[CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora

Tue Jan 13 15:15:57 UTC 2015
James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca>

On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote:
> 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.

Is one to infer from that remark that the E in RHEL has no meaning
whatsoever?  And that it should be ignored?  Or perhaps redefined to
whatever is convenient for the moment and the POV of the definer?  In
which case is it anything more than noise?  In any case, the point of
the defining the word was to show that Enterprise != Large, nothing

> 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.

This is, of which you are no-doubt quite cognisant, a straw-man
augment.  Nowhere in this discussion has anyone defined 'rules' or
claimed that rules exist, in Merriam-Wester or elsewhere, in whatever
form you imagine them to take.

> 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.

This issue, as I see it, is not about CentOS-7 per se.  It is about
the path that RHEL seems to be following at the moment and what that
might mean to current users sometime in the future.  This forum is
where I find those who share my interest in RHEL, albeit in the form
of CentOS.  I am seeking their views on the matter.  I do not expect a
solution here.  Nor would I look for one on any of the multitudinous
mailing lists associated with Fedora.

A solution postulates a problem to solve.  I am simply checking
whether the RH environment suits our needs and whether it is likely to
continue to suit; or is likely to change in ways that might prove most
inconvenient, for us.

We moved to RH5 (or 6 it was a long time ago, pre-RHEL) from HPUX. 
That change was driven equally by economics and a political change at
HP with respect to its clients.  It took the better part of five years
to complete.  If RHEL is changing such that 8 will be less useful than
7 or more considerably expensive to deploy than we can reasonably
afford then we need to be looking now for a replacement.

>> 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.

Why is that necessary?  I am expressing my opinion about the value
derived from the resources expended.  I was not aware that I am not
permitted to express such unless I can point to a representative
distribution which somehow manifests an approach which affirms that
opinion.  That seems a little like saying only a tailor can comment on
whether the emperor is wearing any clothes.

In any case, it seems to me that the rather recent innovation of
software collections indicates that perhaps I am not alone in that

As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was
revealed in the course of this thread.  That was the existence of a
server based stream for Fedora.  I have downloaded that ISO and intend
to install it on a VM in the near future.  If the results of that
investigation prove satisfactory then that will go a long way to
alleviating the doubts that my, admittedly limited, experience with
CentOS-7 has engendered thus far.

***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3