On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:28:31 +1000 Sam Jorna <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make Gentoo *more* attractive to run in > corporate environments, rather than simply saying "We're not RHEL so > why bother"?
No disagreement. That has always been my interest. Though has not been others. It was in part why I became a trustee. For things like vendor certified hardware, looking into certifications, events, and a whole lot more. But people rather lambast, insult, and stand in the way rather than either get out of the way or work with me. It surely could happen without me but has not. I am definitely not against such happening. But it would require tremendous change and leadership. Which I do not see ever changing. I wish things were otherwise. > People do use Gentoo in production environments, both personally and > professionally, even if it is those that have more investment in doing > so than the average IT Joe. By removing stable, we would be reducing > the potential arguments for the few who do want to use Gentoo in that > sort of environment. We would be becoming more of a niche distro. Preaching to the choir. That is not why companies I know who ran Gentoo are leaving or left. One told me they did not want to be in the operating system business. Stable or not, there are fewer companies running Gentoo that were before. Due to other reasons that are not changing, culture, etc. Companies that run it today I doubt would change if stable went away. If they left Gentoo, they have many reasons far beyond lack of a stable branch/tree. > "Hey, lets try Gentoo - it's really configurable." > "What's their stable policy? How often does it break?" > "Stable? What's that?" How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No certifications from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for official support. There are so many things far beyond anything having to do with a stable tree or not. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpvVleoxydNp.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
