On 01/17/2014 10:12 AM, IonPacepa wrote: > I view this as a takeover. I view this as a few who kept how to rebuild RHEL > a state secret benefiting financially. I don't see how a community benefits > when we cannot recreate for ourselves what is being done here. I don't see > how we benefit when a large company comes in and buys their way into the > board and pays off all members. Where is the Community's say in this? This > is a payoff. Will we get releases sooner? Will we know how to rebuild the > build environment for ourselves? What if Redhat slowly makes using CentOS > painful to incentivize using RHEL? If Redhat had good intentions why don't > they give unsupported RHEL for free themselves. Granted the probably want to > keep OEL and the like from being able to freely rebuild and plagiarize and > charge money for their stuff, but we , the Community, the masses of users, > are stuck now between behemoths and their lackeys taking payouts throwing us > whatever table scraps they want and we are powerless to change this. > > There is no makeworld or emerge world here, just binaries that magically get > produced and peppered on an ftp whenever someone gets around to it. And I view you as unbelievably dense ... how about you actually see something tangible actually CHANGE for the worse before you make your proclamations of the end of CentOS. When something happens that actually takes something away that is important, you can then come back and post about it. If a frog had wings it would not bump its ass on the ground when it jumped. That statement is as relevant as your proclamations of doom before anything has changed in any way. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with CentOS the base OS or any restrictions to or for anything ... it has to do with adding the ability for the community (Like Xen4, like RDO, like GlusterFS, like OpenStack Origin, like OpenNebula, like Ceph, like RackSpace, like <insert name here>, being able to start a community project, on OUR HARDWARE, and build things to use with CentOS by the community. If the source code is available, any one can build it ... both Red Hat and CentOS already all the source code available. Every package that is changed in CentOS and every srpm (changed or not) is published. All it takes is time to build and compare and build again in the proper order. Some things, like a dot zero (ie, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0) release take a lot of time to figure out the proper build order and mechanics .. which is why there is http://seven.centos.org/ . We (The CentOS Project) specifically went out and got permission to get this site up and discuss, from the beginning of the first beta release of rhel7b1, the ability to build this software. How to get it to build, what is required (rhel7b1, f19, other packages from rawhide, etc.). We are doing it in the public, publishing mock configs and everything else on git.centos.org: https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-core!bld-seven.git We will, it the coming weeks, publish our beanstalk client (nazar) and build system (reimzul) on that git site as you can see in: https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git We could not possibly be more open than this. In summary, opinions are like ... well, you know the rest. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Actions are relevant. Our actions show we want to continue to provide the best OS in the world to the community AND we want to also bring in many more members to make CentOS better than ever. Take a look at the centos-devel mailing list at all the groups that want to start a new Special Interest Group: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/thread.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
