On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Ian Murray<murrayie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I can't say I have been following this thread in its entirety, but the
> beauty (?) of free speech is that even the ill-informed get to have a say.
> :o)
>
> Anyway, I think there is a general problem with the name Community
> ENterprise OS. Well, Community can't refer to us users because every O/S has
> a community, including Windows. So at first glance at the name, I would say
> that CentOS was produced by the community.... but that clearly isn't the
> case, as we know, so perhaps a simple name change would suffice: CsentOS...
> Closed-Shop Enterprise OS. Now, I bet that sounds like a criticism and I bet
> it smarts a bit. It's not meant to be either, just simply the truth.
> Actually, while we are on, where does the Enterprise bit come from in the
> name?... because I keep hearing that if you want to anything more than is
> currently being offered (speed of delivery,deadlines, trust that it isn't
> all going to fall apart, etc.), then go and buy upstream or use another
> distribution. That's a fair argument, but then remove the 'Enterprise' from
> the title... it's misleading as it suggests its suitable for the enterprise.
>
> So, I suggest the product is renamed as...
>
> Closed-Shop-Binary-Compatible-With-Upstream-OS... CSbcwuOS... not as snappy
> but much closer to the goals and project structure, as far as I, as an
> outsider, can tell.
I'm a CentOS user, that's about it. I do what I can to promote CentOS,
I "wrote" a Wiki entry for installing CentOS on a particular laptop
(basically just a matter of filling out a form) and I answer some
really, really simple questions on the Forums. That's what I know, so
I try to do what I can. But even though my "contributions" to the
CentOS Project are about as minimal as you can get, I still consider
myself a part of the CentOS community. Quite bluntly, no one needs me
trying to tell anyone how to build CentOS. And I can see no reason for
community input in that process as the goal is simple -- a community
rebuild of Red Hat -- 100% binary compatibility. This is why people
use CentOS and what they expect it to be. What the rebuild process
takes is competency and, unless you know something I don't know, the
developers seem to be pretty damn competent to me.
What really irritates me about all this criticism at this time is that
the developers have been putting out a great distribution, true to its
mandate, despite some less than perfect conditions. They recently took
a stand, have averted a crisis -- and are still in the middle of
ironing out other problems. This is *not* the time to dump on them.
This is the time to sit back, chill, and see how everything shakes
out.
> I am sure a lot of people, including myself, are now asking how fragile this
> project is and what risk that fragility poses to our individual ventures.
> CentOS itself lives in a "meritocracy" and right now CentOS's merit is going
> down quite considerably. Not a criticism, just a reminder like so many
> others that the project may needs to adapt to progress.
"Adapt to progress?" It's a cliche, but what's it supposed to mean
here? What is the "progress" you want CentOS to "adapt to?" How is
"progress" supposed to work on a "rebuild" project? I asked that of
someone else in this thread. I'm honestly curious as to what you want
to "progress" toward? Personally the reason I like and use CentOS is
because it stays true to its roots. Of all the Linux distributions,
CentOS probably has the least wiggle room of any. I'm absolutely
ignorant of the development process -- but to me (from the outside) it
seems more like a "mechanical" exercise than an artistic endeavor.
What "community input" would change any of this?
As for the bit about CentOS seeming "fragile," I ask, what makes you
think that? I certainly don't look at it that way. Until the "Open
Letter" I didn't even know there were any major issues (though I did
sense a little tenseness). And despite those issues, a great
distribution was released and updated. Now that some major problems
have been ironed (and, I assume, others will be ironed out) what makes
you think the project is suddenly more "fragile" now then it was
before? I think you ask for real problems when *everyone* has a say in
how the community should "progress?"
I've rambled on too long. But seriously, what is you want? CentOS is a
great Linux distribution, so what's the problem?
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.3
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
