no, trolling works much better on high volume lists like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll" is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll" was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a "legitimate" one, but a "wicked" attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe "trolling" was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself!
Sincerely, I believe that whoever is accusing *anyone* of "trolling" is a stupid asshole.
Since when critical conversation is not "politically correct" and even denied in the era of the hyper-inflated, arrogant Linux and BSD developers and users?
R-C
__________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll" is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll" was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a "legitimate" one, but a "wicked" attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe "trolling" was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself!
Sincerely, I believe that whoever is accusing *anyone* of "trolling" is a stupid asshole.
Since when critical conversation is not "politically correct" and even denied in the era of the hyper-inflated, arrogant Linux and BSD developers and users?
R-C
__________________________________________________________________Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Over the line now!! Please stop!
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:37:17AM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll" is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll" was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a "legitimate" one, but a "wicked" attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe "trolling" was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself!
This excerpt is more informed:
gnome-dictionary --look-up troll
Troll Troll, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Trolled; p. pr. & vb. n. Trolling.] [OE. trollen to roll, F. tr[^o]ler, Of. troller to drag about, to ramble; probably of Teutonic origin; cf. G. trollen to roll, ramble, sich trollen to be gone; or perhaps for trotler, fr. F. trotter to trot (cf. Trot.). Cf. Trawl.]
Mihai
enough is enough already.
can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian FOTESCU aka beranger5ca@yahoo.ca
please?????
not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language & behavior are more than inappropriate for such a professional atmosphere that has been developed and become a long term testimony at centos.org
it is most difficult, yet i will resist any further comment at this time.
- rh
enough is enough already.
can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian FOTESCU aka beranger5ca@yahoo.ca
please?????
not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language & behavior are more than inappropriate for such a professional atmosphere that has been developed and become a long term testimony at centos.org
i support this motion. i think karanbir or whoever is the admin should step in.
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the Cento's team would have responded in a timely matter to the original yes/no question of this thread, maybe this thread wouldn't have deviated to the point at which is at. Something definitely got lost in the translation, but in the future, if someone speaks on the behalf of Centos, please make sure that the information remains consistent with Centos' goals. And the goal as far as I can tell is very simple... 100% RH compatibility. Please warn us in advance the moment Centos plans to break 100% RH compatibility.
RC, check the original post again, and then your answer. You actually ignore the second half of what you quote,
"> A quick look at http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=centos
shows that a great majority of the packages are not even close to being "up-to-date", and that is a good thing for those us of who care more about stability than eyecandy"
you probably didn't even bother to read the rest of the message:
">From the comment "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)..." is is safe to assume that future releases of Centos will remain a "built from publicly available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork).", AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository??"
and then you hijack the thread and start talking about version numbers, Dag, repositories, and suitable distros.
NO... Dag, suitability, version numbers, and repositories were not the question. Again, the question, which has a rather simple YES/NO answer, and which only someone from the Centos team could answer(and they already did a couple of days ago):
"is is safe to assume that future releases of Centos will remain a "built from publicly available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork).", AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository???
The quoted staff is from Centos website.
And if you wonder why I asked this question, re-read the orginal post to put the question into context.
bn
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the Cento's team would have responded in a timely matter to the original yes/no question of this thread,
... and an allegedly 'yes or no' question can take three and a half 24 line screens to set forth? The world is not so simple
The CentOS project team strives to issue a product and update stream that replicates, substantially exactly, warts and all, its upstream from freely available sources, to yield binaries which are ABI indistinguishable, with a couple of exceptions. These relate to eliding trademarked matter and replacing it with CentOS trademarked and copyrighted art; and providing a suitable updater mechanism (as the sources for the server side of 'up2date' are not FOSS and have not been released -- at all when the project started, and still not in full even to the present day)
The 'base product' variant that does this is the 'base' and 'updates' archives. The end user of CentOS may choose to add other archives (with varying results), either officially from CentOS mirrors [plus, testing, and adjuncts for various upstream products not in mainline]; from individual archives published by present or former CentOS team members [KB's, DAG, then RPMforge, elRepo]; or from non-affiliated persons [Atomic Rocket Turtle, EPEL]
Customized 'one disk' installers, or live CD's have been tried by the project from time to time; ditto testing extensions to architectures not supported upstream (and frankly, probably lacking sufficient mass to be viable [I am in process on a local 5.3 s390x port, in my idle moments, for relaxation])
The membership of the CentOS team has waxed and waned over time. The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project, some participants in a 'Enterprise Linux Rebuild' mailing list, and other standalone projects. New project team members are added by invitation and largely represent a meritocracy, run in a self-perpetuating fashion. CentOS is not Fedora, OpenSuSE, or any other distribution, and is not 'beholden' to any outside organization
The heart and core of the distribution is those (very few core team) members able to cause the relevant CentOS private key to 'sign' binary RPH packages; scarcely less important is the mirror distribution network, and the seamless coverage and scaling which we have been able to achive with the help of the mirror members. I stop here, as the contributions are too numerous to mention
Demonstrating competence in the support functions is readily approachable, and a good way to 'join' the work of the project -- IRC, forums, wiki, mailing lists -- and as I mentioned in a earlier post to this list, noticed and noted as to character and quality. People adding value are often offered a change to undertake increasingly more critical contributions to the project
-- Russ herrold
----- Original Message ----
From: R P Herrold herrold@centos.org To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 6:18:15 PM Subject: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the Cento's team would have responded in a timely matter to the original yes/no question of this thread,
... and an allegedly 'yes or no' question can take three and a half 24 line screens to set forth? The world is not so simple
No Russ, not in this case. The official answer, a few days ago, took exactly one word line, and one more line (2 answers).
The CentOS project team strives to issue a product and update stream that replicates, substantially exactly, warts and all, its upstream from freely available sources, to yield binaries which are ABI indistinguishable, with a couple of exceptions. These relate to eliding trademarked matter and replacing it with CentOS trademarked and copyrighted art; and providing a suitable updater mechanism (as the sources for the server side of 'up2date' are not FOSS and have not been released -- at all when the project started, and still not in full even to the present day)
I agree with you 100%, I understand the goal of Centos, and I use Centos because of exactly that goal of trying to be 100% RH compatible. And to take it a step further, I do relate (RH and 100% RH compatibility) with stability, stability which I rather have even at the expense of having to put up with 3 year old versions of applications such as php and others.
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..." or any other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives.
Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future:
"It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future."
http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-syste...
This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised.
bn
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..."
ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do as well; and the CentOS project [and the upstream] document these matters in release notes as to the up-to-date changes done. Upstream decided on most of them, or we made a minimal delta to get the packageset to stabilize. So what? The project cannot cater to people who won't read nor pay attention.
I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives.
'a lot?' ... we disagree
That said: Choice is good -- keeping an eye on options is good. So what?
Straining at gnats and worrying about scope creep by CentOS in 'base' and 'updates' is a wasted effort, so long as one remains in those archives. As I said before, 'no-one forces you to use any third party repository'
-- Russ herrold
----- Original Message ----
From: R P Herrold herrold@centos.org To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 8:51:35 PM Subject: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..."
ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do as well; and the CentOS project [and the upstream] document these matters in release notes as to the up-to-date changes done. Upstream decided on most of them, or we made a minimal delta to get the packageset to stabilize. So what? The project cannot cater to people who won't read nor pay attention.
Russ, this was about a comment about "up-to-date desktop packages", not a comment about "up-to-date changes". Just because the release notes contains "up-to-date changes", it doesn't necessarily mean that the "up-to-date xxx package" is installed. But maybe I wrong, please point to one current "up-to-date package" in Centos or RH for that matter. And by up-to-date package I don't mean a stable, but un-supported package (ie PHP)
I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives.
'a lot?' ... we disagree
Are you disagreeing with the number (a lot) of users who use Centos because they need/want an RH clone, or/and are you disagreeing with the number (a lot) of users who would leave Centos if Centos breaks RH compatibility?
It should be easy to find out. Conduct a poll.
That said: Choice is good -- keeping an eye on options is good. So what?
Choice is good and somtimes overrated, but stability is always better.
Straining at gnats and worrying about scope creep by CentOS in 'base' and 'updates' is a wasted effort, so long as one remains in those archives. As I said before, 'no-one forces you to use any third party repository'
Thank you, and all the other Centos members for clarifying this... "Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system," explained Dag, "but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)."
And keep up the good work.
bn
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..."
ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do as well; and the CentOS project [and the upstream] document these matters in release notes as to the up-to-date changes done. Upstream decided on most of them, or we made a minimal delta to get the packageset to stabilize. So what? The project cannot cater to people who won't read nor pay attention.
Russ, this was about a comment about "up-to-date desktop packages", not a comment about "up-to-date changes". Just because the release notes contains "up-to-date changes", it doesn't necessarily mean that the "up-to-date xxx package" is installed. But maybe I wrong, please point to one current "up-to-date package" in Centos or RH for that matter. And by up-to-date package I don't mean a stable, but un-supported package (ie PHP)
So, here's a small list of "up-to-date desktop packages" all part of CentOS 5.3 _and_ RHEL 5.4:
- firefox 3.0.11 - pidgin 2.5.8 - NetworkManager 0.7.0 - thunderbird 2.0.22
And there are many more useful ones if you look at additional repositories, like the reporter clearly mentions in the quoted text.
Thank you, and all the other Centos members for clarifying this... "Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system," explained Dag, "but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)."
The more I read your quote, the more I think you are misreading what I say. When I said "we are trying to change that" it means we are trying to change the _perception_ that CentOS is considered a server operating system.
We are not trying to change what CentOS is, we cannot because we merely take what comes from Red Hat. If that is not clear to you from everything the CentOS project did the past 4 years, then every word is wasted anyway.
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..." or any other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives.
First of all, when I said this, I was no longer part of the CentOS team.
Secondly, I didn't say that literally, but I don't object to the wording. For desktop use we do have up-to-date desktop packages. Not firefox 3.5 (wasn't released then) but a recent Network Manager, pidgin, firefox.
So I wasn't lying. If that means that people will look for alternatives, that's fine. I would be lying if I said that we only had old desktop applications, wouldn't I ?
CentOS already covers the server market, it doesn't need a push there. But a lot of people see CentOS as a pure server OS. Which I am trying to change by telling people how CentOS is perfect for the desktop for 99% of the people. I am leaving out the 1% of people that want to have the latest and greatest in everything, that are developers, or have religious technology preference. If Linux would have 100 million users right now, it wouldn't cover the potential 1% of the whole market if you look at a desktop-using population.
Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future:
"It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future."
http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-syste...
This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised.
You read of course what you want to read. And Red Hat is right, they do not target the _consumer_ market. Which is fair. There is little money to be made in the consumer market (not if you don't have a lot of money/effort going to support etc...)
But they do target the Enterprise desktop market and therefor they do have a desktop product that works fine for what it is. And most people don't need more than that. (I certainly don't)
So don't make the mistake that so many others have made, which is that Red Hat is not interested in the Desktop. They are very much interested, that is partly why they bought Qumranet, and why they spend so much money on Desktop related development in Fedora.
Red Hat sees the desktop as the next step in revenue, but not in the consumer market. They see it in the enterprise market. That's crystal clear for me.
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..." or any other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives.
First of all, when I said this, I was no longer part of the CentOS team.
Secondly, I didn't say that literally, but I don't object to the wording. For desktop use we do have up-to-date desktop packages. Not firefox 3.5 (wasn't released then) but a recent Network Manager, pidgin, firefox.
So I wasn't lying. If that means that people will look for alternatives, that's fine. I would be lying if I said that we only had old desktop applications, wouldn't I ?
CentOS already covers the server market, it doesn't need a push there. But a lot of people see CentOS as a pure server OS. Which I am trying to change by telling people how CentOS is perfect for the desktop for 99% of the people. I am leaving out the 1% of people that want to have the latest and greatest in everything, that are developers, or have religious technology preference. If Linux would have 100 million users right now, it wouldn't cover the potential 1% of the whole market if you look at a desktop-using population.
Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future:
"It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future."
http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-syste...
This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised.
You read of course what you want to read. And Red Hat is right, they do not target the _consumer_ market. Which is fair. There is little money to be made in the consumer market (not if you don't have a lot of money/effort going to support etc...)
But they do target the Enterprise desktop market and therefor they do have a desktop product that works fine for what it is. And most people don't need more than that. (I certainly don't)
So don't make the mistake that so many others have made, which is that Red Hat is not interested in the Desktop. They are very much interested, that is partly why they bought Qumranet, and why they spend so much money on Desktop related development in Fedora.
Red Hat sees the desktop as the next step in revenue, but not in the consumer market. They see it in the enterprise market. That's crystal clear for me.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Just for the record: I use CentOS due to the pedigree of the source RPMs, the fact that it will be supported for many years with patches AND that it works fine as a desktop / work station and even laptop OS. I run five servers, two laptops and two workstations all with CentOS (use plus for the non servers). I play videos, and music as well as perform all my business functions reliably month after month. Keep up the great work. I use all the CentOS repos, rpmforge and EPEL plus one or two others for very specific needs. If the additional repos break CentOS I back out and look elsewhere. Sure it takes some time and tender loving care to get it all working but the important thing is IT DOES! - RELIABLY month after month.
I once upon a time I used others and got so tired of having to do rebuilds of my machine every year or so to stay supported. Life is too short - I like to use hardware for four+ years and want the OS to match. Thanks team - this user sure appreciates your efforts and I am trying to come up to speed so I can be of more help to the project. Do not let those that rant and rave and get nasty put you off. We recognize the time and effort it takes to make good stuff happen.
Appreciated - Rob
The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or was that supposed to be in the past tense?
-geoff
--------------------------------- Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/
On 07/04/2009 08:07 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or was that supposed to be in the past tense?
No, CentOS has nothing to do with caos in quite a few years now - and thats not going to change. CentOS is a completely independent project.
also, I completely lost interest in this thread when it went into ranting lands, guess it might be worth catching up on.
-
Bogdan Nicolescu -
Dag Wieers -
Geoff Galitz -
John R Pierce -
Karanbir Singh -
Linux Advocate -
Mihai T. Lazarescu -
R P Herrold -
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU -
Rob Kampen -
RobertH