[CentOS-devel] Missing security updates

[R P Herrold]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:
>> timeliness *appears* not to be important to the CentOS 
>> project, hence this discussion.
>
> Not intended to be a smear - please see timeline @
>
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4386

And this the week after OLS.  Et tu?  Ah well.

Sure it is a data point and I suppose 'we' of CentOS are 
supposed to promise to never disappoint whomever again.

Tough.  Not me, thank you.  This is a labor of love, and if 
you want commercial SLA's you'll have to buy them from me. 
Prices on request of a serious offer to purchase
 	http://www.owlriver.com/wings/


You know, folks both here, and in the narrower centos-qa 
subgroup participate on SME, and the recent new re-fork.  I 
don't recall seeing invites there for community folks in 
general, not to me specifically, nor and 'timeliness metrics' 
and that implicit criticism.  I certainly have participated in 
SME and in other projects without expectation of some 'reward' 
of invitation into some inner circle there, and I have not 
been disappointed measuring against my expectations as a 
result

Success succeeds.  By the metrics I care about, CentOS is 
successful.  I refuse to battle semantics about 'Community' 
and the visions some dream of some Utopian land of free milk 
and honey.  We ship -- we have documented -- we more than meet 
our GPL obligations.  If a consumer of our product does not 
like how it is provided, they can go buy a alternative, or 
start their own project, and run it by their lights.  I am 
certain I've stated that pretty clearly in my blogging as well

One person comes to mind who stomped off the project very 
publicly, and will not be invited back.  Their choice.  I 
would not try to stop them, and will respect my relationship 
with the others who comprise the core of the CentOS process. 
We may not agree on all matters, but I think that those who 
remain there all agree that we will celebrate success 
publicly, and address failures privately


Freedom is like that in that we cannot enforce involuntary 
service, any more than that person can pry the door once 
freely opened, back open again.  A needed trust relationship 
is gone like a soap bubble

I would like a future with a CentOS even more successful, and 
that fosters others on that, and so have published chrooted, 
and non-chrooted buildsystems code since the cAos days.  Heck 
my latest post aggregated on http://planet.centos.org/ is 
quite clear on my hopes.

I would also like a pink pony and a fine single malt Scotch. 
[contact me privately if you wish to send a paypal gift to 
fund either of those last two goals]  That code I long ago 
published is wholly sufficient, with minimal scripting glue, 
for any rebuild project not needing to solve cross-compiling 
[a space I am working in atm for my Pogoplug/ Shiva/ Marvell / 
Dockstar units]

I cannot alter how others choose to repaint the field lines to 
their taste, any more than I could mask the racket from those 
'vuvuzela'

* shrug *

-- Russ herrold