CentOS - Apr 2015 - [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version
> numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person
> will ignore that command.
So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use 
and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right?  Sounds to me like you 
might want to use something different.
> just the change will satisfy everyone.
>
>
It is impossible to satisfy everyone.

On Wed, April 1, 2015 6:58 pm, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>> > If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon
sub-version
>> > numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise
>> person
>> > will ignore that command.
>>
>> So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you
use
>> and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right?  Sounds to me like you
>> might want to use something different.
>
> No I am not as can be conspicuously seen in what I wrote. Lamar your
> introduction of non-relevant matters can not detract from the essential
> point I made:-
>
> (1) removing sub-version numbers is wrong; and
>
> (2) changing the ISO naming structure from
> {major version}-{sub-version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso
> is an illogical unwise change because anyone looking at
>
> {major version}-{sub-version}
>
> instantly knows, for example, that is Centos 7.1 whereas
>
> CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
>
> is baffling and one is then required to build and maintain a translation
> table to convert '1503' into Centos 7.1. That is frankly bonkers.
>
> Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.
I agree with all of this. I'm more neutral to these changes merely because
I don't rely as much on Linux as I did in the past. Still making change
where there is no need for one is a bad practice. Changing of naming
structure from self explanatory to obscure is not clever either.

Here are examples of well known ones who do these ("wrong") things:

1. Microsoft: often re-shuffles names and locations of yet the same tools
(making justifiable new Administrator certifications, and making Windows
admins look smart as they learn by heart stupid things like new locations
of tools...)

2. Processor chip manufacturers with their chip notations (AMD was the
first one who got me annoyed, even though I like them more than Intel)

Somebody, continue the list.

Does everybody think that CentOS with this change joins a good company (as
I said I don't care much, I'll survive ;-)

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++