If you deferred releasing a 6.0 and instead immediately started working on 6.1, how much additional time would that add to getting 6.1 out? I'm not so much asking for an actual estimate, as I am whether it would be easier just to go directly to 6.1 if it fixes any issues that make building the release easier.
An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there. Occasionally a .x release breaks the environment and you get situations like 5.6 was.
Just my $0.02 form trolling the lists the last few years. :-)
On 05/20/2011 05:55 AM, Drew wrote:
An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.
You weren't reading the very long thread of the last week or so (I've forgotten when it started...) If that were true, then every .x release would "follow pretty quick". No reason has yet been given to expect 6.1 any more quickly than the average release time (about 6 weeks after 6.0 is released, so maybe 8 weeks from now). Expect it when it's done, and don't hold your breath.
Occasionally a .x release breaks the environment and you get situations like 5.6 was.
Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other releases.
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive, implying an unmet obligation
ex·cuse /ikˈskyo͞os/ Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense. Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify
If CentOS does not meet your needs, Gordon, please use something else. In all cases, please troll elsewhere, if you feel you must troll
-- Russ herrold
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive, implying an unmet obligation
The only obligation that I think exists is for everyone to have reasonable expectations of the project. If I have ever implied otherwise, please point me toward it. I intended no such thing.
Random people keep expressing their belief that 6.1 will, for reasons they do not state, be ready in short order. There is no evidence that 6.1 will take any less time than any other release.
If users had more realistic expectations, there would quite possibly be less discussion regarding release dates. Instead we repeatedly see people expecting a short release and then long threads when that doesn't happen.
I'd be thrilled if 6.1 were ready quickly. I just don't expect it. My obligation to the CentOS team is to observe the time that previous releases have required, to understand that there is a great deal of work involved, and to maintain an expectation that future work will probably be a lot like work that's been done before. I think every user has that obligation to the developers.
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System) is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating System?
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM, R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive, implying an unmet obligation
ex·cuse /ikˈskyo͞os/ Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense. Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify
If CentOS does not meet your needs, Gordon, please use something else. In all cases, please troll elsewhere, if you feel you must troll
-- Russ herrold
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System) is not community based whatsoever.
I don't mind-read as to what a third party meant so well as you, it seems
My intent with cAos (post fedora.us), and with CentOS was to keep available for the FOSS development community at large, the fruit of the distribution integration represented in the 'testers-list' non-public beta group for the former RHL, and the years of work represented there, by people both outside and inside Red Hat. It initially appeared that there would not be a binary form integrated distribution in RPM packaged form. Greg of cAos indeed re-worked a fairly initial installer called 'cinch'
It was not at all clear that Red Hat would not threaten litigation to close such efforts down. They had made such threats previously to one of the other co-founders of the CentOS sub-project of cAos, as to a RHL rebuild and respin he had marketed
To suggest that CentOS is 'not community based whatsoever' will come as a great surprise to the donors of bug triage effort, of mirroring effort, of wiki authoring, of forum participation, of live-CD 'mixing', and so forth
But as hughesjr mentioned just last week, letting random people (seemingly a 'community of random and untrusted persons') feed content that would end up signed in the CentOS project's name, is simply not going to happen. CentOS has never been about that
A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager inadvertently introduced a 'one way' library version bump, impairing the maintainability of that release going forward; The ATrpms v. DAG archive approach on pushing new versions of certain core packages shows two approaches, and the DAG non-invasive approach is clearly the mind-share winner -- We've [the third-party packaging community] (at least, I've been in projects that have) tried variants of 'anyone's code is welcome' distribution adjunct preparation before, and it does not work well
CentOS binaries creation process is by and large is a very literal and non-creative effort
If people want to start their own rebuild efforts, peace be with them, and good luck. But fostering spin-off's is not what CentOS is about -- and people railing to the heavens about how unfair it is that THEIR false expectations (based on some amorphous vision of how great something COULD be, if only ... ) are not met by the CentOS core team, are simply making noise here
-- Russ herrold
2011/5/23 R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com
A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager inadvertently introduced a 'one way' library version bump, impairing the maintainability of that release going forward;
considering how big were the conversations about what should {not} be done, maybe you're around the critical mass point, and this idea should be reconsidered for the benefit of both the project {developers} and the user's community.
On 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System) is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating System?
I have said this a million times ... but you are flat out wrong.
The "community" does many, many things for CentOS.
It is the community that makes the CentOS Fora one of the best place to get information.
The community does all the articles on the CentOS Wiki.
It is the Community that answers questions on bugs.centos.org
It is the community that does the graphics for CentOS.
It is the community that is currently doing the website redesign.
It is the community that is on the QA team, testing before release.
It is the community that provides all the "technical support".
We never said, anywhere, that the community would build the packages, nor did we say we would teach people how to make the distribution ... what we said 8 years ago was this:
"CentOS exists to provide a free enterprise class computing platform to anyone who wishes to use it."
and
"Our purpose is to provide stable Linux solutions for organizations and individuals who do not need strong commercial support to achieve successful operation."
In both of those statements, the CentOS Project is "to provide" ... and the community is "to use" (if they choose to). The community provide support for each other in the absence of commercial support.
It does not now, nor did it ever say, that a CentOS goal was to teach anyone how "to produce" anything.
On 5/23/11 4:44 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
The "community" does many, many things for CentOS.
And some of those things could probably be better too, but...
We never said, anywhere, that the community would build the packages, nor did we say we would teach people how to make the distribution ...
[...] Why not just cut to the chase here and get to what could possibly be done to make this happen faster?
It does not now, nor did it ever say, that a CentOS goal was to teach anyone how "to produce" anything.
Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current situation? If more community participation is off the table, what else could help?
--- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current situation? If more community participation is off the table, what else could help?
Johnny points out that we get crickets at he end of these threads ... the last paragraph of this email proposes a solution YOU should like and find COMPLETELY meets your needs
The issuance sequencing of the recent 4 and 5 updates were intentionally placed ahead of 6. I've published such a method for non-root rpm building in my personal 'tips' webpage dating from before there WAS a CentOS, in the CentOS wiki, and in this mailing list. We have an unsolicited confirmation on this mailing list that the method outlined used works, for those people who find themselves constrained by the requirements of self or others to 'front-run CentOS' release of such, and put non-centos content in place pending CentOS' formal release of such
If a person NEEDS updates the second the upstream issues them, and is unwilling to follow the self-build front-run method, they probably need a SLA from a vendor meeting their requirements. CentOS does not offer such, and has no intentions of doing so
Tell you what, Les -- YOU build what you want, optionally gathering a 'community', and document what YOU want, and tell us the URL. We'll all be richer for it. I'll be happy to see more than talk from you. But then I expect to hear ... crickets
-- Russ herrold
R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current situation? If more community participation is off the table, what else could help?
Tell you what, Les -- YOU build what you want, optionally gathering a 'community', and document what YOU want, and tell us the URL. We'll all be richer for it. I'll be happy to see more than talk from you. But then I expect to hear ... crickets
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
Why not just say, "Sorry, Les, there's nothing you can do to help", if that is in fact the situation.
Personally, I don't mind when CentOS-6 (or 6.1) comes out, as I am perfectly happy with (and grateful for) CentOS-5.6, and haven't seen anything in RHEL 6.0 that would help my rather simple needs in running a small home server.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
You must be new to this mailing list :)
no -- this post was intentional on my part as part of a new approach to this mailing list's 'poisonous people' [1] ... I am going to try: stop ignoring public misbehaviour, and rather point it out expressly (that is: 'shame' rather than 'shun')
Sort of like St. Patrick driving the Celtic snake spirits out of Ireland
'Banishment' either by way of unsubscription, or moderation cannot work -- a troll will just subscribe another sock puppet
Well-known trolls who find their entertainment during the workday sowing discontent here, with the techniques of 'Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation' [2] and otherwise, will be invited by me to put up or shut up
We'll see how (and if) this works -- it formerly worked well in the IRC channel where we could use a LART; dunno that it will work here
-- Russ herrold
[1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 [2] Google knows ... This enumeration seems to be of unknown authorship, but 'rings true' for much seen here
2011/5/23 R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
You must be new to this mailing list :)
no -- this post was intentional on my part as part of a new approach to this mailing list's 'poisonous people' [1] ... I am going to try: stop ignoring public misbehaviour, and rather point it out expressly (that is: 'shame' rather than 'shun')
Sort of like St. Patrick driving the Celtic snake spirits out of Ireland
'Banishment' either by way of unsubscription, or moderation cannot work -- a troll will just subscribe another sock puppet
Well-known trolls who find their entertainment during the workday sowing discontent here, with the techniques of 'Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation' [2] and otherwise, will be invited by me to put up or shut up
We'll see how (and if) this works -- it formerly worked well in the IRC channel where we could use a LART; dunno that it will work here
i'm afraid you're caught in a trap: you believe that people expressing their feelings here the most are trols, when they are probably among the users who cares most about the project and thus are trying by any means they have (that is, only emails) to help the project.
regarding the fact we are not contributing as much as we want to the project, i'm afraid is basicaly a documentation problem. i'd personally like to do something to help, but i don't have the required education to do that. i only have the will. i may be not alone in this position. please forgive me for expressing my thoughts, but i do care about centos and i'm afraid that without users, the developers will no longer have much reasons to continue it. centos has gathered imho more than the required critical mass, it would be a pitty to die just because there is a lack of understanding between users and developers.
On 05/23/2011 09:08 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
regarding the fact we are not contributing as much as we want to the project, i'm afraid is basicaly a documentation problem. i'd personally like to do something to help, but i don't have the required education to do that.
Fedora provides excellent documentation on packaging: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
Since CentOS is a rebuild only, packaging is not largely required, but familiarity with the tools used to build it is probably helpful anyway.
2011/5/23 Gordon Messmer yinyang@eburg.com
On 05/23/2011 09:08 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
regarding the fact we are not contributing as much as we want to the project, i'm afraid is basicaly a documentation problem. i'd personally like to do something to help, but i don't have the required education to do that.
Fedora provides excellent documentation on packaging: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
Since CentOS is a rebuild only, packaging is not largely required, but familiarity with the tools used to build it is probably helpful anyway. __
thank you very much.
R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
You must be new to this mailing list :)
no -- this post was intentional on my part as part of a new approach to this mailing list's 'poisonous people' [1] ... I am going to try: stop ignoring public misbehaviour, and rather point it out expressly (that is: 'shame' rather than 'shun')
Sort of like St. Patrick driving the Celtic snake spirits out of Ireland
'Banishment' either by way of unsubscription, or moderation cannot work -- a troll will just subscribe another sock puppet
Well-known trolls who find their entertainment during the workday sowing discontent here, with the techniques of 'Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation' [2] and otherwise, will be invited by me to put up or shut up
We'll see how (and if) this works -- it formerly worked well in the IRC channel where we could use a LART; dunno that it will work here
-- Russ herrold
[1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 [2] Google knows ... This enumeration seems to be of unknown authorship, but 'rings true' for much seen here _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the link, most enlightening and I wish you every success in your efforts to improve the SNR.
ChrisG
On May 23, 2011, at 7:50 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
You must be new to this mailing list :)
no -- this post was intentional on my part as part of a new approach to this mailing list's 'poisonous people' [1] ... I am going to try: stop ignoring public misbehaviour, and rather point it out expressly (that is: 'shame' rather than 'shun')
Sort of like St. Patrick driving the Celtic snake spirits out of Ireland
'Banishment' either by way of unsubscription, or moderation cannot work -- a troll will just subscribe another sock puppet
Well-known trolls who find their entertainment during the workday sowing discontent here, with the techniques of 'Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation' [2] and otherwise, will be invited by me to put up or shut up
We'll see how (and if) this works -- it formerly worked well in the IRC channel where we could use a LART; dunno that it will work here
---- - Timothy Murphy has been on the list a fairly long time
- Gordon Messmer is hardly someone I would ever accuse of being a troll but it's clear you have an agenda that permits you to only see black and white
- the link you provided emphasized that the way to protect your open source project is 'Politeness, respect, trust, and humility.' Perhaps you should review the link that you provided.
Craig
2011/5/23 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
I have said this a million times ... but you are flat out wrong.
The "community" does many, many things for CentOS.
It is the community that makes the CentOS Fora one of the best place to get information.
The community does all the articles on the CentOS Wiki.
It is the Community that answers questions on bugs.centos.org
It is the community that does the graphics for CentOS.
It is the community that is currently doing the website redesign.
It is the community that is on the QA team, testing before release.
It is the community that provides all the "technical support".
We never said, anywhere, that the community would build the packages, nor did we say we would teach people how to make the distribution ...
Hi Johnny,
I think the problem is the long waiting time.
For example:
CentOS 4.0 = 23 days after RHEL 4.0 CentOS 5.0 = 28 days after RHEL 5.0 CentOS 6.0 = 192 days + CentOS 6.1 = ???
The next problem: After the release of CentOS 6.0, there are no current (6.1) security updates for CentOS 6.0.
How about a fundamental change? A completely open development process like at Fedora?
CentOS is a great operating system. But many people have lost confidence in CentOS. ... No security updates for months and very long release cycles.
Best regards,
Morten
How about a fundamental change? A completely open development process like at Fedora?
Fedora is not suitable to what CentOS is, for several reasons. 1: Fedora is a bleeding-edge engineering development project, CentOS is a reverse-engineering effort. 2: Fedora is for avid hobbyists, CentOS is for the whole Linux-based computing industry. 3: Fedora has no promise to any company that their product does what is expected, CentOS has one promise: bug-for-bug-identical with RHEL.
Fedora is Perpetual Beta, CentOS is never less than "no-surprises" Rock Solid.
CentOS does not ever miss a delivery date promise, because it NEVER MAKES any delivery date promise.
CentOS is a great operating system. But many people have lost
Count the "many" please. Show where you get the "many", please. "I am called Legion, for we are many". (with apologies to the several thousand devils who were subsequently given leave to enter into several thousand swine, who have yet to complain about CentOS' much-awaited delivery).
Posters on this list are "The Few, The Loud, The Marines" (with apologies to any Real Marines who read this list).
The "closed, trusted builders" of CentOS are going to stay that way for as long as a "no-surprises" build-target remains a build-target.
It's not about "time to release", it's about trust among the builders as to what is built, called CentOS, and released.
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 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System) is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating System?
OH ... and did you see this:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-May/007605.html
Here, we are asking for someone to get involved with the project. As usual, the trolls who say CentOS is closed do not volunteer to help actually do things. Nothing from them but the sound of crickets when we actually ask for help.
On 05/23/2011 03:01 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Here, we are asking for someone to get involved with the project. As usual, the trolls who say CentOS is closed do not volunteer to help actually do things. Nothing from them but the sound of crickets when we actually ask for help.
I did. However, I don't have an RHEL 6 subscription or access to the QA trees, so there's not much I can do to contribute. I could provide a working definition for a Fedora 13 live CD, which would *probably* work, but there's no acceptance criteria. What was it about Patrice's work that you found unsatisfactory?
Gordon Messmer wrote on 05/23/2011 11:41 AM:
What was it about Patrice's work that you found unsatisfactory?
I don't think anyone found Patrice's work unsatisfactory. He just stated that he did not have much time to work on the CentOS-6 LiveCD/DVD and asked for someone else to take the lead.
Phil
On 05/23/2011 10:06 AM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
I don't think anyone found Patrice's work unsatisfactory. He just stated that he did not have much time to work on the CentOS-6 LiveCD/DVD and asked for someone else to take the lead.
If it's satisfactory, the live cd would be considered done. If work remains, then the work that has been done isn't satisfactory. Perhaps you are using a different definition of satisfactory than I intended.
What is the acceptance criteria for a live CD? What would constitute completion of this work?
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive, implying an unmet obligation
ex·cuse /ikˈskyo͞os/ Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.
Having slept on that, I don't think my previous reply was direct to your accusation.
Yes, I think that the explanation offered my many of the list's members is an excuse.
It's an excuse when the people who offer it up have no insight into the process of building the distribution, or the actual challenges that held up the release.
It's an excuse when it's offered up like an aberration. There is nothing unusual about simultaneous releases from the upstream vendor. There is no reason for users of CentOS to expect that Red Hat will not make simultaneous or near simultaneous point releases in the future.
5.6 was what all CentOS releases are: the work of a small group of volunteers who are providing something of great value at no financial cost. I trust that they are doing their best. All that I expect of anyone is that they consider the facts of CentOS release history and not have unreasonable expectations of the developers. The work of releasing the distribution is obviously greater than they are able to manage in a shorter amount of time. That's not an accusation. It's not a complaint. It's not whining. It's an observation of the facts, and I think that all users should accept it. With a clear and rational view of the facts, users should be expected to have realistic expectations of the distribution. It's not realistic to expect that 6.1 is going to be available any less than 6-8 weeks from now.
My entire participation in the last long thread was directed at users who have unrealistic expectations of the CentOS release team. One, in particular, thought that 6.1 should be available in less than a month. In the last two years, only 4.9 was released that quickly. Expecting a new release in less than 30 days is unrealistic and leads to disappointment and frustration among users. And suddenly, for a few messages in one thread, I'm "customarily" a troll? I don't post often, and when I do I try to provide useful information. I'm somewhat upset. I think you've completely misinterpreted what was stated in the presentation to which you linked. Protecting your project does not mean labeling every person that you disagree with a troll and blasting them. You've been quite rude, and I hope you reconsider this new personal policy.
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote: Having slept on that, I don't think my previous reply was direct to
your
accusation.
<snip>
My entire participation in the last long thread was directed at users who have unrealistic expectations of the CentOS release team. One, in particular, thought that 6.1 should be available in less than a month. In the last two years, only 4.9 was released that quickly. Expecting a new release in less than 30 days is unrealistic and leads to disappointment and frustration among users. And suddenly, for a few messages in one thread, I'm "customarily" a troll? I don't post often, and when I do I try to provide useful information. I'm somewhat upset. I think you've completely misinterpreted what was stated in the presentation to which you linked. Protecting your project does not mean labeling every person that you disagree with a troll and blasting them. You've been quite rude, and I hope you reconsider this new personal policy.
R P Herrold reacted to mail that looked like totally unnecessary. I will not get into his reaction, but I was confused why you sent that mail and to whom was directed. I was not able to find a point that was not said, and was wondering why you posted it, then I disregarded it and forgot it. I guess Herrold misinterpreted your post for trying to stir trouble.
I was first to suggest that C6.1 **might** be released in **about** a month from C6.0. Why? Because I suspect that since RHEL 6.1 srpms are already published, devs could use free time, while waiting for QA team to find bugs, to dry-run 6.1 srpms and see how many problems there are. Any having fresh experience with 6.0, they do not need to try to remember what was it that made a problem several months ago, in case of version to version time span. I believe that devs are already working on 6.1, lightly but steadily.
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
Ljubomir
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following: <snip>
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
<snip> > > Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war. > I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture just *wasn't* what it was cracked up to be....
mark "we couldn't find an unpersoned car *anywhere*"
On 5/23/2011 1:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture just *wasn't* what it was cracked up to be....
Hey, it's a free service - you can't complain if it isn't ready at the expected time. Maybe there were some concurrent projects that no one else could manage.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/23/2011 1:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture just *wasn't* what it was cracked up to be....
Hey, it's a free service - you can't complain if it isn't ready at the expected time. Maybe there were some concurrent projects that no one else could manage.
ROTFLMAO!
mark "and I didn't even get the t-shirt...."
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
<snip> > > Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war. > I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and rumours of wars. . .
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
<snip> > > Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war. > I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and rumours of wars. . .
That's ok, this isn't the thread you want. Move along, move along....
mark "you can go about your business..."
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
<snip> > > Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war. > I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and rumours of wars. . .
Flamewars and rumors of flamewars...
That's ok, this isn't the thread you want. Move along, move along....
mark "you can go about your business..."
Jedi and their "never mind" tricks. Jeesh.
When the 7th seal is opened there will be "silence in heaven for about the space of half an hour" (Rev 8:1), implying that the net will be down world-wide. THAT will cause Armageddon all by itself (Rev 9:16, 16:16).
Shortly thereafter an Angel will decree that there will be time no longer (Rev 10:6). THAT will wreck *serious* havoc for all time- or time-card related businesses and laws. Synchronous data streams will be "a thing of the past" (pun intended). Skynet will probably launch on everybody (Rev 13:13), as it can't tell friend from foe, as all tokens are "timed out" (pun intended).
Yesiree, before the Great Rapture, we who read this list are all going to be out of work.
Who want to try to top me for spiritual silliness?
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**
Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
<snip> > > Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war. > I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and rumours of wars. . .
Flamewars and rumors of flamewars...
That's ok, this isn't the thread you want. Move along, move along....
mark "you can go about your business..."Jedi and their "never mind" tricks. Jeesh.
When the 7th seal is opened there will be "silence in heaven for about the space of half an hour" (Rev 8:1), implying that the net will be down world-wide. THAT will cause Armageddon all by itself (Rev 9:16, 16:16).
Nahhh, the 'Net won't be down, but all those people who a) should never be allowed near a keyboard, and b) have said something WRONG on the 'Net, will suddenly be silenced, whether because they've suddenly thought about what they were saying, or because millions of voices suddenly cry out in fear and terror....
And then we'll be able to log them off, and finish cleaning the Internet.
Shortly thereafter an Angel will decree that there will be time no longer (Rev 10:6). THAT will wreck *serious* havoc for all time- or
No, in fact, time will be shorter - they'll announce a new shorter tick for the atomic clocks.
time-card related businesses and laws. Synchronous data streams will be
Ah, but ethernet packets will continue, correctly.
"a thing of the past" (pun intended). Skynet will probably launch on everybody (Rev 13:13), as it can't tell friend from foe, as all tokens are "timed out" (pun intended).
And they'll have to resort to using RFC 1149 or RFC 2549.
Yesiree, before the Great Rapture, we who read this list are all going to be out of work.
I thought that wasn't till Oct. 21. Or maybe he's missed another decimal point. Wonder if it will coincide with the prediction from latest edition of Edgar Cayce's posthumous book, of when Atlantis will rise from the Atlantic?
Who want to try to top me for spiritual silliness?
All I can say is, beam us up Scotty, there's *no* intelligent life here.
mark
on 5/24/2011 1:06 PM Brunner, Brian T. spake the following: <snip>
When the 7th seal is opened there will be "silence in heaven for about the space of half an hour" (Rev 8:1), implying that the net will be down world-wide. THAT will cause Armageddon all by itself (Rev 9:16, 16:16).
I thought the silence in heaven line meant that women will be showing up later! ;)
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 04:06 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
Yesiree, before the Great Rapture, we who read this list are all going to be out of work.
Who want to try to top me for spiritual silliness?
You've already been topped if you have not noticed by a certain person who's been trumpeting dates for many years. It's really funny that Rev 8 talks about trumpets and destruction hitting a third of various things...when apparently a third of the world population are Christian. How's trumpeting your own doom for spiritual silliness?
--On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:46 PM -0400 "James B. Byrne" byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and rumours of wars. . .
Delayed until October. :P
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
On 05/23/2011 11:02 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I was first to suggest that C6.1 **might** be released in **about** a month from C6.0. Why? Because I suspect that since RHEL 6.1 srpms are already published, devs could use free time, while waiting for QA team to find bugs, to dry-run 6.1 srpms and see how many problems there are. Any having fresh experience with 6.0, they do not need to try to remember what was it that made a problem several months ago, in case of version to version time span. I believe that devs are already working on 6.1, lightly but steadily.
I've never seen the developer suggest that releases are longer because they don't remember how the last one was finished.
The point that Dag and I were trying to make, I think, was simply that your expectations are unrealistic.
Unrealistic expectations aren't helping anyone. They're not good for users, and they breed frustration when they're not met.
A lot of the conversation in that thread was centered around the highly contentious issue of whether or not the release delays constitute a problem. That's a separate issue, which everyone should evaluate based on their own needs. However, no one can properly evaluate that question without realistic expectations regarding the time required to produce releases and patches.
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I've never seen the developer suggest that releases are longer because they don't remember how the last one was finished.
Where on earth did you dig this out? I said they **could** be faster since it is all fresh in their memory. I was explaining what conclusion made me say my *estimate* of *possible* time frame and you draw devs into this and make strange claims not directly connected to what I was saying.
The point that Dag and I were trying to make, I think, was simply that your expectations are unrealistic.
NO. Entire thread was derailed long before my e-mail, and flame-war only used my "expectation" (I would say an guessed estimate) as a jumping point for it's own claims, just touching my e-mail when otherwise insane rhetoric was depleted and you (meaning **all** participants of that insanity, on both sides) needed more ammunition.
And No, I will not reply anymore to this topic, whatever is said. I have much more pressing things to do then discuss about semantics.
Ljubomir
-
Brunner, Brian T. -
Chris Geldenhuis -
Christopher Chan -
cornel panceac -
Craig White -
Drew -
Gordon Messmer -
James B. Byrne -
Johnny Hughes -
Kenneth Porter -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Morten P.D. Stevens -
Phil Schaffner -
R P Herrold -
Scott Silva -
Steven Crothers -
Timothy Murphy