On 02/19/2011 06:44 PM, DJA wrote: > On 02/19/2011 03:58 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:27:56PM -0800, Richard McClellan wrote: >>> 1. Johnny Hughes, you would do CentOS well to mind your words. Or >>> better yet, don't respond to threads asking about the process or >>> release status. Instead, take half a day and write up a description >>> of it. >> >> He already went over the build process in more than enough >> detail to permit someone outside the project to do so. > > I think Mr. McClellan was suggesting a bit more documentation on the > website. Not everyone interested in CentOS is necessarily going to > subscribe to this list. It was a reasonable suggestion in that context. > > >>> 2. The CentOS process is opaque and secretive. It may indeed be very >>> complex with justifiable restrictions over who can contribute at what >>> level, but the process should be described somewhere. This would also >>> help impartial observers/users of CentOS understand why things take as >>> long as they do. The process and team appear to be dysfunctional to >>> the point that using CentOS may be a risk. >> >> Secretive? Just today there have been postings with enough >> information to permit someone familiar with development >> processes in general to do their own build. Do you need >> something along the lines of "Step 1: Collect and download to a >> staging area the necessary source RPMs from upstream." >> hand-holding? > > Again, easily-gotten docs on the subject (aside from a dev list) would > be very helpful and maybe cut down on at least some of the dialog here > in the last couple of days (some of it unnecessarily heated). > > >>> 3. A lot of people are frustrated with the level and type of >>> communication from the CentOS inner circle. Increasing the level of >>> communication--including release status--and politeness would be good >>> for CentOS. >> >> This is arguably true to some extent, but by no means a >> necessary occurrence. > > As a new subscriber and potentially a new user doing research before > implementation, I sincerely hope so. > > >>> A few days on this list was enough to give me a fresh interest in >>> finding an alternative to CentOS. >> >> I hear Redhat would be happy to sell you a set of support >> subscriptions. Of course, you would be required to pay for >> them. > > That is a very condescending, specious, and frankly rude reply, and does > nothing to further your argument. your work, or the recommendation of > your distribution. In any case, I have no doubt that we would not get > similar disdain from Redhat to what was a very civil customer comment. > > >>> With that I bid you all good luck and thanks for five year of CentOS. >> >> Please don't let the door get scuffed on your way out :) > > Smiley or not, that was very Eric Cartman of you. I can only hope that > such unprofessionalism is not indicative of the quality of either CentOS > itself, or of the mindset of its support staff-at-large. > > I have to also question whether deciding to choose to use CentOS is > going to come with serious future regrets. > > That reply was not from a developer of CentOS ... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110219/c68922d8/attachment-0007.sig>