On 04/01/2015 04:43 PM, Alain Péan wrote:
Le 01/04/2015 22:15, Lamar Owen a écrit :
It is impossible to satisfy everyone.
So, you refuse to hear your users, who have stated good arguments, for
something that is not very difficult to change, the name of the iso,
which is not coherent with the 7.0 name and confusing ?
It is only confusing if you let it confuse you. I've been around this
thing long enough to remember when the distribution ISO's carried
wonderful names like 'seawolf-i386-disc1.iso' (study a bit and you'll
get the joke). I'm just experiencing a bit of disbelief that people are
getting hung up over the file's name being the slightest bit
unexpectedly different, that's all.
And my comment that 'it is impossible to satisfy everyone' is a bit of a
USA idiom, typically quoted as "You can't please anyone all the time,
nor can you please everyone any time" or similar.
Yes, not very wise... Karanbir corrected very quickly the content of
the redhat-release file, because it was totally different from 7.0,
and broke a lot of scripts and applications.
The issue of the content of redhat-release was a serious and valid one
that actually broke stuff; the ISO name being different from expected
doesn't break stuff. If the ISO name broke stuff, then that would be
different, and it would have already been fixed.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
