On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:> On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I >> misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ? > > > Enterprise to me implies large businessEnterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used euphemistically since the later 1980s as a code word for associations having a legally recognised form that operate for some sensibly describable outcome. So one has large, medium and small enterprises, not-for-profit enterprises, commercial enterprises, social enterprises and so forth.> Businesses that don't adapt to external changes become fossils > and die off.The greatest threat to the survival of any organism or organisation is a change to its environment. It is because of this that widespread adoption of so much innovation is delayed using societal pressure. This is not done entirely out of narrow self-interest but from a sensible appreciation of the limits to the speed at which people can adapt to change. As is noted elsewhere, change is inevitable. But there are many kinds of change. For instance, there is the change wrought by sudden and dramatic increases in productivity. How many here are cognisant of the fact that the O2 steel making process introduced in the 1950s lowered the labour content of a Tonne of steel by three orders of magnitude? Without that single change much of what we invisibly accept as part of the urban landscape today would not exist. Without that change it is likely that Bethlehem and Republic would still be in business. Without that change hundreds of thousands would still be employed in the steel mills of North America. Then there is fashion. An enterprise has its hands full with just dealing with the former type of change. It can ill afford to waste resources on the later. With respect to RHEL7 the question is: Which are we dealing with, substance or fashion? Or rather, which type predominates? I have no argument against claiming the switch to xfs is substance, not fashion. But then again that change over, however beneficial, is nearly invisible to most of us; subsumed as it is in the overarching effort of setting up a new system from scratch. Once a host is set up its file-system certainly has little further discernible day-to-impact upon anyone, much less end-users. But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people. Are these substance or fashion? Do the changes they make fundamentally improve RHEL or just do the same things a little differently? How much is it worth to an Enterprise to have a similar desktop metaphor on the workstation as on a tablet? How many desktop workstations will be replaced by the smart-phone, the tablet? I do not have an answer but I suspect, not much and not many. What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? Leaving aside upstart as a sterile diversion. I am not certain of anything here either. I have learned that my initial resistance to change, any change, is just as emotionally charged as that of the next person. So, I tend to wait and see. But, I do ask questions. If only to discover if I am alone in my concerns. I am but one person and I need the views of others, agreeable or disagreeable to my prejudices as the case may be, so as to form an informed opinion. I am admittedly somewhat concerned about the overall direction of the RHEL product. I fundamentally disagree with their Frozen Chosen approach to key software components. And with the lock-step forced upgrades that are the result. I am not at all certain that back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most recent software could be made to run on the older release without adverse effects elsewhere. However, I offer no answers and promote no particular course of action, saving only reflection of what is happening now and the price that is paid for it. I am simply seeking the alternative views of others on these issues. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me - and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS. The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very different, hence many of the current features, or future features, should remain in one or the other and not cross over. It seems CentOS is at risk of losing features highly appreciated by its core group of users, obviously a very different type of user that depends on and appreciates Fedora. Yes, I know CentOS is derived from RedHat and simply follows upstream development. On January 10, 2015 9:42:49 PM EST, "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:> >On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote: >>> Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I >>> misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ? >> >> >> Enterprise to me implies large business > >Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used >euphemistically since the later 1980s as a code word for associations >having a legally recognised form that operate for some sensibly >describable outcome. So one has large, medium and small enterprises, >not-for-profit enterprises, commercial enterprises, social enterprises >and so forth. > >> Businesses that don't adapt to external changes become fossils >> and die off. > >The greatest threat to the survival of any organism or organisation is >a change to its environment. It is because of this that widespread >adoption of so much innovation is delayed using societal pressure. >This is not done entirely out of narrow self-interest but from a >sensible appreciation of the limits to the speed at which people can >adapt to change. > >As is noted elsewhere, change is inevitable. But there are many kinds >of change. For instance, there is the change wrought by sudden and >dramatic increases in productivity. How many here are cognisant of >the fact that the O2 steel making process introduced in the 1950s >lowered the labour content of a Tonne of steel by three orders of >magnitude? Without that single change much of what we invisibly >accept as part of the urban landscape today would not exist. Without >that change it is likely that Bethlehem and Republic would still be in >business. Without that change hundreds of thousands would still be >employed in the steel mills of North America. > >Then there is fashion. > >An enterprise has its hands full with just dealing with the former >type of change. It can ill afford to waste resources on the later. > >With respect to RHEL7 the question is: Which are we dealing with, >substance or fashion? Or rather, which type predominates? > >I have no argument against claiming the switch to xfs is substance, >not fashion. But then again that change over, however beneficial, is >nearly invisible to most of us; subsumed as it is in the overarching >effort of setting up a new system from scratch. Once a host is set up >its file-system certainly has little further discernible day-to-impact >upon anyone, much less end-users. > >But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that >directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people. >Are these substance or fashion? Do the changes they make >fundamentally improve RHEL or just do the same things a little >differently? How much is it worth to an Enterprise to have a similar >desktop metaphor on the workstation as on a tablet? How many desktop >workstations will be replaced by the smart-phone, the tablet? I do not >have an answer but I suspect, not much and not many. > >What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >Leaving aside upstart as a sterile diversion. > >I am not certain of anything here either. I have learned that my >initial resistance to change, any change, is just as emotionally >charged as that of the next person. So, I tend to wait and see. But, >I do ask questions. If only to discover if I am alone in my concerns. > I am but one person and I need the views of others, agreeable or >disagreeable to my prejudices as the case may be, so as to form an >informed opinion. > >I am admittedly somewhat concerned about the overall direction of the >RHEL product. I fundamentally disagree with their Frozen Chosen >approach to key software components. And with the lock-step forced >upgrades that are the result. I am not at all certain that >back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable >activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most >recent software could be made to run on the older release without >adverse effects elsewhere. > >However, I offer no answers and promote no particular course of >action, saving only reflection of what is happening now and the price >that is paid for it. I am simply seeking the alternative views of >others on these issues. > >-- >*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** >James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca >Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca >9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 >Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 >Canada L8E 3C3 > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
For those who don't know, as of version 21, Fedora has split into 3 streams: workstation, server, and cloud. This addresses many of the concerns raised in this thread. See https://getfedora.org/ for details. I gather we'll see the impact of this change with CentOS-8. Kal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? Ensuring that services are up and running? About which sysinit are you talking btw? The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart. systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features. if you don't know them or if you ignore them or if you think you don't need them: fine but don't think others don't know or need them. HTH Sven -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJUsrFyAAoJEAq0kGAWDrqlk1IMAMLlRoqsoR54RUsV+jFuqGDt EU/kIZOczro9l4xWuYDuhyO2PnVt6gKC5+kmLDndF/URRTjc9s8D47SU4rquPycT JxnfWxmpQI9zVW/HwAtbNZEWKW7BV6G6PrH8LVyn9aMveP0C6/d52W3wUIidm9EH ul7vtvdlICw0wNzknREuj1bDkO7VBAoAZX/29QPBpe91bK+33pE0YETTIDks5CUf nY6gGi3KiO5/KHEIVkYXq5zP2iHh/l++9LbSXhE+hWIGmUoj2q+tv4jBz1sgv5Tj vgD00V8hDH57PmUT3gySSte7rMUkus3Z7k/7h9QZ1S4P7FxQySzvvzNW9l5jUoYM /XYZTe5mbEcm6K/SvO7HOHPBc56tqHeptoTe9h6sZ27gC37SVlr5WDGw92ryrlUa aSC5ZOAdCr1GKAhveuTp7m9dTg3UJEFMfRTFAMHOFmPaxizQTgWpjEByru+La02r LZki+nMgBJxStS6E63Gi0gRjjiWTlE27MxQwApy1Zw==xIum -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: >> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >> > Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? > Ensuring that services are up and running? > > About which sysinit are you talking btw? > The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart. > > systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it > _does_ provide much needed features. > > if you don't know them or if you ignore them > or if you think you don't need them: > fine > > but don't think others don't know or need > them. >That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd. (Mine, BTW is against, and I do not feel it fair to be discounted as a stupid minority as it is implied in your post). There is no point to repeat listing of ugly sides of systemd - which you said yourself are there. As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. BTW, when "counting votes" keep in mind an existence of an army of refugees from Linux, they already have voted against ugliness here, there,... Just my $0.02 Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:> On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: >> >> Enterprise to me implies large business > > Enterprise literally means 'undertaking?.Danger: We?re starting to get into dictionary flame territory. ?But the dictionary says?? is no substitute for thoughtful consideration, realpolitik, or empathy. Just because the product has an ?enterprise? label on it doesn?t mean it must behave according to rules set down by Merriam-Webster. Those in control of RHEL get to say what ?enterprise? means. If you don?t like how they?re defining RHEL and its role in the world, complaining that they?re using the word wrong doesn?t change what they have done.> But Gnome3? Systemd? These seem highly intrusive changes that > directly affect, often negatively, the daily tasks of many people.Perhaps some of you here think I am defending these changes for their own merit. I actually have mixed opinions about them, but I?ve mostly kept them to myself because I realize ? and have been trying to get across to others ? that it is not important what anyone thinks about them. At this point, you only get the choice of upgrading to EL7, switching to something else, or sitting tight on EL6 and hoping EL8 is better. Complaining about EL7 here accomplishes nothing. EL7 isn?t going to change, and those driving EL8 aren?t here. The time to argue about the merits of these changes is long past. Muster whatever arguments you like, you cannot change the fact that CentOS 7 includes these technologies. You only get a choice about what to do about them, now. The earliest they could disappear again is EL8, and that?s both unlikely and 3 years away besides.> I am not at all certain that > back-porting security fixes to obsolescent software is a profitable > activity when often for much the same effort, if not less, the most > recent software could be made to run on the older release without > adverse effects elsewhere.Please point to an example of an OS or OS-like software distribution that does this. I think you find a continuum of OSes from those that mostly keep newer software at arm?s length until major version changes spaced years apart (RHEL, Debian, FreeBSD?) to those that keep very little control over what gets into the OS and as such frequently break things (Ubuntu Desktop, Arch, Cygwin, Homebrew?) Point to an OS that strikes a better balance between these two extremes, or that proves that there doesn?t need to be a trade-off between stability and features.