead to an even longer delay in release.
I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far as updates are concerned.
Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions. Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to Red Hat.
If Red Hat could be convinced to help the CentOS team with things like setting up their build environment, they would help foster this potential customer base while investing minimal time and effort. Has anyone in the CentOS team approached Red Hat to discuss some sort of arrangement like this?
As an anecdotal example; We've built our entire infrastructure on CentOS. Now, our clients who are doing well, we are moving to Red Hat proper while still using a lot of CentOS internally and for smaller clients. It's a very smooth fit and transition, thanks to CentOS's binary compatibility.
Just an idea. Thanks for the hard work and I'm anxious to play with CentOS 6!
If Red Hat really wanted or cared about the customers you list here, it could simply make RHEL a free download with security updates. That would require very little spending on their side compared to duplicating their build infrastructure at CentOS and supporting both environments (eg. transfering their knowledge, what makes their product tick, to a open source project where it could be copied by companies seeking to profit from it).
One could make a point that doing that would be a burden for Red Hat in terms of additional head count required to support the non-paying customers and the infrastructure costs, something they would have a hard time promoting internally to shareholders. Let's imagine that all CentOS contributors could be motivated to help RH in such imaginary efforts... RH would be giving direct control of the quality of its product to outsiders. Something already accomplished with Fedora.
Your idea is nice and it's looking at the right perspective, IMHO. However, I don't feel it'll have much traction within Red Hat.
Right now I think it'd be more practical to request any help that is needed (besides servers and hosting) and organize this work to reap the benefits of a larger contributor base. But I'm just a CentOS user that hasn't contributed anything besides promoting it and helping other users, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thanks for your note. I'll wait for the final result. I trust fully in the development team. Mainly by the work done so far and stability achieved.
Em 09-07-2011 14:32, Karanbir Singh escreveu:
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 7/10/2011 8:15 AM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
Thanks for your note. I'll wait for the final result. I trust fully in the development team. Mainly by the work done so far and stability achieved.
Em 09-07-2011 14:32, Karanbir Singh escreveu:
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
What innovations will Cent 6 bring to the party in your opinion?
--Hal.
On 07/10/2011 03:10 PM, Hal Davison wrote:
What innovations will Cent 6 bring to the party in your opinion?
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2010/new-standard.html
Regards, Patrick
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Patrick Lists < centos-list@puzzled.xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 07/10/2011 03:10 PM, Hal Davison wrote:
What innovations will Cent 6 bring to the party in your opinion?
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2010/new-standard.html
Regards, Patrick
It's interesting how that article was released in November 2010 ......
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@...> writes:
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
Because I needed the 6.0 versions of dhcpd and named for some IPv6 testing I was doing, I grabbed Scientific Linux 6.0 right after it was released. I also signed up for the SL mailing list. A couple of weeks ago (June 20th or so) the SL folks announced the availability of SL 5.6. I would interpret this as the SL team chose to work on 6.0 and left 5.6 for later while the CentOS team worked on 5.6 and left 6.0 for later.
I have no insight into what level of support the SL folks get from their sponsoring organization (CERN and Fermilab) but as far as I'm concerned getting the two releases out (5.6 and 6.0) was a dead heat between the two distributions. This is especially true if you consider that the SL team had the benefit of the CentOS team's experience with 5.6. I mention this because it indicates to me that the CentOS process isn't broken. On the other hand, if not getting 5.6 and 6.0 out sooner gets more people involved in helping, it may have long term benefits.
These are just my observations on two different teams working to release the same two releases. Carefully consider what changes you make to the release process. Oh yeah, great job guys and, yes, I'll be moving the SL 6 boxes and VMs back to CentOS as time allows mainly because the community just isn't there for SL (most days the mailing list only has a dozen or so posts; most of them not very technical).
Cheers, Dave
Just so you know, I believe almost all mirrors have 6.0 on their disks.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM, David G. Miller dave@davenjudy.org wrote:
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@...> writes:
Hi,
On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of version 6.0.
yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few months lets try and address all of those.
- KB
Because I needed the 6.0 versions of dhcpd and named for some IPv6 testing I was doing, I grabbed Scientific Linux 6.0 right after it was released. I also signed up for the SL mailing list. A couple of weeks ago (June 20th or so) the SL folks announced the availability of SL 5.6. I would interpret this as the SL team chose to work on 6.0 and left 5.6 for later while the CentOS team worked on 5.6 and left 6.0 for later.
I have no insight into what level of support the SL folks get from their sponsoring organization (CERN and Fermilab) but as far as I'm concerned getting the two releases out (5.6 and 6.0) was a dead heat between the two distributions. This is especially true if you consider that the SL team had the benefit of the CentOS team's experience with 5.6. I mention this because it indicates to me that the CentOS process isn't broken. On the other hand, if not getting 5.6 and 6.0 out sooner gets more people involved in helping, it may have long term benefits.
These are just my observations on two different teams working to release the same two releases. Carefully consider what changes you make to the release process. Oh yeah, great job guys and, yes, I'll be moving the SL 6 boxes and VMs back to CentOS as time allows mainly because the community just isn't there for SL (most days the mailing list only has a dozen or so posts; most of them not very technical).
Cheers, Dave
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/08/2011 10:14 AM, Mogens Kjaer wrote:
I don't think the sync to mirrors has started yet.
Now 6.0 is rolling in on my mirror!
"Rolling" might not be the right word, it's going to take a while:
# du -ks 6.0; sleep 100; du -ks 6.0 35744 6.0 62140 6.0
The 6.0 folder is not readable for external users until the bitflip occurs.
Mogens
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Mogens Kjaer wrote:
The 6.0 folder is not readable for external users until the bitflip occurs.
The implicit statement being that a mirror operator could _jump the gun_ on the official release, and 'have 'the release early. Indeed, in the past some (former) mirror operators released 'early samples' and posted such URLs ... and one of the CD vendors released a non-officially released ISO, that they (assumedly) then had to recall and replace
This turned out to be ill-considered, because the release process is not official until announced, and in one of the past releases, we needed to replace a few files 'at the last minute'
-- Russ herrold
-
Always Learning -
Brian Mathis -
Brunner, Brian T. -
Christopher Chan -
Dave Stevens -
David G. Miller -
David Lemcoe -
Digimer -
Edson - PMSS -
Emmanuel Noobadmin -
Florin Andrei -
Giovanni Tirloni -
Hal Davison -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Karanbir Singh -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Mark Bradbury -
Mogens Kjaer -
Ned Slider -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg -
Patrick Lists -
R P Herrold -
ramazan arslan -
Ron Blizzard -
Rudi Ahlers -
Scott Robbins -
Shad L. Lords -
Steven Crothers -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Diehl