I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me - and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS.
The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very different, hence many of the current features, or future features, should remain in one or the other and not cross over. It seems CentOS is at risk of losing features highly appreciated by its core group of users, obviously a very different type of user that depends on and appreciates Fedora.
Yes, I know CentOS is derived from RedHat and simply follows upstream development.
On January 10, 2015 9:42:49 PM EST, "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>>> Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I
>>> misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ?
>>
>>
>> Enterprise to me implies large business
>
>Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used
>euphemistically since the later 1980s as a code word for associations
>having a legally recognised form that operate for some sensibly
>describable outcome. So one has large, medium and small enterprises,
>not-for-profit enterprises, commercial enterprises, social enterprises
>and so forth.
>
>> Businesses that don't adapt to external changes become fossils
>> and die off.
>
>The greatest threat to the survival of any organism or organisation is
>a change to its environment. It is because of this that widespread
>adoption of so much innovation is delayed using societal pressure.
>This is not done entirely out of narrow self-interest but from a
>sensible appreciation of the limits to the speed at which people can
>adapt to change.
>
>As is noted elsewhere, change is inevitable. But there are many kinds
>of change. For instance, there is the change wrought by sudden and
>dramatic increases in productivity. How many here are cognisant of
>the fact that the O2 steel making process introduced in the 1950s
>lowered the labour content of a Tonne of steel by three orders of
>magnitude? Without that single change much of what we invisibly
>accept as part of the urban landscape today would not exist. Without
>that change it is likely that Bethlehem and Republic would still be in
>business. Without that change hundreds of thousands would still be
>employed in the steel mills of North America.
>
>Then there is fashion.
>
>An enterprise has its hands full with just dealing with the former
>type of change. It can ill afford to waste resources on the later.
>
>With respect to RHEL7 the question is: Which are we dealing with,
>substance or fashion? Or rather, which type predominates?
>
>I have no argument against claiming the switch to xfs is substance,
>not fashion. But then again that change over, however beneficial, is
>nearly invisible to most of us; subsumed as it is in the overarching
>effort of setting up a new system from scratch. Once a host is set up
>its file-system certainly has little further discernible day-to-impact
>upon anyone, much less end-users.
>
>But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that
>directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people.
>Are these substance or fashion? Do the changes they make
>fundamentally improve RHEL or just do the same things a little
>differently? How much is it worth to an Enterprise to have a similar
>desktop metaphor on the workstation as on a tablet? How many desktop
>workstations will be replaced by the smart-phone, the tablet? I do not
>have an answer but I suspect, not much and not many.
>
>What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
>Leaving aside upstart as a sterile diversion.
>
>I am not certain of anything here either. I have learned that my
>initial resistance to change, any change, is just as emotionally
>charged as that of the next person. So, I tend to wait and see. But,
>I do ask questions. If only to discover if I am alone in my concerns.
> I am but one person and I need the views of others, agreeable or
>disagreeable to my prejudices as the case may be, so as to form an
>informed opinion.
>
>I am admittedly somewhat concerned about the overall direction of the
>RHEL product. I fundamentally disagree with their Frozen Chosen
>approach to key software components. And with the lock-step forced
>upgrades that are the result. I am not at all certain that
>back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable
>activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most
>recent software could be made to run on the older release without
>adverse effects elsewhere.
>
>However, I offer no answers and promote no particular course of
>action, saving only reflection of what is happening now and the price
>that is paid for it. I am simply seeking the alternative views of
>others on these issues.
>
>--
>*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
>James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
>9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
>Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
>Canada L8E 3C3
>
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
