On 29/04/14 02:18, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, David Crick wrote:
> 
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/592723/
>>
>> "So the goal for CentOS is to create a next-generation platform that
>> is supported for a longer period of time than Fedora is. Ten years
>> would be good, but most people just want something longer than 13
>> months, he said, and *2–3 YEARS SEEMED TO BE A SWEET SPOT*."
>>
>> (emphasis added by me).
>>
>> Pertinent question: are SL users "most people" ?
>>
> 
> I talked to Karsten Wade about this.  Here is his response.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Connie,
> 
> Right, thanks for the follow-up. That paraphrase missed a bit of context.
> 
> I was talking about how variants can support their variant community
> for as long as /they/ see fit - SIGs aren't tied to the core distro
> lifecycle  (which follows the RHEL release roadmap) for the code they
> maintain. This allows the variants to set a pace that works for
> /their/ community. Combined with the slower pace of CentOS updates, it
> is easy for a community to support a variant for two or three years.
> This links up with the sweet spot between fast-as-Fedora and
> long-lived-as-plain-CentOS-core.
> 
> So, the "most people" in that paraphrase are the people looking for
> updated code layered on top of a slow-moving platform. It's a
> most-people-within-a-subset-of-all-people, if that makes sense.
> 
> This kind of confusion is happening because people are hearing the
> excitement we have about the new SIGs and their variants, which
> shouldn't be confused with CentOS core. The CentOS Core SIG continues
> to closely follow the RHEL roadmap.
> 
> - - Karsten
> - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade        .^\          CentOS Doer of Stuff
> http://TheOpenSourceWay.org    \  http://community.redhat.com
> @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v'             gpg: AD0E0C41
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -Connie Sieh

I must say, I find it difficult to get excited about EL7. The only real
useful changes seem to be moving to systemd. I don't see any benefit at
the moment that would convince me to move anything from EL6 to EL7.

Yes, newer X versions etc is good, but in any usage case I come up with,
that isn't useful.

After using EL for *many* years, I'm unsure if I feel a need to continue
with EL. My thoughts are more moving towards using a continually rolling
distro like Arch Linux.

I have migrated a couple of low priority systems to Arch Linux, and it
seems to fill the role well - and there is never the gap between "Oh, I
have to reinstall and redo everything for version n + 1".

EL5 & 6 really came around at a time where there was a lot more
instability in the linux environment - and these days, unless you have a
strict auditing requirement, there isn't really much tying anyone to EL.

Thoughts?

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299