Bill Nottingham wrote:
<Note: the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of RHEL product management, etc....>
I appreciate your speaking your point of view, and assumed right from
'snake oil' on, that these were not official representations. :-)
That may be the underlying
issue - a better way to expose these things, or a different product with
a different default configuration.
If you go back to my original post to the 'suggestion box', I never
advocated changing RHEL. All along I've just been asking for a choice:
"I suspect many of us would love to see a minimal, hardened
installation option, or version, or channel or however it might be
implemented,"
Joshua suggested an "appliance" like solution (not really what I'm
after). I don't know how it would look, just that it doesn't have to
affect RHEL's customer base at all, if they don't want it to. And
yes, it would take RedHat a lot of work and documentation and support
like any service they offer, but right now that work is being done
anyway, and duplicated, at customer sites everywhere.
You mentioned the guidelines, I read them over. When an initial
scan reveals 'advice' such as:
...
None of these things fall under 'sensible', and it makes me rather
skeptical as to the guidelines' overall quality when I read this.
Bingo. Again going back to my original post:
"I'd also like to see expanded RedHat involvement with the guideline
developers, so there's less bad or arbitrary advice in them, or
recommendations that directly contradict RedHat documentation."
...
- Expose the distinction between Base & Core in the UI,
and flip what's default in kickstart
Considering Core includes neither yum nor rpm, this needs
work - some things would need moved from Base to Core.
...
You throw out some good ideas, I especially like these.
Thank You!
Ed
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
