R P Herrold wrote:
>>
> Here is the fallout: The poor end user 'knows' it was CentOS,
> because she was told by the respinner that it is 'CentOS with
> just one package replaced'. Who gets the black eye here?
> Who bears the support load of sorting out what happened when
> the poor hurt user shows up in what she thinks is the correct
> support venue, barely able to describe her VOIP turnkey box's
> operation?
>
> The answer is, of course, the main mother-ship CentOS project
> folks.
>
> And it is not right that people do this to us, but it is also
> hard to stop. Probably the only real solution is to enforce
> the CentOS trademark on the art and brand packages, and
> prohibit respins containing such (just as the upstream does).
>
> Sad, but true.
>
> There is a reason the core CentOS group are skittish about
> respins. We'll have to discuss this seriously.
I can see your point about the brand value you have embedded into the
packages, but it also seems wrong to make everyone who wants to improve
it or adapt to some additional purpose repeat all the rebranding work
from scratch.
How hard would it be to generate an 'unbranded' drop in replacement
package for everything specifically Centos - or a framework so others
could share the work? That way everyone who needed to replace a driver
wouldn't have to repeat all this work unless they wanted to create their
own unique brand identity.
If you think respins containing Centos branding are wrong, make it easy
to to the right thing.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com