On 04/20/2012 10:24 PM, Crunch wrote: > I thought that might be. Thanks for clearing that up. The other > possibility was that a "new" license included some extra constraints but > I wasn't to sure if that was allowed. Instead of trying to find the > answer in the license itself, I thought it would be simpler to ask, and > it was. the biggest constrain from our perspective is that those docs are for RHEL not CentOS. And we dont want the messaging to be 'CentOS is RHEL, but free'. As Ed pointed out somethings are different in the way we do mirrors and installer etc, support options are different and the way some of the code works in the distro is different as well. So while its ok to say that CentOS should work like whats in the doc, we need enough adaption to make it clear were not saying CentOS == RHEL. > This is true and I considered it but I also thought that people who use > CentOS would probably have a good idea about what it's history is and > where to go to find that information if they wanted it. I haven't been > around the lists for too long but I wouldn't suspect that there be a > great demand for CentOS documentation specifically. I have never heard > anyone ask for where they can find the CentOS documentation because they > usually know where to find it. the fact that www.centos.org/docs isnt updated is something that comes up a few times a day everyday, in various forums and venues. it would really be a good problem to have squared away. Also, what you are saying has been traditionally true - CentOS users were mostly people who knew the equation; had done their due diligence and then made a choice to go with CentOS - over the years thats changed quite a lot to now put us in a state where we have large numbers of people who have never used Linux before, getting to grips with CentOS. I'd say about 25 to 40% of our userbase at this point are the non-expert linux users. in 2008 I would have said that the number was closer to 10%. >> I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a >> rather large project. That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or >> against. But, most of it can be automated isnt it ? and the docs are only ever updated once every 6 to 8 months. Its more of a case of someone taking the task up, and spending the day or two needed to get to grips with whats involved and doing 1 doc. We can then scale up the effort from there. Breaking inertia is key. > I am of the understanding that CentOS exists only to distribute a freely > available version of upstream. In that sense, it is not a full on > distribution that needs or wants to go that far. Yes and No, There are two different things here. The CentOS Linux Distribution, and the CentOS Project. The distro aims are in line with what you mentioned, the Project should and could do a lot more. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc