>
> No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
> of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be
> a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced"
> chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded,
> that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
>
I was just trying to be fair, otherwise I get flamed.
>
> > As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to
>me
> > comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
>
>
> It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's
> responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
> seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He
> doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
> acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
>
Totally agree, but I don't see it changing any time soon.
> It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's
> not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
> energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
> and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open
> alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
> deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
>
My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing
(i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got
that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the
website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as
it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they
would make you take out all references just like RH do.
> The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
> significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
> everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
> the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real"
> work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all
> the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
> numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
>
> Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
> can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
> closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
> avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.
I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me
sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
I have long since concluded that the devs do it for their own reasons and
certainly not for any altruistic reasons.
>
>
> // Brian Mathis
>
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@xxxxxxxxxx/msg69365.html
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
