On 2014/01/09 15:27, Ian Murray wrote:
> On 09/01/14 22:53, jdow wrote:
>> Ian, I suspect the SL staff position is more proper engineering with
>> it's concern about what could possibly go wrong than it is about
>> minimizing their work or compromising their main sponsor's needs. I
>> suspect that the SL staff position is also tempered with a healthy
>> dose of, "What do our customers want and need?"
> I didn't suggest otherwise. However, I could have sworn I read somewhere
> that Red Hat would stop release their source as SRPMs (which would have
> a direct impact on the build process of SL I assume), but I can't find
> that now. Maybe I mis-read that. I'll keep looking.
This is an excellent source of information.
http://wordshack.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/centos-welcome/
It contains many links including the link to the faq:
http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/
The faq is a very good source of information. It's best to go to these
good sources rather than listen to FUD spread around the net. I saw
noting to indicate SRPMs were no longer going to be distributed. That
would be of questionable legality as a matter of fact given GPL
requirements.
>> The main SL customers are their sponsers, Fermilab and Cern. They do
>> not need the latest and greatest. They need stable support for "what
>> we already have for as long as practical."
>
> I thought core CentOS would still track Red Hat in releases and support
> lengths. If I have that wrong, then that does throw a spanner in the works.
The impression I received is that Centos policies would not change. But
read the faq, don't trust me. I looked at and tried Centos many years ago
and decided what I got was a somewhat slower and outdated "you gotta
update frequently like regular Red Hat (now Fedora)" situation with very
unstable leadership. It was going through one if its, "We're gonna die!"
phases. I looked elsewhere. I hit on SL by accident and liked their
policies. I've not been disappointed. For, perhaps, different reasons I
want what SL's sponsors want. And I don't see SL's sponsors dropping it
any time soon. I'll probably die first.
>> All the other SL customers, such as you and I, don't matter a hill of
>> beans against the billion dollar investments of their sponsors. I am
>> sitting back and watching. I certainly respect their work, appreciate
>> their work, and admittedly sponge off their work. So I'd not dream of
>> trying to tell them what to do.
> I wouldn't dream of telling them what to do either. All I am doing here
> is chewing the cud, as it were.
>
> FWIW, I don't feel link I sponge... I merely drink from the same open
> source cup that SL and Red Hat does. I have a few lines of code accepted
> in the Xen project; does that mean all Xen users (4.3+) are sponging off
> me? I don't think so.
I'm taking care of a good situation. I make my income writing for pay
software. So while it's legal I do feel like a sponge rather than
someone who contributes enough to pay for my use. I don't have time.
(And time seems to be getting shorter every day as I get older. Too
many decade years, I suppose.)
{^_^}
>> I do note that for the machine on which I use SL it is precisely the
>> sort of thing I want, too.
>>
>> {^_^} Joanne Dow
>>
>> On 2014/01/09 14:30, Ian Murray wrote:
>>> On 09/01/14 21:12, William R. Somsky wrote:
>>>> One thing people should keep in mind while discussing this is the why
>>>> the original Fermilab distro (and Cern distro) which then became
>>>> Scientific Linux was created, and why Fermilab continues to actively
>>>> commit resources to SL. Remember Fermilab (and Cern) are particle
>>>> accelerator facilities with million/billion dollar experiments that
>>>> *must* have long-term guarantees of stable and supported software.
>>>>
>>>> To make Scientific Linux a variant of Centos would be to introduce an
>>>> unknown/uncontrollable element as a controlling factor in the mix.
>>>> What if Centos pulled an Ubuntu and decided to start introducing
>>>> controversial changes in an attempt to become more "user friendly" or
>>>> to "win the desktop"?
>>>>
>>>> A merging w/ Centos would need to carefully consider such issues.
>>> I don't come from a scientific background, just more of a piggy-backer
>>> on what seems to be a well governed and reliably supported operating
>>> system. An O/S with some big names behind it, such as they ones you
>>> mentioned above. I was a longterm CentOS user until it became clear that
>>> there was surprising little opaqueness around the governance and
>>> processes of the project and it seemed overly reliant on one or two
>>> individuals. Despite it being having a huge userbase, I came to the
>>> conclusion that this was largely a vanity project for those individuals.
>>>
>>> Now, the Red Hat news has completely changed that situation. So for me,
>>> CentOS is now viable again.
>>>
>>> To answer your concern, directly:-
>>>
>>> "To make Scientific Linux a variant of Centos would be to introduce an
>>> unknown/uncontrollable element as a controlling factor in the mix."
>>>
>>> Scientific Linux is already based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so in
>>> that sense you are not introducing any new element, in my opinion. The
>>> press release talks about Special Interest Groups and official variants.
>>> Now if SL was to become an official variant, then part of the acceptance
>>> of the SIG from the Scientific side could be to get confirmation that
>>> ongoing support would suit the needs you speak of.
>>>
>>> Something else worth remember that I seem to recall reading on this list
>>> that a discussion had taken place sometime ago about a possible merger
>>> between CentOS and SL (or at least a common base). The wording in the
>>> list that I recall was that "the conclusion was that both projects goals
>>> were too different". Obviously, that is wide open to exact
>>> interpretation. Those differences may now be reconcilable or even moot.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, it would be a shame for the (now) only significant
>>> independent RHEL rebuild project to lose its independence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 01/08/14 11:53, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>>> We are in the process of researching/evaluating this news and how it
>>>>> impacts Scientific Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Connie Sieh
>>>>>
>>>
>
|
