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 I looked at and tried Centos many years ago and decided what I got was a somewhat slower and outdated "you gotta update frequently like regular Red Hat (now Fedora)" situation with very unstable leadership.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 >>>>> >>> >