Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Jonathan Billings]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:29:06PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Those 3 addresses are good, the 204.15.73.243 is incorrect.

204.15.73.243 reverse resolves to centos.at.multacom.com.
multacom is a CentOS Sponsor according to:
https://www.centos.org/sponsors/

An outdated config somewhere?

-- 
Jonathan Billings 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Johnny Hughes]

On 10/19/2015 06:18 PM, John Cenile wrote:
> I'm actually not able to connect to that host:
> 
> # curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6=x86_64=extras;
> curl: (7) couldn't connect to host
> 
> 
> Which lead me to discover that our entire network is picking up "
> mirrorlist.centos.org" as 204.15.73.243, which I'm not able to ping from
> any host in a few different countries I tried.
> 
> However, if I ping mirrorlist.centos.org from Europe, it resolves
> to 84.22.180.89, or from USA it resolves to 88.150.173.218, or from Asia it
> resolves to 108.61.16.227.
> 

Those 3 addresses are good, the 204.15.73.243 is incorrect.

> Could there be an issue with this specific mirrorlist server
> (204.15.73.243)?

Yes, that address is not listed in our DNS zone file for mirrorlist.  In
fact, that address is not in our zone file for anything .. so I have no
idea where you are getting it looked up from.

> 
> On 20 October 2015 at 01:56, Johnny Hughes  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/19/2015 06:49 AM, John Cenile wrote:
>>> Thanks for the suggestions, unfortunately that file doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> I'm very confused as to why it's trying to download from /6.6/.
>>>
>>> The output of rpm -qi centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.x86_64 is:
>>>
>>> Name: centos-release   Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>> Version : 6 Vendor: CentOS
>>> Release : 4.el6.centos.10   Build Date: Mon 25 Feb 2013
>>> 07:57:43 PM EST
>>> Install Date: Fri 05 Jul 2013 09:32:33 AM EST  Build Host:
>>> c6b8.bsys.dev.centos.org
>>> Group   : System Environment/Base   Source RPM:
>>> centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.src.rpm
>>> Size: 32670License: GPLv2
>>> Signature   : RSA/SHA1, Sat 02 Mar 2013 01:01:26 AM EST, Key ID
>>> 0946fca2c105b9de
>>> Packager: CentOS BuildSystem 
>>> Summary : CentOS release file
>>> Description :
>>> CentOS release files
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 19:59, James Pearson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 John Cenile wrote:

> I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(
>

 Also check you don't have the file /etc/yum/vars/releasever - the
>> contents
 of this will override the value of $releasever in the repo files


 James Pearson

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

>>> ___
>>> CentOS mailing list
>>> CentOS@centos.org
>>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>>
>>
>> What does this command give you from that machine:
>>
>> curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6=x86_64=extras;
>>
>> Are you using ipv4 or ipv6?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Johnny Hughes]

On 10/20/2015 01:28 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:29:06PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Those 3 addresses are good, the 204.15.73.243 is incorrect.
> 
> 204.15.73.243 reverse resolves to centos.at.multacom.com.
> multacom is a CentOS Sponsor according to:
> https://www.centos.org/sponsors/
> 
> An outdated config somewhere?
> 
I don't think so on our end, but that was at one time a good address.

Maybe the site in question has a static address added in a hosts file, etc.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

Hello Johnny,

That appears to be it, our network DNS resolvers were caching an old record
from the looks of it.

I've cleared the cache, and everything is now working perfectly.

Thank you (all) for the help, I wasn't even aware that the 204.15.73.243
address was no longer valid.



On 21 October 2015 at 05:35, Johnny Hughes  wrote:

> On 10/20/2015 01:28 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:29:06PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> Those 3 addresses are good, the 204.15.73.243 is incorrect.
> >
> > 204.15.73.243 reverse resolves to centos.at.multacom.com.
> > multacom is a CentOS Sponsor according to:
> > https://www.centos.org/sponsors/
> >
> > An outdated config somewhere?
> >
> I don't think so on our end, but that was at one time a good address.
>
> Maybe the site in question has a static address added in a hosts file, etc.
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[James Pearson]

> 
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 04:22, "John Cenile"  wrote:
> 
> When performing a yum update, it fails because it's trying to download from:
> 
> mirror.centos.org/centos/*6.6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
> 
> Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
> of the mirrors I have checked

I had something similar happen recently when upgrading a box from 6.6 to 6.7

I 'fixed' it by running 'yum clean all' first

I did think it odd at the time - but didn't get round to trying to find out why 
...

James Pearson 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

On 10/19/2015 07:20 AM, John Cenile wrote:

Hello Clint,

Our Centos-base.repo file looks like this:

[base]
name=CentOS-$releasever - Base
mirrorlist=
http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever=$basearch=os
#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-6


I also tried yours, however I experienced the same issue. It seems like
it's replacing the "releaserver" variable with 6.6, rather than 6, I'm not
sure why though.



In your initial post you mentioned problems with extras. Here you are 
changing the stanza of base.

What is your stanza for "extras"?




On 19 October 2015 at 14:59, John R Pierce  wrote:


On 10/18/2015 8:21 PM, John Cenile wrote:


Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
of the mirrors I have checked.



isn't 6.7 out ?  why would there be anything left in 6.6 ?



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

Thanks for the suggestions, unfortunately that file doesn't exist.

I'm very confused as to why it's trying to download from /6.6/.

The output of rpm -qi centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.x86_64 is:

Name: centos-release   Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 6 Vendor: CentOS
Release : 4.el6.centos.10   Build Date: Mon 25 Feb 2013
07:57:43 PM EST
Install Date: Fri 05 Jul 2013 09:32:33 AM EST  Build Host:
c6b8.bsys.dev.centos.org
Group   : System Environment/Base   Source RPM:
centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.src.rpm
Size: 32670License: GPLv2
Signature   : RSA/SHA1, Sat 02 Mar 2013 01:01:26 AM EST, Key ID
0946fca2c105b9de
Packager: CentOS BuildSystem 
Summary : CentOS release file
Description :
CentOS release files


On 19 October 2015 at 19:59, James Pearson 
wrote:

> John Cenile wrote:
>
>> I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(
>>
>
> Also check you don't have the file /etc/yum/vars/releasever - the contents
> of this will override the value of $releasever in the repo files
>
>
> James Pearson
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

Sorry, I just copied any line from the repo file. :)

On 19 October 2015 at 22:39, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg <
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr> wrote:

> On 10/19/2015 07:20 AM, John Cenile wrote:
>
>> Hello Clint,
>>
>> Our Centos-base.repo file looks like this:
>>
>> [base]
>> name=CentOS-$releasever - Base
>> mirrorlist=
>> http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever=$basearch=os
>> #baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
>> gpgcheck=1
>> gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-6
>>
>>
>> I also tried yours, however I experienced the same issue. It seems like
>> it's replacing the "releaserver" variable with 6.6, rather than 6, I'm not
>> sure why though.
>>
>
>
> In your initial post you mentioned problems with extras. Here you are
> changing the stanza of base.
> What is your stanza for "extras"?
>
>
>
> On 19 October 2015 at 14:59, John R Pierce  wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/2015 8:21 PM, John Cenile wrote:
>>>
>>> Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
 of the mirrors I have checked.


>>> isn't 6.7 out ?  why would there be anything left in 6.6 ?
>>>
>>>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(

Any other ideas?

On 19 October 2015 at 18:01, James Pearson 
wrote:

> >
> > On 19 Oct 2015, at 04:22, "John Cenile"  wrote:
> >
> > When performing a yum update, it fails because it's trying to download
> from:
> >
> > mirror.centos.org/centos/*6.6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
> >
> > Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
> > of the mirrors I have checked
>
> I had something similar happen recently when upgrading a box from 6.6 to
> 6.7
>
> I 'fixed' it by running 'yum clean all' first
>
> I did think it odd at the time - but didn't get round to trying to find
> out why ...
>
> James Pearson
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[James Pearson]

John Cenile wrote:

I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(


Also check you don't have the file /etc/yum/vars/releasever - the 
contents of this will override the value of $releasever in the repo files


James Pearson

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Hodrien]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, John Cenile wrote:


I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(

Any other ideas?


Have you manually set releasever in your yum config?

As a short term fix, maybe you should.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Johnny Hughes]

On 10/19/2015 06:49 AM, John Cenile wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, unfortunately that file doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm very confused as to why it's trying to download from /6.6/.
> 
> The output of rpm -qi centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.x86_64 is:
> 
> Name: centos-release   Relocations: (not relocatable)
> Version : 6 Vendor: CentOS
> Release : 4.el6.centos.10   Build Date: Mon 25 Feb 2013
> 07:57:43 PM EST
> Install Date: Fri 05 Jul 2013 09:32:33 AM EST  Build Host:
> c6b8.bsys.dev.centos.org
> Group   : System Environment/Base   Source RPM:
> centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.src.rpm
> Size: 32670License: GPLv2
> Signature   : RSA/SHA1, Sat 02 Mar 2013 01:01:26 AM EST, Key ID
> 0946fca2c105b9de
> Packager: CentOS BuildSystem 
> Summary : CentOS release file
> Description :
> CentOS release files
> 
> 
> On 19 October 2015 at 19:59, James Pearson 
> wrote:
> 
>> John Cenile wrote:
>>
>>> I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(
>>>
>>
>> Also check you don't have the file /etc/yum/vars/releasever - the contents
>> of this will override the value of $releasever in the repo files
>>
>>
>> James Pearson
>>
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 

What does this command give you from that machine:

curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6=x86_64=extras;

Are you using ipv4 or ipv6?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

I'm actually not able to connect to that host:

# curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6=x86_64=extras;
curl: (7) couldn't connect to host


Which lead me to discover that our entire network is picking up "
mirrorlist.centos.org" as 204.15.73.243, which I'm not able to ping from
any host in a few different countries I tried.

However, if I ping mirrorlist.centos.org from Europe, it resolves
to 84.22.180.89, or from USA it resolves to 88.150.173.218, or from Asia it
resolves to 108.61.16.227.

Could there be an issue with this specific mirrorlist server
(204.15.73.243)?

On 20 October 2015 at 01:56, Johnny Hughes  wrote:

> On 10/19/2015 06:49 AM, John Cenile wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestions, unfortunately that file doesn't exist.
> >
> > I'm very confused as to why it's trying to download from /6.6/.
> >
> > The output of rpm -qi centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.x86_64 is:
> >
> > Name: centos-release   Relocations: (not relocatable)
> > Version : 6 Vendor: CentOS
> > Release : 4.el6.centos.10   Build Date: Mon 25 Feb 2013
> > 07:57:43 PM EST
> > Install Date: Fri 05 Jul 2013 09:32:33 AM EST  Build Host:
> > c6b8.bsys.dev.centos.org
> > Group   : System Environment/Base   Source RPM:
> > centos-release-6-4.el6.centos.10.src.rpm
> > Size: 32670License: GPLv2
> > Signature   : RSA/SHA1, Sat 02 Mar 2013 01:01:26 AM EST, Key ID
> > 0946fca2c105b9de
> > Packager: CentOS BuildSystem 
> > Summary : CentOS release file
> > Description :
> > CentOS release files
> >
> >
> > On 19 October 2015 at 19:59, James Pearson 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> John Cenile wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have tried yum clean all multiple times, no luck. :(
> >>>
> >>
> >> Also check you don't have the file /etc/yum/vars/releasever - the
> contents
> >> of this will override the value of $releasever in the repo files
> >>
> >>
> >> James Pearson
> >>
> >> ___
> >> CentOS mailing list
> >> CentOS@centos.org
> >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >>
> > ___
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@centos.org
> > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >
>
> What does this command give you from that machine:
>
> curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6=x86_64=extras;
>
> Are you using ipv4 or ipv6?
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[Clint Dilks]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:21 PM, John Cenile  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I manage a few servers overseas that are running CentOS 6.
>
> When performing a yum update, it fails because it's trying to download
> from:
>
> mirror.centos.org/centos/*6.6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>
>
> Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
> of the mirrors I have checked. From what I can tell it should be using:
>
> mirror.centos.org/centos/*6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this would be happening? Obviously changing
> the CentOS-Base file to use 'baseurl' rather than 'mirrorlist' is a
> workaround, but I would prefer a more permanent solution, and would like to
> know why this is happening.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


Hi, in most cases you would expect mirrorlist to be defined rather than
baseurl  unless you want to be pointing to a specific repository.
I would suggest that you do a fresh install somewhere update it and then
compare the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ with your existing systems.

As examples of base and updates from one of my own systems I have

[base]
name=CentOS-$releasever - Base
mirrorlist=
http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever=$basearch=os=$infra
#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-6

#released updates
[updates]
name=CentOS-$releasever - Updates
mirrorlist=
http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever=$basearch=updates=$infra
#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

Hello all,

I manage a few servers overseas that are running CentOS 6.

When performing a yum update, it fails because it's trying to download from:

mirror.centos.org/centos/*6.6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml


Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
of the mirrors I have checked. From what I can tell it should be using:

mirror.centos.org/centos/*6*/extras/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml


Does anyone have any idea why this would be happening? Obviously changing
the CentOS-Base file to use 'baseurl' rather than 'mirrorlist' is a
workaround, but I would prefer a more permanent solution, and would like to
know why this is happening.

Thanks in advance.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John R Pierce]

On 10/18/2015 8:21 PM, John Cenile wrote:

Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
of the mirrors I have checked.


isn't 6.7 out ?  why would there be anything left in 6.6 ?

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 update issues

[John Cenile]

Hello Clint,

Our Centos-base.repo file looks like this:

[base]
name=CentOS-$releasever - Base
mirrorlist=
http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever=$basearch=os
#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-6


I also tried yours, however I experienced the same issue. It seems like
it's replacing the "releaserver" variable with 6.6, rather than 6, I'm not
sure why though.

On 19 October 2015 at 14:59, John R Pierce  wrote:

> On 10/18/2015 8:21 PM, John Cenile wrote:
>
>> Which fails due to the fact that the entire 6.6 directory is empty on all
>> of the mirrors I have checked.
>>
>
> isn't 6.7 out ?  why would there be anything left in 6.6 ?
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:19 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote:

 If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
 types of articles...

 No.  These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a
 communications policy or not.  However having someone actually posting
 updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing.  And preferably someone
 that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list).

I'm cleaning up my inbox and found this reply (that I somehow missed earlier).

I'm sorry about the lateness of the reply but felt that I should
clarify a misunderstanding.

By communication policy, I don't mean giving updates of the progress
of an upcoming release (especially given Karanbir's explanation of the
difficulty in estimating the completion point); I mean not telling
people if you're unhappy, use another distribution or making similar
types of comments and creating problems for themselves (like the
negative article posted in this thread) and those who promote their
distribution (I have two companies where I consult in which the IT
managers have asked me to switch to Debian).
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com
 To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
 Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:01:22
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
  
   Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. 
  I'll 

  finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
 
 How  about I write you a check to just go away?
 

Please make it payable to Dag's Rebuild Fund. (JOKE)

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: Garry Dale garry.d...@gmail.com
 To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
 Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:37:33
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 (someone) wrote:
  Why does the website say something so different,  then?
 
 Seriously?  Are people really this  retarded?


Retarded enough to take what a disty website takes at face value? Are YOU being 
serious?


 ___
 CentOS mailing  list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com
 To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
 Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 1:59:19
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk  wrote:
 
  Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to  read them. I'll
  finish when I am good and ready... not when *you*  decide.
 
 I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the  CentOS
 distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I  detested
 a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you  even
 use CentOS any more? (Serious question.)
 

Detest? Hate? I have nothing against the distribution and yes I do still use it 
on several virtual server and look after several other CentOS based systems, 
i.e. SME and AsteriskNOW. I can't be bothered to migrate off, but would think 
twice about any new public facing installs. That applies to all rebuilds at the 
moment, as I am not convinced about the model for the moment.

In case nobody noticed, I am only responding to other comments. If I was 
constantly starting threads of the same topic, I would agree that it would be 
trolling.

Not the first time that attempts are made to silence someone through 
discreditation, though.








 -- 
 RonB -- Using  CentOS 5.6
 ___
 CentOS mailing  list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 It sounds to me like  your big beef is that you can't run the CentOS
 distribution the way *you*  want it run. Whether you agree or not,
 doesn't change the fact that CentOS  *is* enterprise ready.-- and many
 enterprises use it. The only time there are  significant delays in

No, I would just like the name and website to match the facts. I would suggest 
that anybody that calls centOS enterprise-ready might have a different 
concept 
to what an enterprise is to me. Enterprise to me is at least a 1000 users and 
dozens of live servers. If CentOS is only suitable for test environment then I 
don't really class that as enterprise-ready, either.

 
 As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild  CentOS? Why not do
 what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat  and rebuild
 that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the  CentOS
 name.
 

I was just trying to illustrate a point, rather than actually wanting to do it.



 -- 
 RonB -- Using CentOS  5.6
 ___
 CentOS mailing  list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com
 To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
 Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 2:58:36
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
  
  I  have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
give me 

  sufficient information to start a competing  rebuild.
 
 Information needed to rebuild is, and has  been for quite some
 time, in the archives of this and the  -devel mailing lists.
 
 Johnny has posted such  information.  Russ has posted
 information.   There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know
 of,  and likely many more that I don't.
 
 There is no  magic.
 
 While it can be argued (and I would actually be  in agreement)
 that such information should be wikified the  fact is that the
 information _is_ out  there.
 

The point was the attitude, not the availability. As far as I can gather, some 
if it is out of date, anyway.

What are these 5 rebuilds then, apart from SL?



 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 And do us a favor?  Take your own  advice.
 


I always try to state as far as I know, as far as I can tell, in my 
opinion/belief.


Can we recall that I commented on the fact that a major Linux magazine had put 
up a pretty damning article. I don't know why I am getting attacked for that. 
Write to Linux Mag.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Stephen Harris]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:

 No, I would just like the name and website to match the facts. I would 
 suggest 
 that anybody that calls centOS enterprise-ready might have a different 
 concept 
 to what an enterprise is to me. Enterprise to me is at least a 1000 users and 
 dozens of live servers. If CentOS is only suitable for test environment then 
 I 
 don't really class that as enterprise-ready, either.

Dozens ?  What a small environment.  My concept of enterprise is thousands
of servers.

CentOS, as an Operating System, is most definitely enterprise ready.
It can scale to 1000s of servers quite easily.  Tools are available
to let you build and deploy on an automated basis.  You could deploy
CentOS to a thousand servers with ease; you could deploy a blade farm
with dynamic provisioning very quickly and easily.

What the CentOS project is _not_ is an enterprise level _support_ service.
It doesn't pretend to be.  That's where the community aspect comes in.
If you want enteprise level support then you probably need to pay for it.
(which is why my employer uses RedHat and not CentOS; we want to be able
to phone someone and bitch at them until they fix stuff)

If you consider enterprise ready to be a combination of enterprise
scalable and enterprise level support then, sure, you'll not find CentOS
meeting your needs.  But if you want an enterprise quality OS then CentOS
fills that gap nicely.

-- 

rgds
Stephen
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[aurfalien]

Its pretty funny how flaming any thread with Centos 6 in it can get.

So the devs do/do not communicate, who cares.

When Centos 6 does come out, many will say O big daddy, thank you  
sooo much, I love you...  or something like that.

And the old adage about No one ever got fired for buying IBM may  
hold true today but it should be re written as When you buy IBM,  
people get laid off.

Jesus, the prices for IBM and even Oracle gear these days, WTF...

- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[aurfalien]

And think about how the Plutonians feel after there home was bumped  
down from planet to moon, or was cold worthless chunk rotating the Sun.

- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[m . roth]

aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
 And think about how the Plutonians feel after there home was bumped
 down from planet to moon, or was cold worthless chunk rotating the Sun.

Equal rights for Pluto!

  mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[aurfalien]

On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:22 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

 aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
 And think about how the Plutonians feel after there home was bumped
 down from planet to moon, or was cold worthless chunk rotating the  
 Sun.

 Equal rights for Pluto!

Sheee ku, thats what I be sayin.

- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community 
 member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. 

Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
hard to respect.



John

-- 
There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it.

-- Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784), French philosopher and chief editor of the
   historic project to produce L'Encyclopidie, as quoted in Dictionary if
   Foreign Quotations (1980) by Mary Collison, Robert L. Collison, p. 235





pgpRG0m1e7r88.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned  CentOS
 that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated  writings
 hard to respect.
 

Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect.

Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs 
assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted 
from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
should 
really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to 
his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done.


As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me 
comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Brian Mathis]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect.

 Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs
 assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted
 from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
 should
 really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to
 his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't 
 done.


No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced
chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
that would have been nice, but not a requirement.


 As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to 
 me
 comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.


It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.

It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's
not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open
alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
deem it worthy to give you anything at all.

The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real
work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.

Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.


// Brian Mathis


[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:

 Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community
 member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.

 Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
 that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
 hard to respect.

I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.

You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
reflexion of the CentOS lists.

If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
types of articles...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 No.   News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
 of what's  going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
 a  complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced
 chances  for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
 that would  have been nice, but not a requirement.
 

I was just trying to be fair, otherwise I get flamed. 
 
  As for the other side of  the point of view, please refer to JH's response 
  to 
me
  comment. I'll  paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
 
 
 It doesn't  matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
 responses are  absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
 seriously sitting down  with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
 doesn't seem to realize  that telling people to f*ck off is not
 acceptable behavior, no matter who you  are or what you do.
 

Totally agree, but I don't see it changing any time soon.


 It doesn't matter if you provide something for  free, because it's
 not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests  significant time and
 energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on  claims on the web site,
 and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not  an open
 alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy  we
 deem it worthy to give you anything at all.
 

My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing 
(i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker 
got 
that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the 
website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, 
as 
it is a valued brand now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they 
would make you take out all references just like RH do.


 The attitudes against  any user who has a question about releases
 significantly undermines the  project and is a slap in the face to
 everyone who has chosen to support and  proselytize CentOS throughout
 the years.  The idea that the Devs are the  only ones who do any real
 work on the project is complete BS.  It was  the *users* who put all
 the hard work into implementing CentOS and building  up the usage
 numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
 
 Also, based  on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
 can only assume that  the real reason behind keeping the dev process
 closed is to maintain the egos  of those on the inside -- since all
 avenues of logic seem to have been  exhausted.

I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
me 
sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

I have long since concluded that the devs do it for their own reasons and 
certainly not for any altruistic reasons.

 
 
 // Brian Mathis
 
 
 [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html
 ___
 CentOS  mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Mathieu Baudier]

 The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
 significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to

any user?
Or users who keep repeating again and again the same boring old stuff?

I think that we now all know what to expect and what not to expect from CentOS.
And that some here are frustrated with it, while some aren't.

Is there anything else relevant to add?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
 My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
 thing 
 (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. 

[sigh]

CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; 
simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible).  No reason to change; the 
name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time.  This is not new. 

Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know 
isn't going to happen. 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Tom H wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community
 member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
 Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
 that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
 hard to respect.
 
 I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
 isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.
 
 You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
 reflexion of the CentOS lists.

You obviously wanted to say reflection of the persistent complainers on 
the CentOS lists.

CentOS is pinned down with friendly fire aimed mostly at Oracle and 
other free riders on RHEL. Red Hat wants more money, and this is the 
only way they can do that.

As for those asking for transparent process, my only conclusion is that 
they want to find out how they can recreate RHEL so they can create a 
fork of CentOS. And that is happening because they are not competent 
enough (or lack money/time) to do it on their own. Why haven't they got 
all information from Scientific Linux? If SL is better and faster with 
releases, then they should ask SL devs to give them access to their 
machines, or to publish their entire build system. I have not seen that 
happening so far. Why?

Also, are you aware that RHEL 6.0 itself is very late?

Info from wikipedia:
- RHEL 2 - 3 took 18 months.
- RHEL 3 - 4 took 19 months.
- RHEL 4 - 5 took 25 months.
- but RHEL 5 - 6 took whooping 44 months.

- CentOS delay for 3.1 was 5 months,
- CentOS delay for 4 was 1 month,
- CentOS delay for 5 was 1 month,
- CentOS delay for 6 is currently 5 months and counting,


So if for RHEL took almost 2,5 times the amount of time to release new 
version (6.0), why is there so much fuss about CentOS team taking it so 
long to untangle the web Red Hat produced, including parallel releases 
of 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0, an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from 
the previous version, and initial delay of publishing SRPMS?

I also wish CentOS 6 was released at least in the end of January, but 
mea culpa, it is what it is.

 
 If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
 types of articles...
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
 
 I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
 isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.

I have read some of his articles in the past and I speak from the point
of knowledge of his past writings; and also knowledge of his past
involvement with a different linux distribution.  He's apparently got an
axe to grind against the CentOS project.  That's fine, this is a free
country and he can write and say whatever he wants.  But to allude to
him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
article even ending on a positive note.  That type of writing, much like
the constant complainers on this list that, for whatever reason, stay
with CentOS when alternatives exist eventually turns into nothing more
than noise.

 You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
 reflexion of the CentOS lists.

No.  His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list
and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the
problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two
sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the
negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice.

 If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
 types of articles...

No.  These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a
communications policy or not.  However having someone actually posting
updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing.  And preferably someone
that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list).




John
-- 
The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to
have any.

-- Katharine Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist 


pgpM9MAP6WP3z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 Is there anything else relevant to  add?
 ___

Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution 
for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has 
read about it ad nausem on this list.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 05:51:46 PM Ian Murray wrote:
  Is there anything else relevant to  add?
 
 Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the 
 distribution 
 for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone 
 has 
 read about it ad nausem on this list.

Irrelevant.

*plonk*
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu
 To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
 Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 21:32:35
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
  My big beef  has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
thing 

   (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. 
 
 [sigh]
 
 CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the  upstream Enterprise 
 OS; 
simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible).   No reason to change; the 
name captures what it is, and has been, for a long  time.  This is not new. 


Sounds perfect. Why does the website say something so different, then?

 
 Not trying to be rude, but, you might as  well stop suggesting what you know 
isn't going to happen. 


I believe it will never, I hope I am wrong.

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R Pierce]

On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:

 Is there anything else relevant to  add?
 ___
 Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution
 for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone 
 has
 read about it ad nausem on this list.

you're the one going on ad nausem.   seriously, enough already.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

  But to allude to
 him as a  respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
 every article  that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
 article even  ending on a positive note.  

Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/

(For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... 
I 
stopped at page 6)

Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
that 
isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.




 
   You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
   reflexion of the CentOS lists.
 
 No.  His conclusions are rehashed,  sometimes verbatim, from this list
 and the same vocal and tiny minority of  users; and that's one of the
 problems I have with his style of one-sided  journalism - there are two
 sides to most every story and when you concentrate  solely on the
 negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave  disservice.

And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we 
know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.


 
  If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare  itself these
  types of articles...
 
 No.  These types of  articles will continue to appear whether there is a
 communications policy  or not. 

In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every 
community project irrespective of governance would get these types of 
articles 
and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!

 
 
   John
 -- 
 The easiest way for your  children to learn about money is for you not to
 have any.
 
 -- Katharine  Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist 
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
 From: John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com
 To: centos@centos.org
 Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 23:04:50
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
 
 On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
 
  Is there anything  else relevant to  add?
   ___
  Yeah, please can someone  fix the front-page to better reflect the 
distribution
  for what it is,  rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not 
  everyone 
has
  read  about it ad nausem on this list.
 
 you're the one going on ad nausem.seriously, enough  already.

Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
 finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

How about I write you a check to just go away?




John

-- 
The truth is, when all is said and done, one does not teach a subject, one
teaches a student how to learn it.  Teaching may look like administering a
dose, but even a dose must be worked on by the body if it is to cure.  Each
individual must cure his or her own ignorance.

-- Jacques Barzun (30 November 1907-), French-born American scholar,
   historian, critic and teacher, Reasons to De-Test the Schools,
   New York Times, 11 October 1988


pgp8voePv1n4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Garry Dale]

(someone) wrote:
 Why does the website say something so different, then?

Seriously?  Are people really this retarded?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll
 finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS
distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested
a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even
use CentOS any more? (Serious question.)

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Brian Mathis

 It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's
 not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
 energy into it.

How so? By installing it?

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
 thing
 (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker 
 got
 that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the
 website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, 
 as
 it is a valued brand now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they
 would make you take out all references just like RH do.

It sounds to me like your big beef is that you can't run the CentOS
distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not,
doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many
enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in
patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure
that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have
learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on
their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or
Scientific Linux.

As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do
what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild
that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS
name.

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:18:21AM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
 
 No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
 of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
 a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced
 chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
 that would have been nice, but not a requirement.

The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

 It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
 responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
 seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
 doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
 acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.

It's perfectly acceptable when it's the same vocal few over and over
again.  Matter of fact, I commend him on the restraint he's shown so
far.  It's a point of fact that some people are too thick-skulled to
understand any other way; tact doesn't always work - at times you need
to be brutally honest and blunt.

 It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's
 not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
 energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
 and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open
 alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
 deem it worthy to give you anything at all.

What caliber of firearm is pointed at your skull keeping you here?

By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
with it.

 The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
 significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
 everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
 the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real
 work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
 the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
 numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.

Oh please. 

 Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
 can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
 closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
 avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.

But yet... here you are.

This begs the question:

Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?  You've nothing good to say.
Ever.  Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your
fingers endears you to the CentOS team?  Do you think they care?  Do you
think you're important to them?  Let me disabuse you of something:  the
answer to all 3 items above is no.  As difficult as it may be for you
to accept the truth is you're irrelevant.  As I've pointed out in the
past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in
the least.  You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base
and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or
any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed.  Do you
think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is
going to cause anyone any loss of sleep?  Why don't you do yourself and
everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you
don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?



John
-- 
Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of
a person or animal is at stake.  Society's punishments are small compared
to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.

-- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), civil-rights leader


pgpLWGFsZOr5v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
 me 
 sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

Information needed to rebuild is, and has been for quite some
time, in the archives of this and the -devel mailing lists.

Johnny has posted such information.  Russ has posted
information.  There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know
of, and likely many more that I don't.

There is no magic.

While it can be argued (and I would actually be in agreement)
that such information should be wikified the fact is that the
information _is_ out there.




John

-- 
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it
rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously.  Like
a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming.  The oftener
one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.

-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist


pgpG8YSZF6vi5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:25:06PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/

I've read the articles; I've no need to re-read them.

 (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from 
 him... I 
 stopped at page 6)

You didn't look very hard.

 Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
 linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
 using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
 that 
 isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.

The project is fine for what I need it for.  And, again, it's only a
tiny fraction of the user base that has a problem with the project and
the project management that are making a big stink about things.

 And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as 
 we 
 know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
 people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.

I've never said that there weren't issues.  Matter of fact I've agreed
that there are indeed communication problems that I hope will be
resolved.  The difference is I'm not crying about the sky falling.

And do us a favor?  Take your own advice.




John

-- 
Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.

-- Woody Page, Denver sports columnist


pgp049x9N1O9m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Keith Keller]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:01:22PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
  
  Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
  finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
 
 How about I write you a check to just go away?

Is it really that easy?!?  I'm going to start whinging constantly till
you write me a check!  ;-)

--keith

-- 
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us



pgpxEeQx5EUhO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 4/21/11, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
 The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
 irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
 lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation.
However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
deciding against the project without posting a single word.

Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

 By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
 support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
 page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
 with it.

They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment
that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs,
without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months,
would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies,
even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user
to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.

 This begs the question:
 Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?

I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others
extra incentive ;)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 09:18 AM, Brian Mathis wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect.

 Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs
 assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted
 from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
 should
 really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to
 his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't 
 done.
 
 
 No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
 of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
 a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced
 chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
 that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
 
 
 As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to 
 me
 comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
 
 
 It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
 responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
 seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
 doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
 acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
 
 It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's
 not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
 energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
 and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open
 alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
 deem it worthy to give you anything at all.
 
 The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
 significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
 everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
 the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real
 work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
 the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
 numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
 
 Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
 can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
 closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
 avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.

For the record, I brought KB into this project ... not the other way around.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
 me 
 sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
them?  Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
we give to others.

CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more
than is required by the GPL.

CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about
the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the
Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing
Lists and IRC.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:19:12PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
 Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation.
 However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
 is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
 there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
 deciding against the project without posting a single word.

I'll take that bet.

I'd be curious to see some stats on downloads now that 5.6 is out; along
with torrent activity.  While neither are a definitive view as to how
popular the disto remains they provide some insight how popular CentOS 5
remains.

 Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
 same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
 effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

I'll take this bet, as well.  While I admit that there is an emotional
aspect that comes into play when someone has indeed spent time/emotional
energy on a project I will bet you real dollars that those doing the
most complaining aren't in that group.

 The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
 posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
 the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
 unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

Possible?  Sure as anything's possible.  The moon could break out of
orbit tonight as well.  However I'm going to go with There are other
factors at play that are contributing to the illustrated 'decline' of
CentOS-based web servers that have nothing to do with the supposed
problems that people perceive to be wrong with the CentOS distribution..

 They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment
 that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs,
 without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months,
 would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies,
 even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user
 to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.

Please keep in mind that CentOS, be it the project or the distribution,
is not a company.  It's not recruiting customers.  There is no
break-even point or sales quota requirements.  People use it if they
want.  Also, another point is that the CentOS devs don't really provide
the support; support, almost exclusively, is a community effort.  Note
that by community I include the forum moderators that have a closer
relationship with the CentOS devs than the average community member.
And no matter what anyone may think of the project or the developers,
community support is as good or better than that provided by the
majority of commercial enterprises I've dealt with in the past 30 years
as a *nix admin/engineer.

 I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others
 extra incentive ;)

We'll see :)




John
-- 
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it
rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously.  Like
a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming.  The oftener
one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.

-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist


pgpuAudOWdO7f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
centos.ad...@gmail.com wrote:

 Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation.
 However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
 is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
 there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
 deciding against the project without posting a single word.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you look at who has been
complaining, a select few names span several years -- even when there
are no point releases pending, they complain. Anyone who has ever used
a newsgroup knows that some people delight in disrupting the
process. They're called trolls on newsgroups. When someone
continually repeats the same thing over and over and over, *ad
nauseum*, then I would not conclude that they speaking for nine others
who are silent.

 Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
 same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
 effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

Doubtful. Some people have an extremely negative outlook or they have
an agenda that they hope achieve by being the constantly squeaking
wheel. Or, as in newsgroups, they have a need to be always stirring
the pot. and this is how they stroke their egos. Whatever it is, many
complainers are never satisfied, even when they get what they want.
That's just their personality and it's not going to change.

 The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
 posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
 the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
 unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

I haven't been following the mailing list that closely lately, but
when the same people constantly harp on the same subject it tends to
get under your skin. I would imagine when the developers (who have had
two point releases and a major release thrown at them all at one time)
are already tired due to the extra work, the ungrateful and
repetitious bitching from the same few complainers would tend to be
extremely irritating.

snip.

And does anyone really think trying to nuke a project with constant,
public criticism is really going to groom these whiners to be great
cheerleaders when (if) they ever get their way? Sorry, but some of
them have the destructive personality of gossips. They've already
shown their true colors.

And I'm not saying this about everyone, especially not those who've
occasionally complained about a specific issue and are often airing a
legitimate gripe. It's those who have been fed up with CentOS for
years and are going to leave any millennium now if they don't
immediately get their way. I don't think I need to mention any names.
You've seen them (again and again) here and at just about any public
forum they can use to harm CentOS.

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
 On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:

 I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
 give me 
 sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
 
 Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
 them?  Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
 we give to others.
 
 CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more
 than is required by the GPL.
 
 CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about
 the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the
 Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing
 Lists and IRC.


The is the description of the project on the main page:

CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources
freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise
Linux vendor.  CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors
redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS
mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.)
 CentOS is free.

CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers.  In
turn the core developers are supported by an active user community
including system administrators, network administrators, enterprise
users, managers, core Linux contributors and Linux enthusiasts from
around the world.


Where does that say it is the goal of CentOS to provide step by step
instructions to teach other projects how to rebuild the upstream sources?

What that says is the the devs build CentOS and the Community provides
support 

How am I misreading it?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Raymond Lillard]

 This begs the question:

 Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?  You've nothing good to say.
 Ever.  Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your
 fingers endears you to the CentOS team?  Do you think they care?  Do you
 think you're important to them?  Let me disabuse you of something:  the
 answer to all 3 items above is no.  As difficult as it may be for you
 to accept the truth is you're irrelevant.  As I've pointed out in the
 past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in
 the least.  You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base
 and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or
 any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed.  Do you
 think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is
 going to cause anyone any loss of sleep?  Why don't you do yourself and
 everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you
 don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?


 Because -- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't 
change the subject.
 Sir Winston Churchill
 British politician (1874 - 1965)






___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/20/11 8:53 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:

 The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
 irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
 lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

If he had wanted to be really critical he would have quoted project members 
suggesting that if people needed security fixes they should have their 
operators 
build their own untested versions or pay someone to do one-off builds for them.

 By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
 support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
 page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
 with it.

Previously that decision might have been made on the basis of CentOS having a 
history of timely security updates.  Now you can't say that for any sane 
definition of timely.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
 give me
 sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

 Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
 them?

Why?  Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not 
exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and 
improve_ what they do.  Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do 
closed development.

  Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
 we give to others.

Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:25 +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
 
   But to allude to
  him as a  respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
  every article  that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
  article even  ending on a positive note.  
 
 Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/
 
 (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from 
 him... I 
 stopped at page 6)
 
 Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
 linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
 using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
 that 
 isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.

He doesn't seem like a hack to me either. I checked his archive and he
seems to be genuine and expressed his concern about the lack of a
release back in February so it's a logical extension to be even more
concerned that here we are in late April and still nothing.

You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
reflexion of the CentOS lists.
  
  No.  His conclusions are rehashed,  sometimes verbatim, from this list
  and the same vocal and tiny minority of  users; and that's one of the
  problems I have with his style of one-sided  journalism - there are two
  sides to most every story and when you concentrate  solely on the
  negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave  disservice.
 
 And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as 
 we 
 know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
 people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.

I think many people don't want to publicly state and appear to be
ungrateful.

I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless
because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about
the timeliness now.

If someone actually wanted to get a better view of the opinions, there
are open source polling tools.

   If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare  itself these
   types of articles...
  
  No.  These types of  articles will continue to appear whether there is a
  communications policy  or not. 
 
 In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every 
 community project irrespective of governance would get these types of 
 articles 
 and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!

It seems that unless/until the CentOS leaders agree that 3 months on
point releases and 6 months on new releases are a problem then they
aren't likely to try to solve it.

I would agree that this type of article would exist even if there were
better communications offered by CentOS governance.

Speaking only for myself, I am starting to lose faith.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
 give me
 sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

 Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
 them?

 Why?  Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not
 exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and
 improve_ what they do.  Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do
 closed development.

   Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
 we give to others.

 Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?

What's stopping you and others from going to Red Hat and doing what
those who started CentOS did?

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote:

 I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless
 because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about
 the timeliness now.

Yeah, genuinely concerned. And that concern is supposedly best
served by bad-mouthing CentOS at every opportunity? Sorry, but I'm not
buying it.

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Benjamin Smith]

Below, please find much praise for the developers who really deserve it! 

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 03:24:22 AM Johnny Hughes wrote:
 The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like
 the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
 
 The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the
 packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.
 
 We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are
 not able to be linked against the same environment.
 
 Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they
 sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc.
 In those cases, we will do the best we can.
 
 We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address
 each one that we can.

The first distro I used that wasn't directly from Red Hat was White Box 
Enterprise Linux. It worked well, until Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and 
from that day forward, not much happened. =/ 

After several dry runs in a sandbox environment, I switched my (then, one) 
production server to CentOS. It was hard to believe that all I had to do was 
switch a few RPMS. That same server and software image is still in production 
to this day! 

Times have changed, my needs have changed with them. I now have some 20 
production servers, all still running CentOS 4. Updates have been timely, and 
the servers have been incredibly stable. Our primary cluster has sustained 
much better than 99.99% uptime for years, a combination of good quality, white 
label hardware,  (usually SuperMicro) appropriate redundancy, careful software 
design, and CentOS that holds up very well in the real world. 

In truth, I wish that RedHat had a $5/month option like they did originally.  
It was cost-effective, and I never wanted or needed additional support. But the 
obscene amounts Red Hat currently wants for their Enterprise line is a non-
starter for an organization the size of mine. 

So, CentOS has been a life-saver for me! It's rock-solid stable, security is 
excellent, and the quality shows every single day as I serve millions of hits 
on our extensive, web-based application with confidence and flair. The wait for 
EL 6 has only been a nail-biter because Red Hat took so long to release RHEL 6 
in the first place. (I waited almost 2 years before there was an EL 6 beta to 
play with!) I look forward to a complete rollout/replacement of all my EL4 
servers with EL6 as soon as it's available and suitable regression testing has 
taken place, with the task hopefully complete by Christmas 2011. 

I wish to offer my deepest thanks and appreciation to a job well done to the 
developers and administrators of the CentOS project. 

Keep up the good work! 

-Ben 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Benjamin Smith]

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:02:52 PM Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
 It does - to an extent. Red Hat has a policy of releasing a major
 release every 18-24 months (I know RHEL-6 has slipped outside of this
 window),

A total of 3 years, 8 months of time elapsed between EL5 and EL6. That's well 
over 2x 18 months, and only 4 months shy of 2x the 24 month part of their 
timetable. Their reasons for this large delay are, no doubt, significant. They 
had every financial incentive to release RHEL 6 years ago, but they didn't. 
This fact bespeaks an intense amount of integrity which I, for one, admire, 
respect, and appreciate. 

This same integrity is something I've come to expect from CentOS, as well. 

Let's be fair; Red Hat exists to make money, to which they are entitiled. But 
they've done a wonderful job supporting the spirit and letter of the GPL  in 
their RHEL and related software projects. 

I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that 
releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general 
public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat, 

if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be here, now 
would we? 

-Ben 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/19/2011 1:39 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:

 I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that
 releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general
 public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat,


 if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be
 here, now would we?


Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:

http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=elhq_m=1231269hq_l=12hq_v=41484763bd

If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:

Enterprise-class is partially true, as the project takes great pains to 
be binary compatible with RHEL. So let’s give half points for that one. 
The other half of “enterprise-class” is that updates arrive in a timely 
fashion, which is notably false for the 5.x series. If I understand 
correctly, there have been a handful of updates prior to the release of 
CentOS 5.6 for the 5.x series — but nothing else. So, if you consider 
timely updates a requirement for “enterprise-class,” we can count CentOS 
out now.

OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the 
slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands.

And:
Nobody Got Fired for Buying IBM: You Might for Deploying CentOS
with some elaboration about how the question from your boss about when a 
known vulnerability will be patched might go.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:

 OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the
 slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands.

Unless I'm mistaken there has *always* been a delay in certain patches
when the CentOS team is rebuilding the point updates. Again, unless I
misunderstand, many of the updates for 5.6 (for example) apply to the
packages in the 5.6 updates (not the packages in 5.5). So you would,
in effect, be updating files on CentOS that don't yet exist in CentOS.
I did notice a few updates before 5.6 came out. I would assume these
were critical security updates.

I always notice that, once a point update comes out, many patches
follow shortly after. I'm sure it would be possible to use a rolling
update system, but this is never how the CentOS rebuild process has
been done. (At least this is my understanding.)

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:
 
 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=elhq_m=1231269hq_l=12hq_v=41484763bd
 
 If  you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:
 

Wow, that must smart. Still, should come as no surprise as it has all been said 
on here before... many times and over several releases.

Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community 
member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. 

Zonker's email must be filled with similar flame and hatemail that I received 
for making similar comments to his. But I doubt it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/19/2011 05:27 PM, Ian Murray wrote:

 Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:

 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=elhq_m=1231269hq_l=12hq_v=41484763bd

 If  you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:

 
 Wow, that must smart. Still, should come as no surprise as it has all been 
 said 
 on here before... many times and over several releases.
 
 Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community 
 member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. 
 
 Zonker's email must be filled with similar flame and hatemail that I received 
 for making similar comments to his. But I doubt it.

People get to choose what they want ... life is about choices.

If they want CentOS, they get CentOS.  If they want something else, they
can get that.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/08/2011 07:25 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 

 As I seem to  have started this little subsection of the thread, please 
 let me give just  one small example to help clarify the situation as it 
 appears there is still  a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.

 Let's look at kernel  modules, kmod packages. They are built against one 
 specific kernel and then  weak link against all other kernels that are 
 kABI compatible. For example,  in CentOS 5.6,
 kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release  kernel:

 $ rpm -qlp  kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko

 but  when we compare that to the upstream package:

 $ rpm -qlp  kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko

 we  see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta 
 kernel  and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild 
 their  package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.

 There is  absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel 
 that was part  of their build environment.

 The package builds fine for CentOS against  the release kernel. In all 
 likelihood it will function identically to the  upstream packages, but 
 there is always a possibility that some weird  corner-case bug will 
 affect one package that doesn't affect the  other.

 This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red  Hat 
 invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't 
 rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples 
 where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of 
 glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and 
 identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility 
 they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the 
 RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just 
 that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary  compatible.

 I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding  this issue.

 
 According to wikipedia
 
 In computing, a computer that can run the same binary code intended to be 
 run 
 on another computer is said to be binary-compatible.
 
 By this definition a well written emulator and the emulated machine are 
 binary-compatible, yet the build environments and other under the hood 
 stuff 
 can and are wildly different. So different does not mean it is not binary 
 compatible.
 
 Is CentOS working to a different definition? e.g. byte for byte identical 
 (save 
 for trademarks). Maybe that is the only way to reduce the risk of 
 incompatibility, I don't know. 

The goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like
the upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.

The checks we do look at libraries that binaries link to, size of the
packages and a list of the files the RPM installs.

We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like the example above) are
not able to be linked against the same environment.

Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or they
sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's etc.
In those cases, we will do the best we can.

We do check these issues as part of the QA process and we do address
each one that we can.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/07/2011 03:46 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 

 If you  do not like how your hairdresser does you hair you will go to 
 other one. If  you do not like the taste of bread you are buying, you 
 will go and by from  other bakery.
 
 
 I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss how 
 my 
 hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread because it 
 was 
 too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I should come back if 
 I 
 wished such that the bread would suitably be ready. No drama.

And in each of those circumstances, you are PAYING for a service, not
getting if for free.  You are also NOT making the hairdresser or the
baker tell you HOW they bake bread or cut hair.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Timothy Murphy]

Johnny Hughes wrote:

 I have never been insulted or belittled by my hairdresser as we discuss
 how my hair is best cut. My bakery has refused to sell me sliced bread
 because it was too hot to slice... however, they kindly explained when I
 should come back if I wished such that the bread would suitably be ready.
 No drama.
 
 And in each of those circumstances, you are PAYING for a service, not
 getting if for free.  You are also NOT making the hairdresser or the
 baker tell you HOW they bake bread or cut hair.

I've never seen any posting from Johnny Hughes or Karanbir
that I thought insulting or belittling,
and I am very grateful to them for the work they have done,
since CentOS-5.6 is working faultlessly for me, as previous versions did.

However, I do think it is a political or PR mistake
to offer this It's free, so take it or leave it line.
It's only a short step from that to
It's free, so don't expect it to work very well.

In my experience, much of the best software is free,
and there is no need at all to make excuses for it.
I ran a Windows Server OS, admittedly for a very short time,
and found it far less reliable than CentOS.

I think Karanbir made a small PR error
in naming or implying dates for CentOS-5.6 and CentOS-6.
To my mind, it would have been much better just to say
something like, We're working hard on CentOS-6,
and will get it out as soon as possible,
given that this is a part-time activity for us.



-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 The  goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like
 the  upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.
 
 The checks we do look  at libraries that binaries link to, size of the
 packages and a list of the  files the RPM installs.
 
 We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like  the example above) are
 not able to be linked against the same  environment.
 
 Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or  they
 sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's  etc.
 In those cases, we will do the best we can.
 
 We do check these  issues as part of the QA process and we do address
 each one that we  can.

Thanks for the response. Sounds like you go to significant lengths. 

Imagine if you were to take any GPL source code for which you don't own 
copyright and modify it such that that it would only be compile-able using your 
highly modified secret compiler. If you then distributed the executable and the 
useless source without the secret compiler, are we suggesting that is allowable 
under the GPL? A bit of googling suggests it is. :(

While this is an extreme example, it kinda sounds like what you suggest RH do.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/10/2011 07:36 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
 
 

 The  goal of the centos project is to produce an RPM that is exactly like
 the  upstream RPM in every way that is legally possible.

 The checks we do look  at libraries that binaries link to, size of the
 packages and a list of the  files the RPM installs.

 We would like for all RPMS to be 100%, some (like  the example above) are
 not able to be linked against the same  environment.

 Upstream sometimes uses non released gcc's for compiling or  they
 sometimes build with non-released kernels or non released glibc's  etc.
 In those cases, we will do the best we can.

 We do check these  issues as part of the QA process and we do address
 each one that we  can.
 
 Thanks for the response. Sounds like you go to significant lengths. 
 
 Imagine if you were to take any GPL source code for which you don't own 
 copyright and modify it such that that it would only be compile-able using 
 your 
 highly modified secret compiler. If you then distributed the executable and 
 the 
 useless source without the secret compiler, are we suggesting that is 
 allowable 
 under the GPL? A bit of googling suggests it is. :(
 
 While this is an extreme example, it kinda sounds like what you suggest RH do.
 

Well, I do not think they do it on purpose.

They have a repository that they point at to build packages.  It
contains all the latest released packages.

This build system will likely also have a Staged feature, so that as
they build packages, new packages will use the previously compiled (and
yet unreleased) packages to build on.

If they are building updates and they, for example, build 2 versions of
GCC in this process.  Then maybe they only release to the public the 2nd
version of GCC which they built.  So, some of their packages (the ones
between the time the first gcc was compiled and the 2nd gcc was
compiled) would be build using a non released gcc.  The real world
impact of this is probably zero ... except that things that this (in
/var/log/messages) will be different:

Linux version 2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 (gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat
4.1.2-48)) #1 SMP Wed Jan 26 08:03:38 PST 2011

(If that version of GCC was the first one compiled in my example above,
CentOS will not have it, but it is used to compile an upstream kernel
... note, this example is not a real case issue, just hypothetical to
show how it happens)

It could introduce some incompatibility (they changed the package for
some reason) ... which is why we try to minimize it, but generally the
difference is only cosmetic.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Timothy Murphy wrote:
 I think Karanbir made a small PR error
 in naming or implying dates for CentOS-5.6 and CentOS-6.
 To my mind, it would have been much better just to say
 something like, We're working hard on CentOS-6,
 and will get it out as soon as possible,
 given that this is a part-time activity for us.
 
But all devs DO SAY that, at least initially. That is THE release date.

But they are also helpful so they do give (g)estimates when they EXPECT 
to finish, when asked politely, so we know what is *minimum* time it 
will take. When I go to some repairman, and he hesitates to give me time 
estimate, I ask him to sayuntil when he *surely* will not be finished, 
so I do not pester him every day, and so I can think of repaired item as 
unavailable until then.

If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are 
offended and complain about it will be ready when it is ready attitude 
of devs.

Ljubomir.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Christopher J. Buckley]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote:
 If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are
 offended and complain about it will be ready when it is ready attitude
 of devs.

I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red
Hat and purchasing RHEL then.

-- 
Kind Regards,
Christopher J. Buckley
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[rainer]

 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs
 wrote:
 If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are
 offended and complain about it will be ready when it is ready attitude
 of devs.

 I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red
 Hat and purchasing RHEL then.

Not that this has not been suggested before, but:
that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either.
There's a series of betas and then, at some point, a new release comes out.
(AFAIK).
;-)
I think these people should change to OpenBSD. Usually, there's a release
on May 1st and November 1st.
Isn't that what everybody wants?

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Christopher J. Buckley]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:56,  rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote:
 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs
 wrote:
 If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are
 offended and complain about it will be ready when it is ready attitude
 of devs.

 I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red
 Hat and purchasing RHEL then.

 Not that this has not been suggested before, but:
 that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either.

It does - to an extent. Red Hat has a policy of releasing a major
release every 18-24 months (I know RHEL-6 has slipped outside of this
window), and customers will be have communication from their account
team as to expected release dates (not specific of course, but to the
quarter) which simply does not exist with CentOS, and nor should there
be pressure on the developers of CentOS to answer these questions imo.

Great release with 5.6 btw!

Cheers,
Chris
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/10/11 1:56 PM, rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote:
 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevicoff...@plnet.rs
 wrote:
 If you read some of complaints, you will see some people quote and are
 offended and complain about it will be ready when it is ready attitude
 of devs.

 I think it's fair to suggest that those people should be going to Red
 Hat and purchasing RHEL then.

 Not that this has not been suggested before, but:
 that doesn't have a fixed released-date, either.
 There's a series of betas and then, at some point, a new release comes out.
 (AFAIK).
 ;-)
 I think these people should change to OpenBSD. Usually, there's a release
 on May 1st and November 1st.
 Isn't that what everybody wants?

No, I don't think anybody wants the product to change or the developers to have 
to put in more effort.  But, is anything so good that it can't be improved?

Most of the discussion here has been about the closed nature of the process 
that 
may be limiting possible improvements or the ability to add resources.  It just 
doesn't seem likely to change though, unless the people controlling the process 
see a problem with it, and as long as the scheduled goal is 'whenever it is 
done', how can they see a problem?   If 'whenever' really is the target goal, 
not just an unfortunate temporary circumstance, it should be explained on the 
project web sight for fairness to users, though.

-- 
Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

John Hodrien wrote:
 On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
 
 rpm is here:
 http://rpms.plnet.rs/centos5-i386/RPMS.plnet/skype-2.1.0.81-1.el5.noarch.rpm

 source rpm is now currently publicly available since I rearranged my
 repository links/path but haven't finished.
 
 Since when did skype become noarch?
 
 I'm assuming this is just a wrapper around the presumably rearranged binaries
 that skype ship.  Source RPM then becomes a bit of a misnomer.
 
 jh

Sorry for late post, to much to do.

Yes, skype rpm is only wrapper for staticly compiled skype, but with 
some additional files. I will reassert srpm as soon as possible, in a 
day or two I hope.

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Anton Parol]

 The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making 
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the 
source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface 
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation 
of the executable. 

From http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html

Sounds like theres quite a case here, no?

-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of 
Lucian
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:07 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jerry Franz jfr...@freerun.com wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:

 The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also
 release any magic spells they use to compile it.


 Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy
 dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they
 release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.

 You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to
 understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want
 to read the sections on 'What are scripts used to control
 compilation?' and 'What are scripts used to control installation?'

Interesting. I wonder how would RedHat respond to this.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. It 
is intended only for the addressees. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from 
your system.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

  John, please stop cluttering the list with your  complaining. It's
  making a right mess for those of that wish to discuss  the project and
  its direction.
 
 Wow.   Pot?  Kettle?  So, let me get this straight.  People  are
 able to bitch, whine, complain and needlessly threaten  to leave
 the project to their heart's content and that's  ok.  But when I
 point out how idiotic and irrelevant  it is to publicly threaten
 to leave, or inform the list  membership that they are leaving,
 that's  not?
 
 Really?  If you're serious about this you're  a complete tool.
 
 In fact there is no if here, you're  just a tool.  
 
 Simply...  Wow.

Obviously the irony/sarcasm was too subtle for you.

In my opinion, you absolutely need to get your own house in order. The value of 
that last post was *zero*. As for bitching, whining and complaining, your last 
post had the lot. As for the name calling... as you say wow, yeah, simply 
wow.  I expect that was my fault for 'making you' do it, was it?

As for the leaving stuff, I haven't suggested that myself in this thread. In 
a 
normal community discussion, I think it reasonable for somebody to comment if 
they feel the project isn't meeting its stated goals *in their opinion*... It 
is 
called Free Speech. It doesn't matter if it gets said a thousand times by 
different people.

I use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, CentOS (4,5) and SL depending on the particular 
circumstances. That general approach hasn't and won't change. So there is not 
leaving for me.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ned Slider]

On 08/04/11 03:06, Lucian wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jerry Franzjfr...@freerun.com  wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:

 The GPL says they must release source. It doesn't say they have to also
 release any magic spells they use to compile it.


 Actually, it *does*. If the code was released with missing 'magic fairy
 dust' required to actually compile the GPL derived binaries they
 release, they would be in violation of GPL2 section 3.

 You should read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html to
 understand the implications of the GPL on source code release. You want
 to read the sections on 'What are scripts used to control
 compilation?' and 'What are scripts used to control installation?'

 Interesting. I wonder how would RedHat respond to this.


As I seem to have started this little subsection of the thread, please 
let me give just one small example to help clarify the situation as it 
appears there is still a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.

Let's look at kernel modules, kmod packages. They are built against one 
specific kernel and then weak link against all other kernels that are 
kABI compatible. For example, in CentOS 5.6,
kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release kernel:

$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
/lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5
/lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra
/lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs
/lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko

but when we compare that to the upstream package:

$ rpm -qlp kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm
/lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5
/lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra
/lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs
/lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko

we see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta 
kernel and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild 
their package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.

There is absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel 
that was part of their build environment.

The package builds fine for CentOS against the release kernel. In all 
likelihood it will function identically to the upstream packages, but 
there is always a possibility that some weird corner-case bug will 
affect one package that doesn't affect the other.

This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red Hat 
invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't 
rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples 
where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of 
glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and 
identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility 
they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the 
RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just 
that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary compatible.

I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding this issue.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

 
 As I seem to  have started this little subsection of the thread, please 
 let me give just  one small example to help clarify the situation as it 
 appears there is still  a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue.
 
 Let's look at kernel  modules, kmod packages. They are built against one 
 specific kernel and then  weak link against all other kernels that are 
 kABI compatible. For example,  in CentOS 5.6,
 kmod-gfs is built against the 5.6 base release  kernel:
 
 $ rpm -qlp  kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-238.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
 
 but  when we compare that to the upstream package:
 
 $ rpm -qlp  kmod-gfs-0.1.34-15.el5.x86_64.rpm
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs
 /lib/modules/2.6.18-223.el5/extra/gfs/gfs.ko
 
 we  see it's been built against a 2.6.18-223.el5 kernel. This was a beta 
 kernel  and was never officially released so CentOS has no way to rebuild 
 their  package against this kernel. Hence, not 100% binary compatible.
 
 There is  absolutely NO responsibility on Red Hat to release that kernel 
 that was part  of their build environment.
 
 The package builds fine for CentOS against  the release kernel. In all 
 likelihood it will function identically to the  upstream packages, but 
 there is always a possibility that some weird  corner-case bug will 
 affect one package that doesn't affect the  other.
 
 This situation with kmod packages is not at all uncommon as Red  Hat 
 invariably release kmods built against pre-release kernels and don't 
 rebuild them against the release kernel for GA. There are other examples 
 where packages might have been built against an unreleased version of 
 glibc or whatever but again these packages generally function fine, and 
 identically to upstream, but there is always a very small possibility 
 they might not function identically bug for bug. That's not to say the 
 RHEL package is any more right or wrong than the CentOS package, just 
 that they are different and hence by definition not 100% binary  compatible.
 
 I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion surrounding  this issue.
 

According to wikipedia

In computing, a computer that can run the same binary code intended to be run 
on another computer is said to be binary-compatible.

By this definition a well written emulator and the emulated machine are 
binary-compatible, yet the build environments and other under the hood stuff 
can and are wildly different. So different does not mean it is not binary 
compatible.

Is CentOS working to a different definition? e.g. byte for byte identical (save 
for trademarks). Maybe that is the only way to reduce the risk of 
incompatibility, I don't know. 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[David Sommerseth]

On 05/04/11 01:29, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Brian Mathis
 brian.mathis+cen...@betteradmin.com wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
 On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

 OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???

 Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for?
 Whining is easy, build something on your own.

 Too strongly stated.  I am aware of at least two private
 rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in
 the last 4 months.  But those efforts have not sought to
 replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a
 different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of
 the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding
 alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the
 upstream ships insofar as possible

 But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible,
 because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some
 standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]

 CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it
 is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to
 release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the
 reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten
 people whining for something, anything, at the expense of
 potentially harming millions of installations

 There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest
 with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging
 system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS

 -- Russ herrold


 Russ,

 Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear:

 The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or whining as
 you put it) is:
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
 about what is going on.

 No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months.

 All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular
 updates about the process.  Something like Working on xyz package but
 ran into this problem.  Still have to look at packages abc and def
 would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here.
 It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand
 that.

 
 and prolong development even further..
 

Wow!  I didn't know the hard core CentOS supporters was so sensitive to
delays that they would complain about developers spending 30 minutes every
now and then to write a status update.  Their time must be precious ...

What happened to the It comes when it comes mantra?


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[David Sommerseth]

On 05/04/11 01:29, John R. Dennison wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:22:43PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:

 All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular
 updates about the process.  Something like Working on xyz package but
 ran into this problem.  Still have to look at packages abc and def
 would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here.
 It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand
 that.
 
   Couple questions for you, if you wouldn't mind?
 
   Do you complain to Redhat about similar issues?  Do you complain
   to your sales rep about when the next release is going to drop,
   or what the hold-up on a release is?
 
   Assuming that you're a customer you would be quite dissatisfied
   with their reply, or to be more accurate, their lack of a reply.
 
   Why must CentOS be held to a different set of standards than the
   upstream?  Redhat posts NO status updates and publishes NO
   timelines but yet CentOS gets no end of grief over their lack of
   the same.

Maybe because CentOS and Red Hat are different entities with different
goals?  Maybe that Red Hat has a much bigger responsibility for their stock
holders and that any public exposure of RHEL related things might impact
the market speculations which again could hurt the stock price you
probably get the point ... fact is: CentOS do not have such constraints,
being a community project.

And the parts where Red Hat is and can be open about the development phase
is in Fedora.  Most of you know by now that RHEL6 is based on a Fedora
12/13 base.

   I do personally wish that there would be more status updates
   from TPTB but to be demanding of more updates is ridiculous.

I don't interpret it as a demand, more like a wish for a more open
development process and progress - which is not a unreasonable request for
a community project.  There is nothing bad about voicing this.  And I am
convinced Brian is correct about that these regular explosions threads with
when does it come would be considerably reduced with more transparency in
the development process.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[David Sommerseth]

On 05/04/11 00:51, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
   I've seen the posts over and over again about when is 6 going to
 be out? I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os
 available.
   My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it
 really matter?  5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it?

Maybe because the RHEL/CentOS 5.5 kernel got several security issues already?

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0017.html

For some of us CentOS users, this is critical.  Especially when there has
been no security updates for CentOS 5 since early January.

It was the right decision to postpone CentOS 6 to get CentOS 5.6 out first.
 But it still have taken a lot longer than what we've been used to.

And for people going to do fresh installs of CentOS, it would be most
likely better to aim directly for CentOS 6 than CentOS 5.5/5.6.  But the
waiting without knowing what to expect when, that is a frustration
amplifier, especially for those having project deadlines.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Tom Yates]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Hendrik wrote:

 Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality?

I've been watching the C6/5.6/4.9 delay debate quietly for some time now, 
and I've seen what I thought were valid positions and intelligent comments 
on both sides of the debate.

But that wasn't one of them.  I had a really sharp intake of breath when I 
read it, and I'm pleased to see that several others also think it's beyond 
the pale.

Please, don't say stuff like that again.  Not here.  It's just out of 
order, really it is.


-- 

   Tom Yates  -  http://www.teaparty.net
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Russell Jones wrote:
 A bigger number? :-)
 
 On 4/6/2011 7:52 AM, compdoc wrote:
 What the hell is so special about CentOS 6?
 indeed

Just newer kernel and newer core packages that can drive newer 
applications. CentOS 5.5 kernel and core packages are 3-4 years old in 
the (Linux) world that dramatically changed since then.

P.S. Please write your answers in the bottom/end of the letter, not at 
the beginning. It's common practice for a long time.

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John Hodrien]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

 Just newer kernel and newer core packages that can drive newer
 applications. CentOS 5.5 kernel and core packages are 3-4 years old in
 the (Linux) world that dramatically changed since then.

I wouldn't refer to the 5.5 kernel as 3-4 years old as there are significant
backports to the EL5 kernel such that 5.5's kernel is measurably different to
5.0, and even further away from 2.6.18.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Anton Parol]

Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like that 
are NOT acceptable.
I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork and 
make your own efforts.

__
Anton Parol
Customer Services * Orc Software


-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of 
Hendrik
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:59 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011/4/6 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org:
 On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.

 And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.


 No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the
 efforts going into the solution.

 Really, try stopping reading for a few weeks. You might surprise yourself.

Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality?

--
Hendrik
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. It 
is intended only for the addressees. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from 
your system.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Rudi Ahlers]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Anton Parol anton.pa...@orcsoftware.com wrote:
 Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
 Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like 
 that are NOT acceptable.
 I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

 CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork and 
 make your own efforts.




Well said :)

-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/06/2011 03:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
 
 On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed
 to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information
 is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.

 That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
 
 And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
 

The proper solution is for you to stop using CentOS.  You are obviously
not happy with it.

We provide it for you (as is, when we can) to use if it meets your
needs. if it does not, then you are free to use SOMETHING ELSE.  You are
also free to take your petty little quips to another mailing list.

I guarantee that if I came to your mailing lists and posted the bullcrap
there that you post here, you would not be appreciative.

Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
to this list.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Max Hetrick]

On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.

This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go 
away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than 
others trying to open up communications between a projects members and 
the developers.

This is the exact reason I quit helping out on the wiki, and now after 
reading all the drama on this mailing list, I think it just might be 
time to unsubscribe from this one as well.

Regards,
Max
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Radu Gheorghiu]

On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go
 away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than
 others trying to open up communications between a projects members and
 the developers.

Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS 
in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right 
direction.
I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm 
looking for alternatives.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Brunner, Brian T.]

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
 
 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you
 post to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP
 and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more
 professional than others trying to open up communications between a
 projects members and the developers. 
 
 Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop
 CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in
 the right direction.
 I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm
 looking for alternatives.

+1


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Brian Mathis]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Sorin Srbu sorin.s...@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of David Sommerseth
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.

 [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:

 Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...
 --
 /Sorin


Yes, stating the obvious.  When there's nothing new the project should
be focusing on improving things to become stronger to withstand the
storm of the next release cycle.  It only becomes obvious that has not
been done at times like this when the storm has arrived.


// Brian Mathis
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/7/2011 8:47 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
 Of David Sommerseth
 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM
 To: centos@centos.org
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

 Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.

 [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:

 Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...

They come up every time that the methodology and resources of the 
developers don't produce the results expected by the users.  The fact 
that this has historically only happened around release times is 
coincidental.  People are (correctly) fearful of putting blind faith in 
optimistic engineers who say everything will be fine without saying why 
they believe that or why they reject suggestions for changes that might 
be improvements.

While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, 
there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is 
the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, 
and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos