There have been a number of recent conversations on the developer list and this list about CentOS. My initial thought was why not have CentOS and SL merge. Since they have different goals I can understand the reason not to. So my next question is, has no corporate entity offered to sponsor full time people to work on CentOS? It seems like a lot of companies use CentOS for various things. I can't believe no one is willing to help speed development by paying for people to build full time. Has this subject come up before?
As far as I can tell, it is as simple as this:-
The volunteers that create CentOS like things the way it is and it isn't likely to change. We seen it said a number of times, if we don't like it then go somewhere else. I suggest there might be room for another rebuild project that is open to commercially sponsored, i.e. somewhere else. This would n't be a 'rival' because its aims would be different. I'll be honest though, I don't realistically see enough money coming in to put people full-time onto it, though, when you consider market rate for the skills required.
On 03/26/2011 07:46 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
There have been a number of recent conversations on the developer list and this list about CentOS. My initial thought was why not have CentOS and SL merge. Since they have different goals I can understand the reason not to. So my next question is, has no corporate entity offered to sponsor full time people to work on CentOS? It seems like a lot of companies use CentOS for various things. I can't believe no one is willing to help speed development by paying for people to build full time. Has this subject come up before?
As far as I can tell, it is as simple as this:-
The volunteers that create CentOS like things the way it is and it isn't likely to change. We seen it said a number of times, if we don't like it then go somewhere else. I suggest there might be room for another rebuild project that is open to commercially sponsored, i.e. somewhere else. This would n't be a 'rival' because its aims would be different. I'll be honest though, I don't realistically see enough money coming in to put people full-time onto it, though, when you consider market rate for the skills required.
What makes you think CentOS is not willing to be commercially sponsored? (Or only work developing CentOS?)
I would LOVE to be able to do CentOS as my only job.
No one that we know of is willing to pay a full time salary for 1 or 2 or 3 people to develop CentOS. If they would pay for it, we would likely do it.
They might be willing for us to let their current employees do some CentOS things ... but not willing to pay for CentOS development.
Fair enough. I have no complaints with the current volunteers. I was mainly just curious. Thanks for the reply.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ian Murray murrayie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There have been a number of recent conversations on the developer list and
this list about CentOS. My initial thought was why not have CentOS and SL merge. Since they have different goals I can understand the reason not to. So my next question is, has no corporate entity offered to sponsor full time people to work on CentOS? It seems like a lot of companies use CentOS for various things. I can't believe no one is willing to help speed development by paying for people to build full time. Has this subject come up before?
As far as I can tell, it is as simple as this:-
The volunteers that create CentOS like things the way it is and it isn't likely to change. We seen it said a number of times, if we don't like it then go somewhere else. I suggest there might be room for another rebuild project that is open to commercially sponsored, i.e. somewhere else. This would n't be a 'rival' because its aims would be different. I'll be honest though, I don't realistically see enough money coming in to put people full-time onto it, though, when you consider market rate for the skills required.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Gary Scarborough -
Ian Murray -
Johnny Hughes