On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, pjwelsh wrote: > On 04/30/2009 10:22 AM, R P Herrold wrote: >> ... >> To respond to 'the consensus ... overwhelmingly' remark, the >> mice also overwhelmingly voted to bell the cat. Counting >> noses does not make a bad answer more correct; using raid >> rather than flat RO /boot partitions is still less robust > "less robust" != "bad answer" ;-) I understand your position; I do not concur as it introduces failure points in my opinion; we vary > easy. It lends credibility to the idea that CentOS is more than a > knock-off RHEL. I have no such goal to court public opinion, and I think neither does the core value of the project; that people feel a need to use CentOS as a locus to contribute is a matter beyond the core scope mandate of a strict rebuild project The CentOS core mandate, to me, is to elide trademarks from an upstream FOSS sources rebuild; solving the issue of the non-free updater solution upstream; and preserving (lovingly) all bugs to match upstream. I see NO shame in being called knock-off _out of_ a commercial product, any more than Red Hat should feel shame in stabilising the enormous effort of the free software community that preceded them (and that continues independent of, or in conjunction with them) _into_ a commercial product. This is the point of FOSS [ESR, and the 'chasing the tail-lights' example]. RHT is a 'pure play' FOSS company by and large; NOVL much less so; ORCL to my thinking has been a 'white hat' when it decides to open something; JAVA [ne SUNW], less so. See my prior post as to Java -- I am encouraged by recent events as to Java. I think people who are willing to let themselves feel slighted into being _just_ a 'knock-off' need to clarify their thinking. It is their issue to solve. I am not in a 'credibility lending' business -- I speak with my results, and I do not let others triangulate me so simply. The mandate is the point of my comment to Farkas Levente earlier in centos-devel ML today, that there is a slight abi change in the gcc across point releases of CentOS (and one assumes, in its upstream, Red Hat product) in 5 in a minor and slightly tested side package. It happens; when material a bug is filed; it is NOT the end of the world. I saw the gcc ABI change in my code as well, and we conformed our code to the later gcc interpretation or implementation. Not the end of the world, and not worth more than a passing observation once fixed. > Part of this situation seems (to me) to be more of a blurring of backup > -vs- RAID. Both are good and have a place. Either by itself is > non-optimal. properly /boot is _just not used_ once booting is done, except for kernel updates -- it can be wholly umounted if on a separate partition (as is a customary practice by some) all of the above, my $0.02 -- Russ herrold
