On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 14:27 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > I only dragged Merriam-Webster into this to show that third party arbitration doesn’t help settle the argument. That should tell you that we’re not dealing with a single universal sense of the word “enterprise”. If we can’t agree on its meaning, we can’t sensibly argue about how well RHEL adheres to that meaning. Hallo, hallo, the majority of the world is not the US of A. Our chosen dictionaries are not US of A ones. Probably within the next ten years a Chinese originated version of Linux will supplant many of the US of A versions. No doubt .mil is currently seeking a more secure version of any commercial or free operating system after its publicly embarrassing hacking. The US of A's DoD is never ever going to confess how deep the hackers penetrated. > > This issue…is… > > the path that RHEL seems to be following at the moment > > So get involved with the development of RHEL 8, rather than complain about a design that started taking shape three years ago, and which is now set in stone. Being in the real world rather than in the hectic and unstable 'change every 6 months Fedora environment', just what are the RHEL/Centos 8 options at this moment? Real users of RHEL/SL/Centos want 1. stability 2. reliability 3. security revisions 4. bug fixes Many real users lack the time - because time is always finite - to comprehensively monitor the multitude of Fedora lists. Ideally, before RH decides to impose an abstract version of Fedora upon the world, RH could ask for comments and give everyone sufficient time to respond. Bored clever people who never really run anything on a daily basis should remember that if they wish to play games, then Centos is probably not the best Linux. Neither is RHEL/SL. Having a high IQ is never an indication of common, or of any other practical, sense. Progress for progress's sake is not beneficial. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.