[CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora

[Warren Young]

On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
>> 
>> Enterprise to me implies large business
> 
> Enterprise literally means 'undertaking’.

Danger: We’re starting to get into dictionary flame territory.  “But the dictionary says…” is no substitute for thoughtful consideration, realpolitik, or empathy.

Just because the product has an “enterprise” label on it doesn’t mean it must behave according to rules set down by Merriam-Webster.  Those in control of RHEL get to say what “enterprise” means.

If you don’t like how they’re defining RHEL and its role in the world, complaining that they’re using the word wrong doesn’t change what they have done.

> But Gnome3?  Systemd?  These seem highly intrusive changes that
> directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people. 

Perhaps some of you here think I am defending these changes for their own merit.  

I actually have mixed opinions about them, but I’ve mostly kept them to myself because I realize — and have been trying to get across to others — that it is not important what anyone thinks about them.

At this point, you only get the choice of upgrading to EL7, switching to something else, or sitting tight on EL6 and hoping EL8 is better.  Complaining about EL7 here accomplishes nothing.  EL7 isn’t going to change, and those driving EL8 aren’t here.

The time to argue about the merits of these changes is long past.  Muster whatever arguments you like, you cannot change the fact that CentOS 7 includes these technologies.  You only get a choice about what to do about them, now.  The earliest they could disappear again is EL8, and that’s both unlikely and 3 years away besides.

> I am not at all certain that
> back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable
> activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most
> recent software could be made to run on the older release without
> adverse effects elsewhere.

Please point to an example of an OS or OS-like software distribution that does this.

I think you find a continuum of OSes from those that mostly keep newer software at arm’s length until major version changes spaced years apart (RHEL, Debian, FreeBSD…) to those that keep very little control over what gets into the OS and as such frequently break things (Ubuntu Desktop, Arch, Cygwin, Homebrew…)

Point to an OS that strikes a better balance between these two extremes, or that proves that there doesn’t need to be a trade-off between stability and features.