On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote:> If we express them >> here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless, >> that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in >> most of the traffic on the Fedora devel list, might take notice. > > I think this essentially sums up your point, and elucidates what I > think is the error in your thinking.Yes, it is pretty clearly an error to think anyone else cares. Red Hat will make some money on new training classes helping people cope with the breakage. And CentOS will continue to be a copy with no input. That still doesn't make it any better for the CentOS users of things that now have an expiration date. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On 01/08/2015 11:23 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote: > >> If we express them >>> here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless, >>> that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in >>> most of the traffic on the Fedora devel list, might take notice. >> >> I think this essentially sums up your point, and elucidates what I >> think is the error in your thinking. > > Yes, it is pretty clearly an error to think anyone else cares. Red > Hat will make some money on new training classes helping people cope > with the breakage. And CentOS will continue to be a copy with no > input. That still doesn't make it any better for the CentOS users of > things that now have an expiration date. >How log do you need to keep saying the same thing. CentOS is now what it has been for 11 years. If that is what you want, use it. If it is not what you want, use something else. You think it is so easy to do something else .. then you hire the people required and do your own distro. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150108/08e3f532/attachment-0001.sig>
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> > > How log do you need to keep saying the same thing.As long as it is right and people keep arguing with it, I guess.> CentOS is now what it has been for 11 years. If that is what you want, > use it. If it is not what you want, use something else.Well it was what I want. Now it's different.> You think it is so easy to do something else .. then you hire the people > required and do your own distro.A different disto with unique maintenance requirements is exactly what I don't want. But I don't see how to avoid having multiple systems with different required procedures overlapping for some time now. I don't blame anyone in CentOS-land for the breakage - I'm sure it eats some of your time too. But, is there anything that could help automate a transition? Are there tricks buried inside the automated 6x-7x upgrade tool that could be separated out to help build a working-but-parallel 7x system to test before cutting over? How are others dealing with the end of freenx and the inability of x2go to run gnome3? That's 'almost' a uniquely CentOS issue because freenx was so easy on CentOS5/6. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com