On 8/2/20 2:47 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > > Il 02/08/20 00:42, Mike McCarthy, W1NR ha scritto: >> It appears that it is affecting multiple distributions including Debian >> and Ubuntu so it looks like the grub2 team messed up. See >> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/boothole-fixes-causing-boot-problems-across-multiple-linux-distros/ >> >> >> Mike >> >> On 8/1/2020 6:11 PM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote: >>> >>>> Am 01.08.2020 um 23:52 schrieb Leon Fauster via CentOS >>>> <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>> Am 01.08.20 um 23:41 schrieb Kay Schenk: >>>>> Well misery loves company but still...just truly unfathomable! >>>>> Time for a change. >>>> >>>> I can only express my incomprehension for such statements! >>>> >>>> Stay and help. Instead running away or should I say out of the >>>> frying pan and into the fire? :-) >>> The thing, RHEL and CentOS not properly testing updates, cost me at >>> minimum 3-4 full working days, plus losses at customer sites. >>> >>> This is really a huge failure of RHEL and CentOS. >>> >>> A lot of trust has been destroyed. > > Hi Mike, > > I'm not interested that the issue is present on Debian, Ubuntu and the > others. Currently I'm using CentOS, I'm a CentOS user and currently I'm > interested what is happening on CentOS because I have machines that runs > CentOS. If the "wrong" patch was not pushed as update so fast (maybe > waiting more time before release with more testing to get all cases [yes > because when you update grub and depending on the fix you can break a > system easily]) there would have been no problem, by the way I prefer > wait some days (consider that I can accept the release delay of > minor/major release) then break my systems...and without messages on ML > announces about this type of problem does not help. Sorry I can't know > what and when a packages is updated, why it is updated, what type of > problem (CVE) it suffers and do my reasoning for an update process. This > is a missing for me but I still use centos and I should not need a RHEL > account to access to get advisories and see what applies on CentOS > (6,7,8 and Stream). > > Many of us, choose CentOS due to its stability and enteprise-ready > feature (and because is partially/enterely backed by RH). Due to actual > problem, many server and workstation died and it's normal that some user > said "A lot of trust has been destroyed." because they placed a lot of > trust on the pro-redhat support. On the other side, all of us can fall > in error and this is the case (like me that I updated blindy, so its > also my fault not only the broken update). > > Only one error in many years could not destroy a distro and its > stability reputation (I think and correct me if I'm wrong) and I hope it > won't happen again. Well, I am sorry to tell you, but it most likely WILL happen again at some point. CentOS Linux is a rebuild of RHEL source code, nothing more. We TRY to validate all fixes, but if something is broken in the source code, it will likely be borken in CentOS Linux as well. If you need software with Service Level Agreement type stability and timing .. that is absolutely NOT CentOS. We have 3 people who build updates as fast as we can and this sofware is free and unvalidated. We don't do any security testing .. we build and release RHEL source code. RHEL is what you want if you want software assurance or the fastest release cycle or an SLA grade software release. I have released the new shim update for el7 that should fix this issue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
