[CentOS] Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan

Collins Richey

crichey at gmail.com
Wed May 25 01:49:21 UTC 2005


On 5/24/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

> I disagree.  Both GLibC 2.0 and GCC 2.96 were very, very ready.  The
> problem was that they _broke_ backward compatibility.
> 

Now that's circular logic. The software is ready and tested, but tough
luck for all you folks who have dozens of packages that aren't ready
to deal with the software that is ready!

> 
> "Not-quite-cooked"?  There has to be a "first" and that company gets all
> the blame for addressing all the problems that people are going to deal
> with sooner or later.
> 

Yep, and the "first" version should stay in the "first" oven (ie
Fedora) until existing packages catch up. Just my $.02.

> > More problematic for me (and CIPE users) is the decision in the latest
> > enterprise releases to drop support for quite a few functions that
> > people (rightly or wrongly) have come to rely on - CIPE, LVM, XFS
> > filesystem, Reiserfs filesystem, etc., etc.
> 
> I'm not getting into this.  Red Hat has to support what they ship.
> Other distros might not care, but that's what Red Hat does.  That's
> their focus -- they support anything they ship, and that means not
> shipping things they don't feel they can support.
> 

I'm sure you're right. Currently, as the market leader, RedHat gets to
pick and choose what it will support. It will be interesting to see
whether the newly invigorated Novell decides to support more of the
missing pieces. Competition is good.

> > I don't have the full
> > picture, but there's some kind of a problem with the versioning of
> > OpenLDAP/OpenSSL in REHL4=CentOS4. That's something my firm has to
> > sort out before moving off RH9 with LDAP authentication. And of course
> > there's the brand spanking new LVM2 which came out without support for
> > extending a filesystem. That, too, is a major sticking point for our
> > RH9 systems deployed with LVM (working flawlessly on RH9).
> 
> Again, these are _not_ Red Hat issues, but largely kernel 2.6 issues
> (e.g., LVM2) -- or other package issues.  In fact, Red Hat has really
> tried to buy out companies and take control of some of the GPL work on
> these capabilities (largely to make them more consistent, as well as
> keep them GPL).

Of course they're RedHat issues. No one is forcing RedHat to release
anything. Their choices turn out to be somewhat limiting for those
companies/users who have development invested in the functions that
are discarded. The concept that RedHat needs to own everything is
moderately ridiculous! As if the only way to progress is through
owenership! I commend RedHat for lots of things, but they don't get a
free ride

> 
> > It makes you wonder: does RedHat ever solicit input from its customer
> > base before making these left turns? Wouldn't you as a paying customer
> > expect something better? I could expect this type behavior from a
> > non-commercial distro. We the public always gripe when M$ leaves users
> > behind with a new non-compatible Winxx or M$Office release, but does
> > Linux really have a better track record?
> 
> Who do you think always helped develop Red Hat Linux?  The community!
> 

Only in the sense that what they distribute comes from the GPL base.
Or do you mean something else.

> I think you're just lashing out at Linux in general here, and not Red
> Hat.  You are just using Red Hat as an example -- and from quite an
> ignorant standpoint I might add.
> 

Not at all. I'm firmly committed to Linux, and I would love to see
RedHat improve and succeed, and CentOS along with it.

BTW, in my simple opinion, you would do best to drop that habit of
ascribing ignorance to anyone who happens to disagree with you. It's a
demeaning habit that will only cost you in the long run.

-- 
 Collins
       Head teachers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but 
       the Start button.



More information about the CentOS mailing list