On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 20:16 -0700, Collins Richey wrote:
> On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith <thebs413@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to
> > the others), as I agree that this is not something that even
> > involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream
> > provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases --
> > asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS
> > maintainers (instead of Red Hat).
> >
> > > CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I
> > > want right now.
> >
> > As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will
> > not change, etc...
> >
>
> I see things differently. People who run CentOS are always going to
> want answers to questions that are upstream provider decisions, and
> they're going to present those queries to CentOS because they're not a
> part of the paying audience to discuss this with the upstream
> provider. IMO, such questions are quite legitimate, and they help
> others to evaluate the product (CentOS as derived from the upstream
> provider base) more fully. And who, after all, has failed to gripe
> when his favorite toy is withheld?
----
with but a few exceptions, CentOS is pretty faithful to the upstream
product and has stated their intent to remain so. There is of course,
CentOS Plus and CentOS Extras that 'extend' beyond what is offered by
upstream. http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
While the CentOS developers might query the user base from time to time,
it isn't a democracy and majority does not rule.
Thus when decisions made by the upstream provider such as to not make it
obvious that there is a lilo alternative to grub in anaconda, the CentOS
developers have adopted those decisions faithfully.
Craig
