Here is my take (just a CentOS user).
The communication from Red Hat/CentOS during this change has been somewhat
poor. By reading various blog posts, etc.. A lot of people are confused
about what this change actually means. When people read things like "CentOS
will allow Red Hat to innovate and test new things" or however they word
it, people read that to mean RHEL != CentOS.
I know to a lot of the developers CentOS is a "community" or something, a
collection of repositories and whatnot, but to the average person, CentOS
is a product, a clone of RHEL.
The average person wants to know this: if I download CentOS 7, and choose
"Basic Server" in the installation, will I get the same packages (sans
trademark) that RHEL 7 has? Will it have the same version of gcc and httpd,
etc?
This hasn't been clear. If I understand the plan properly, CentOS will
remain a RHEL clone, but there will be modified versions (variants?) of
CentOS with added functionality, and maybe some repositories with extra
goodies. If the communication was clearer, people wouldn't be as worried
about Red Hat making CentOS some sort of unstable testing grounds, and
you'd receive better press.
Logan
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. <eoconnor25@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> On 01/19/2014 07:33 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> > On 19/01/14 05:41, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> >> On 01/17/2014 03:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young <warren@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>> Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
> >>> Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security
> >>> updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to
> >>> provide that. Maybe that goes back to relying on some AT&T unix
> >>> systems in what seems like another life. Even though semi-compatible
> >>> alternatives were available, being forced to change was somewhat
> >>> painful. So I don't necessarily want wide-open, just a little more
> >>> open than being married.
> >>>
> >>> I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they
> >>> should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to
> >>> fool me if they did want to do something like inject a hidden backdoor
> >>> with their builds. But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if
> >>> they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related
> >>> systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
> >>>
> >> Maybe it might be a good idea to do some research on Debian
> >> systems?...and using them for file and system servers?......I'm just
> >> sayin' LoL!
> >>
> >>
> > When there is discernible evidence of a deterioration of service, maybe.
> > But until then it's all just FUD.
> >
> > If anything, the evidence currently points to a vastly improved picture
> > since the delays of a few releases back. Back then there was cause for
> > concern. At present I see far less cause for concern. Of course things
> > can change, but at present I see no reason to be concerned. I've never
> > been very good at predicting the future so I will stick to looking at
> > what the present is telling me, and currently the CentOS team are doing
> > a good job on delivering the core product in a timely fashion. That is a
> > metric I can measure today and it tells me something meaningful. IF that
> > changes and things observably deteriorate then there are alternatives
> > but I'd rather make decisions based on what I observe today rather than
> > predictions about what might happen in the future.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> Well I for one will not be "jumping ship" anytime in the foreseeable
> future. CEntOS (wish they would change the way it appears to the
> world...the "e" should be capitalized...as the "OS" is....its the start
> of a real word!....but I digress!) CEntOS has been good to me....and has
> never given me problems since installing it at 6.0's release. If
> anything this should solidify the fact that CEntOS is TRULY an
> "Enterprise Class" OS available to the masses from a Community that has
> the (strength?....clout?....resources?) of Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux...(this might make my taking the RHCSA a bit easier
> too!.......(wonder if there are any CEntOS certification exams?.....or
> would that be an "over-saturation" of the market?....like...if you're
> not RHCSA approved...then you go for "second string" CEntOS?......maybe
> its better to NOT have one then!...)
>
>
> EGO II
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
