On 11/11/2011 07:11 AM, Craig White wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 04:20 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 11/10/2011 07:40 PM, Craig White wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote: >>>>> The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go >>>>> system. Centos has the polish, but lacks the new stuff. >>>>> sigh. >>>> >>>> And right there is the core (or maybe it's 'sore') point to all of this; it really depends on what you need and how much work you have to do to make it fit your needs. And then keeping up with your needs, as they inevitably change. >>>> >>>> CentOS is what it is: as close as possible to upstream EL without being upstream EL. Nothing more, nothing less, and bug-for-bug compatible. If that's not what you need, then CentOS won't meet your need. >>> ---- >>> close? >>> >>> May 19, 2011 (RH 6.1) >>> >>> I thought the term 'close' only applied to horseshoes and hand grenades. >>> >>> Given the track record for CentOS for v 6, it's pretty clear that >>> installing it means that you are likely to have deployed servers that >>> will lag for months without security updates and it's awful easy to set >>> up iptables ;-) I'm not saying this to disparage the developers >>> because I'm sure that they're doing the best that they can but I can't >>> tell my friends/clients/employer/etc. that I can recommend using CentOS >>> knowing the struggles they are having getting out releases & updates. >>> >> >> This is just no longer true Craig ... you obviously have not been >> looking at or using the CR for CentOS-6. > ---- > correct, not from lack of desire though. > > I was dying to try out FreeIPA but the target is continually moving. > Even at the point where I can install 6.1 FreeIPA is whole on 6.2 > ---- >> >> We have also now totally automated many parts of the QA system to test >> packages. >> >> http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional >> >> Also, I would like an audit of your servers that you manage to see how >> often you install those security updates that ARE available. How fast >> are you pushing all the updates that you are getting SO QUICKLY with >> these other OS's? > ---- > I'm not sure why you decided to go here when Russ made it so clear that > this was off-topic so I will defer an answer > ---- As will I. >> I can only tell you that we are cranking out packages at a very quick >> pace now, and that they are also now being tested much better and much >> faster than before. >> >> We are also asking for "the community" to help us be designing tests >> that can be used in t_functional ... have YOU designed any tests to >> ensure that a problem that you have had in the past does not sneak in >> anymore and put it in t_functional ... or are you just here to >> continually complain and run down our OS? > ---- > If that's how you see it - then so be it. I would suppose it would be > unnecessary to re-quote your own thoughts on timeliness of security > updates on another list but certainly relevant. I don't see myself > 'running down' CentOS at all but noting that installing CentOS 6.0 on a > public facing server requires a leap of faith that I don't currently > have. Perhaps it is useful that not everyone is patiently waiting for > releases, updates and parroting 'good job' when it is 6+ months behind > upstream. Timeliness of updates are important ... but so is the timeliness of criticism. We have taken steps to make this process much faster ... your comments are about the process as it existed 6+ months ago, not the one that exists now. My criticism was about the upstream release practices of upstream as the existed THEN, not as they exist NOW. But, John Morris' reply then is very valid. He said, if you need updates faster, this is not your OS ... so the people who wanted faster updates moved. We did not continue to SPAM his list for years asking him to change. When it was clear there would be no change, we moved on ... (HINT) It is NOT 6+ months behind upstream ... that is the point of CR. If you are using CR, you are not 6+ months behind. There were RPMs released into CR 2 weeks ago. There are 2192 "6.1 RPMs" released in the x86_64 CR repo right now. They were released in 8 different batches over the last month. So, thanks for your input ... now, please sync that input with reality. We have DONE many things to make the process better for 6.x, but you are not acknowledging any of them. We created a QA feedback mechanism. http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/dashboard We created a CR repo. http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR We created a public testing mechanism to help us get packages out faster and asked for community input: http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
