On 21/06/14 17:56, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 06/21/2014 08:49 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >>> >>> >> Just to emphasize, people want COMPATIBILITY with RHEL, that is why we >> use it. If there will be no PERCEIVED compatibility, people will start >> waling away from CentOS. As simple as that. > > And the CentOS goal is full functional compatibility. > Johnny, I'm sorry to keep on at you, but this phrasing is another thing that bothers me. For the last however many years (~10 years?) the CentOS Project has always stated the goal is "100% binary compatibility". Now the change to "full functional compatibility". It's not the same thing. Again, to me all these things just send a signal of trying to dilute the direct relationship that exists between CentOS and RHEL. Some may see this as nitpicking, but I'm concerned that the primary stated goal for the last however many years has completely disappeared from all official CentOS sites. Searching the Wiki now only finds references to the phrase "100% binary compatibility" in archived release notes and the main website makes absolutely no mention of RHEL nor the relationship between the two distributions. Why would the CentOS Project stop using the phrase "100% binary compatibility"? Have folks at Red Hat asked you not to use that phrase any more? Do you still aim for "100% binary compatibility"? If not, that's fine but lets get that fact out there so we all know where we stand. If so, then lets say it as it's a really clear indication of what CentOS aims to be - a 100% binary compatible clone of RHEL. Lets get it on the front page of the website and the Wiki so folks know exactly what they are buying into. > We do now have and will continue to have that. > > Changing a number in the name does not impact that at all ... it just > means we are trying to better describe what CentOS is. >