On 07/28/2015 09:01 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Timothy Murphy <gayleard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Warren Young wrote: >> >> >>> No, I am making the assumption that the vast majority of CentOS installs >>> are racked up in datacenters, VPS hosts, etc. >> >> Is that true, I wonder? >> For some reason Fedora and CentOS seem reluctant to find out anything >> about their users (or what their users want). This is just wrong .. we have started Special Interest Groups where people from other places come in a build things that they want who are the users (community). We have guys from arm companies (helping do arm64), Citrix (adding xen support in CentOS-6 and CentOS-7), IBM (building a ppc64 and ppc64le arch), Openstack (via RDO), Open Nebula, Project Atomic, Storage (via glusterfs and ceph) etc. We have guys from CERN helping run our Koji Community Build System. The CentOS-Devel list, where all this feedback is occuring has grown by 10 times since we started the SIG programs. We have several projects in the 2015 Google Summer of Code where the community has input into add on projects for CentOS (like a 32 bit armv7 image builder). > > This is confusing. I think it's overwhelmingly, abundantly clear that > Fedora care about their users and are listening. CentOS cares with a > hard and fast upper limit which is binary compatibility with RHEL. So > if you want to change CentOS behavior you'd have to buy into RHEL and > convince Red Hat, and then it'd trickle down to CentOS. > > This is also true that CentOS Linux, the base, is just a plain rebuild of RHEL source code. That is what it is and what it will always be .. the SIGs (where are building much community interaction) are optional addons to that base.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
