From: Dag Wieers <dag@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some,
> someone can only be with or against Red Hat.
Yes, that was my major complaint too.
> I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and
> are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure
> even Red Hat employees (like with any other distributor) would recognize
> this.
Agreed. If you attempt to please all people, you will fail utterly.
Red Hat has its focus, pretty much all SLA-related on RHEL.
Some people may demonize it as "that's where the money is" but in
reality, it's because it's designed for paying customers who pay for those
SLAs.
At the same time, we still have Fedora Core. While people will debate over
the merits of the greater Fedora Project in general, Fedora Core and RHEL
are designed for two completely different sets of users. Just like RHEL
was once it came out alongside RHL.
Are there places in-between? Hell yes! And I like what I see in the CentOS
project, where Red Hat has not addressed. But Red Hat already has 2 levels
of focus, and I don't see them changing it. It seems to work, and work well
for them. Novell-SuSE seems to be similar.
But in the end, this is the reality that some people don't wake up to.
They've got 3 choices:
1. Get involved with Fedora Core, which affects RHEL
2. Get involved with CentOS, which affects add-ons for their rebuild
3. Complaint, and nothing will change at all ;->
In reality, I typically ignore #3. The problem is when people do #3 and
they just don't care to understand anything technical with FC-RHEL
development and focus, and just get things dead wrong. Especially things
that have redistribution and/or licensing issues, or the fact that sooner
or later, newer versions have to be adopted.
In fact, many people seem to be "wishy washy" on whether Red Hat
should "hold back/backport" or "adopt newer" releases. The reality is
that Red Hat doesn't ship anything in RHEL that hasn't been through
Fedora Core prior (with rare exception, like MySQL 4 in RHEL4 that
wasn't in FC2/FC3 -- kinda shocked even me).
> But just pointing things out does not put you on one or the other side,
> I may hope.
Yes and no.
No in the fact that your posts have made me aware of some considerations
I never looked at before. That is a good thing.
But yes, when people don't stop to understand the technical and licensing
issues, let alone what RHEL's purpose is -- things that will _never_ change
-- it's just bitching. It's one thing to complain in the hope of change, and
even better to get involved. But bitching is just that -- the complaint that
people are upset that CentOS doesn't do something out-of-the-box.
And that means they blame Red Hat -- no matter where the actual blame
_may_ fall. Worse yet, I've just sat back and actually let others attempt
to explain how Red Hat wasn't involved in a decision (other projects did,
which Red Hat merely simply complied with), and these "bitchers" will
simply continue, and just make more comments that just show they have
no interest in anything other than "bitching."
It's beyond not being constructive, it's just flat out ignorance. That's what
really gets to me. I can accept people aren't happy and wish for things.
But when they want to blame Red Hat when there's nothing Red Hat can
do about them, or they would radically change RHEL's focus to something
that breaks the entire SLA model, then I just have to recognize that some
people just won't see anything from another viewpoint.
> I always have a sour taste in my mouth if you have to pick sides, because
> that kills healthy rationalizing/critizing and often this has a hidden
> agenda attached to it.
Agreed. The problem is that many people who are "explaining" Red Hat
are considered a "side" in the first place. I have been labeled a "Red HAt
apologist" just for merely explaining many things that people will not
believe is anything but a "Fedora Core / Red Hat-only bug." It doesn't
matter how you explain it, there is always an avenue for them to assign
blame to Red Hat -- and no one else.
Ironically, if you have a SLA with Red Hat, they do take ownership of
everything. Which is why RHEL is designed the way it is, to absolutely
minimize anything that is not well package and integration tested.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
