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