Tom H wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison <jrd at gerdesas.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: >>> Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community >>> member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. >> Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS >> that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings >> hard to respect. > > I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect > isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another. > > You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a > reflexion of the CentOS lists. You obviously wanted to say "reflection of the persistent complainers on the CentOS lists". CentOS is pinned down with "friendly fire" aimed mostly at Oracle and other free riders on RHEL. Red Hat wants more money, and this is the only way they can do that. As for those asking for transparent process, my only conclusion is that they want to find out how they can recreate RHEL so they can create a fork of CentOS. And that is happening because they are not competent enough (or lack money/time) to do it on their own. Why haven't they got all information from Scientific Linux? If SL is better and faster with releases, then they should ask SL devs to give them access to their machines, or to publish their entire build system. I have not seen that happening so far. Why? Also, are you aware that RHEL 6.0 itself is very late? Info from wikipedia: - RHEL 2 -> 3 took 18 months. - RHEL 3 -> 4 took 19 months. - RHEL 4 -> 5 took 25 months. - but RHEL 5 -> 6 took whooping 44 months. - CentOS delay for 3.1 was 5 months, - CentOS delay for 4 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 5 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 6 is currently 5 months and counting, So if for RHEL took almost 2,5 times the amount of time to release new version (6.0), why is there so much fuss about CentOS team taking it so long to untangle the web Red Hat produced, including parallel releases of 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0, an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from the previous version, and initial delay of publishing SRPMS? I also wish CentOS 6 was released at least in the end of January, but mea culpa, it is what it is. > > If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these > types of articles... > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >