Quoting Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On 09/23/2011 12:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> On 09/23/2011 06:57 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> On 09/23/2011 09:06 AM, Stefan Held wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag, den 22.09.2011, 07:28 -0500 schrieb Johnny Hughes: >>>> >>>>> No matter what we try to do ... some kind of rolling updates for people >>>>> who do not want to wait ... or whatever the next thing is ... well you >>>>> do not seem to be happy. >>>> >>>> Your "Customers" are not unhappy because they don't like what you do. >>>> Your "Customers" are unhappy because they don't know what you do. >>>> >>>> The Release and QA Process seems recently to have become a mirracle. >>>> There is nothing discussed where your Problems are in getting things >>>> done. >>>> >>>> So if nobody knows where you are stuck. (Who are the persons anyway >>>> hidden in the secret labs?!) Nobody can step up and help out. >>>> >>>> Where is this discussion maintained anyway? The Currents process is >>>> untransparent. And for a "C"OMMUNITY "E"nterperise "O"perating "S"ystem >>>> this fact is not acceptable. >>>> >>>> We know that the big boys at RH changed the whole system, but the >>>> community accepted that you need time for 6.0 to adept to these changes. >>>> >>>> Since then we all thought the issues would have been solved. So what >>>> now? What exactly is holding of the release of 6.1 and where can we as a >>>> community step in and help? >>>> >>>>> If you aren't happy, well then we would recommend "something else" that >>>>> does make you happy. >>>> >>>> Or give us the possibility to help becoming happy again. But doing it >>>> like Dumbledore in secret regions of the Centos-Hogwards Terrertory is >>>> an bad option as it seems. >>>> >>>>> Happy is important ... don't go through life unhappy because of an OS. >>>> >>>> You seem very unhappy at the moment ;) >>>> >>>>> We just want you to be happy Les. >>>> >>>> see my above text. >>>> >>> >>> Are we going to start this again ... we are doing the best we can and we >>> are building things as we go along to take care of issue when we >>> hit a snag. >>> >>> There is a whole channel of RPMs that we are not allowed to look at from >>> upstream now. They do not release them on any ISOs and we can't pull >>> things directly off RHN (the only way to get the optional channel) and >>> use it. This is just one of many issues we are having right now. >>> >>> If you can do it better, then do it. >>> >>> If you can not do it better, great, neither can we ... if we could have >>> been done by now, we would have been by now. >>> >>> You can, as always, pay Red Hat for RHEL if you have servers where >>> CentOS does not meet your update requirements. >> >> What you are suggesting here is that people should expect centos systems to >> be insecure and go the RHEL if they want secure systems. >> Have you pondered the moral implications of your statement? Does that mean >> that the centos project is perfectly fine with knowingly distributing a >> system that insecure and a danger not only to its users but to >> others as well? >> > > Absolutely ... BINGO ... NOW YOU GET IT. > > If you want "point releases" on the day they are released by Red Hat, > then you need RHEL ... CUT AND DRY. > > We will release things as fast as we can. If it is not fast enough for > you personally, then yes, you need something else. or someone else > > >> If as you also seem to suggest the project is so severly understaffed have >> the people in charge considered shutting down the project? This might be >> the more responsible option compared to having a lot of unsecured systems >> out there for long periods of time. or accepting money to pay devs? >> >> Another issue are the priorities of the project. So apparently you are busy >> working on 6.0/cr and 6.x which is fine. But there is a major but in the >> current apache packages with a known and released fix upstream. Why can ..... -- "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Krishnamurti