On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking.
Danger: Were starting to get into dictionary flame territory. But the dictionary says is no substitute for thoughtful consideration, realpolitik, or empathy.
Is one to infer from that remark that the E in RHEL has no meaning whatsoever? And that it should be ignored? Or perhaps redefined to whatever is convenient for the moment and the POV of the definer? In which case is it anything more than noise? In any case, the point of the defining the word was to show that Enterprise != Large, nothing more.
Just because the product has an enterprise label on it doesnt mean it must behave according to rules set down by Merriam-Webster. Those in control of RHEL get to say what enterprise means.
This is, of which you are no-doubt quite cognisant, a straw-man augment. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone defined 'rules' or claimed that rules exist, in Merriam-Wester or elsewhere, in whatever form you imagine them to take.
The time to argue about the merits of these changes is long past. Muster whatever arguments you like, you cannot change the fact that CentOS 7 includes these technologies. You only get a choice about what to do about them, now. The earliest they could disappear again is EL8, and thats both unlikely and 3 years away besides.
This issue, as I see it, is not about CentOS-7 per se. It is about the path that RHEL seems to be following at the moment and what that might mean to current users sometime in the future. This forum is where I find those who share my interest in RHEL, albeit in the form of CentOS. I am seeking their views on the matter. I do not expect a solution here. Nor would I look for one on any of the multitudinous mailing lists associated with Fedora.
A solution postulates a problem to solve. I am simply checking whether the RH environment suits our needs and whether it is likely to continue to suit; or is likely to change in ways that might prove most inconvenient, for us.
We moved to RH5 (or 6 it was a long time ago, pre-RHEL) from HPUX. That change was driven equally by economics and a political change at HP with respect to its clients. It took the better part of five years to complete. If RHEL is changing such that 8 will be less useful than 7 or more considerably expensive to deploy than we can reasonably afford then we need to be looking now for a replacement.
I am not at all certain that back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most recent software could be made to run on the older release without adverse effects elsewhere.
Please point to an example of an OS or OS-like software distribution that does this.
Why is that necessary? I am expressing my opinion about the value derived from the resources expended. I was not aware that I am not permitted to express such unless I can point to a representative distribution which somehow manifests an approach which affirms that opinion. That seems a little like saying only a tailor can comment on whether the emperor is wearing any clothes.
In any case, it seems to me that the rather recent innovation of software collections indicates that perhaps I am not alone in that observation.
As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was revealed in the course of this thread. That was the existence of a server based stream for Fedora. I have downloaded that ISO and intend to install it on a VM in the near future. If the results of that investigation prove satisfactory then that will go a long way to alleviating the doubts that my, admittedly limited, experience with CentOS-7 has engendered thus far.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
Is one to infer from that remark that the E in RHEL has no meaning whatsoever? And that it should be ignored? Or perhaps redefined to whatever is convenient for the moment and the POV of the definer? In which case is it anything more than noise? In any case, the point of the defining the word was to show that Enterprise != Large, nothing more.
The place where it matters is for companies large enough that they have written their own applications and need a stable OS and library set to run on. Every interface change and install/operating procedure change is going to cost development and training time that would generally be better spent improving your own application. If you just run the applications included in the distribution, it doesn't matter so much since even if the internal interfaces change, they stay consistent within the packages the distribution ships together - that is, someone else has already been forced to deal with the breakage.
In any case, it seems to me that the rather recent innovation of software collections indicates that perhaps I am not alone in that observation.
And the need for docker as an even more extreme defense against OS/lib instability really points out the problem.
As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was revealed in the course of this thread. That was the existence of a server based stream for Fedora.
That's an interesting turn of events, but is this just a separation of packages or is there really a group in Fedora that actually maintains large server farms and has an interest in keeping their applications working?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:40:55AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was revealed in the course of this thread. That was the existence of a server based stream for Fedora.
That's an interesting turn of events, but is this just a separation of packages or is there really a group in Fedora that actually maintains large server farms and has an interest in keeping their applications working?
I think they just add some applications and management tools for servers. It's a bit difficult to find out exactly what the differences are supposed to be. https://getfedora.org/en/server/
Somewhat vague though.
For those who want to track what is going on in Fedora, http:// fedoramagazine.org/ highlights of discussions on the "multitudinous" mailing lists, forums, meetings, etc.
For those interested in Fedora Server, its goals, and the people working on it, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server seems a good place to start, in particular, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document. This is still a very new project : if you want to help shape what happens in the future, get involved.
Kal
-- Kahlil (Kal) Hodgson GPG: C9A02289 Head of Technology (m) +61 (0) 4 2573 0382 DealMax Pty Ltd
On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking’.
Danger: We’re starting to get into dictionary flame territory.
Is one to infer from that remark that the E in RHEL has no meaning whatsoever?
It has marketing value, and that only because people drag along baggage of what “enterprise” means.
Red Hat could rename it Red Hat Spiffy Linux without any obligation to make any functional change in the end product as a result of the name change. That should tell you how much practical value the term has.
(Spoiler: zero.)
Just because the product has an “enterprise” label on it doesn’t mean it must behave according to rules set down by Merriam-Webster.
This is, of which you are no-doubt quite cognisant, a straw-man augment. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone defined 'rules' or claimed that rules exist, in Merriam-Wester or elsewhere, in whatever form you imagine them to take.
I only dragged Merriam-Webster into this to show that third party arbitration doesn’t help settle the argument. That should tell you that we’re not dealing with a single universal sense of the word “enterprise”. If we can’t agree on its meaning, we can’t sensibly argue about how well RHEL adheres to that meaning.
This issue…is… the path that RHEL seems to be following at the moment
So get involved with the development of RHEL 8, rather than complain about a design that started taking shape three years ago, and which is now set in stone.
This forum is where I find those who share my interest in RHEL, albeit in the form of CentOS. I am seeking their views on the matter. I do not expect a solution here. Nor would I look for one on any of the multitudinous mailing lists associated with Fedora.
If you don’t expect a solution, what *do* you expect to get out of this? What's the motivating drive that keeps you posting to this thread?
Catharsis? I’d hoped we’d passed that point months ago.
Agitation for rebellion? The only argument that’s going to matter is for someone to develop a viable alternative. Fork EL6, for example.
Bikeshedding? I think we can all agree that the current bike shed is ugly, but that it keeps the rust off.
Soapboxing? Leverage is more about position than force. The same amount of effort applied elsewhere would have a greater effect.
My reason? https://xkcd.com/386/
we need to be looking now for a replacement.
No, you need to be helping develop that replacement now.
Seriously: Look at all the Linuxes out there, decide whether EL7 is still the best *on balance*, and if so, decide whether it’s best to get involved with Fedora.next so as to drive EL8, or fork it now to create what you actually want instead.
If some other Linux is better, the same argument applies.
You’re not going to find “perfect.” All you’re going to find is the platform you think you’ve got the best chance of being successful atop.
Free software is about freedom, and freedom isn’t free. Like a democracy, those who just complain about change after it’s been made don’t actually affect anything. It’s those who get up and push out the *next* change who affect where the passive observers go.
Please point to an example of an OS or OS-like software distribution that does this.
Why is that necessary?
Because you agitators are all saying “just” do this, and “just” do that, and why can’t it be different? I am challenging you to show me a system that has done “just” those things, and succeeded.
If there are no such systems, there’s probably a good reason for that, given that we do not lack for choice in the Linux world. DistroWatch returns 49 results for “server Linux”. (http://goo.gl/Hrto3R) If you drop the Linux requirement, you add another eight options.
If it’s easy, why doesn’t your nirvana distro already exist?
It’s because it *isn’t* easy. It’s actually work. Lots of it. Go ask Patrick Volkerding how much work it is to create a *successful* Linux distro that works differently from all the others.
As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was revealed in the course of this thread. That was the existence of a server based stream for Fedora. I have downloaded that ISO and intend to install it on a VM in the near future. If the results of that investigation prove satisfactory then that will go a long way to alleviating the doubts that my, admittedly limited, experience with CentOS-7 has engendered thus far.
I think you’re going to find that it breaks things frequently, as is appropriate for a distro project that puts out a new version every 6 months.
The point of running Fedora Server (or whatever they’re calling it) is to help drive the development of EL8. If that’s what you’re going to do, I fully endorse your choice to guide your own destiny.
Those unwilling to do that shouldn’t complain when the currents of change take them somewhere they didn’t want to be. Grab a paddle, stroke for shore, and find a river that *is* going somewhere you want to be!
On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 14:27 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
I only dragged Merriam-Webster into this to show that third party arbitration doesn’t help settle the argument. That should tell you that we’re not dealing with a single universal sense of the word “enterprise”. If we can’t agree on its meaning, we can’t sensibly argue about how well RHEL adheres to that meaning.
Hallo, hallo, the majority of the world is not the US of A. Our chosen dictionaries are not US of A ones.
Probably within the next ten years a Chinese originated version of Linux will supplant many of the US of A versions. No doubt .mil is currently seeking a more secure version of any commercial or free operating system after its publicly embarrassing hacking. The US of A's DoD is never ever going to confess how deep the hackers penetrated.
This issue…is… the path that RHEL seems to be following at the moment
So get involved with the development of RHEL 8, rather than complain about a design that started taking shape three years ago, and which is now set in stone.
Being in the real world rather than in the hectic and unstable 'change every 6 months Fedora environment', just what are the RHEL/Centos 8 options at this moment? Real users of RHEL/SL/Centos want
1. stability 2. reliability 3. security revisions 4. bug fixes
Many real users lack the time - because time is always finite - to comprehensively monitor the multitude of Fedora lists.
Ideally, before RH decides to impose an abstract version of Fedora upon the world, RH could ask for comments and give everyone sufficient time to respond.
Bored clever people who never really run anything on a daily basis should remember that if they wish to play games, then Centos is probably not the best Linux. Neither is RHEL/SL. Having a high IQ is never an indication of common, or of any other practical, sense.
Progress for progress's sake is not beneficial.
On 01/13/2015 04:03 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Being in the real world rather than in the hectic and unstable 'change every 6 months Fedora environment', just what are the RHEL/Centos 8 options at this moment? Real users of RHEL/SL/Centos want
- stability
- reliability
- security revisions
- bug fixes
For the love of Pete! If you use RHEL or CentOS, you'll have a stable, reliable operating system with bug and security fixes for upward of 10 years! For free (in the case of CentOS)!
Will you give it a rest already?
If you can't tolerate moderate changes at a 10 year interval, then there probably isn't any option for you.
Ideally, before RH decides to impose an abstract version of Fedora upon the world, RH could ask for comments and give everyone sufficient time to respond.
So you want them to do what? 5 years of development and then get your approval on hundreds or thousands of those efforts, and then once they have your approval, another few years of development and testing to make sure that whatever you approve actually works?
Oh, and you don't want to pay for it, either.
I don't know what world you live in, but economies don't work that way. They never did. Free Software is a participation economy. Your feeling of entitlement to dictate how Fedora, Red Hat, and CentOS function, without contributing any of your own time or money, is shockingly disconnected from reality.
Please stop arguing about this. It is annoying.
Just to note: Fedora has been upstream for RHEL for many years. New features are tested in Fedora for a long time before they hit RHEL. For example, systemd was first introduced in Fedora 15 (we are currently at 21). Ample time has been given to discuss, critique, provide feedback and to help shape what ends up in RHEL. If you are running RHEL/CentOS, consider running an instance of Fedora in a VM or testing environment so you get years of warning about new features before they hit RHEL. If you are concerned about what happens to RHEL, get involved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join.
Kal
On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 17:01 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
For the love of Pete! If you use RHEL or CentOS, you'll have a stable, reliable operating system with bug and security fixes for upward of 10 years! For free (in the case of CentOS)!
Not all updates are currently being supplied for C5 yet it is a current product.
-
Always Learning -
Gordon Messmer -
James B. Byrne -
Kahlil Hodgson -
Les Mikesell -
Scott Robbins -
Warren Young