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

On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a
given
>>>> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the
needed
>>>> driver was added in an RH minor rev?
>>> always use the latest one.
>> Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor
>> rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor
>> release, really means nothing.
> 
> Well... 
> 
> "Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest release
> announcement". 
> 
> Like
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html
> 
> A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually
> hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version you
> need, or it isn't yet.
> 
> 
> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it,
> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway.
> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux
actually
> does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the
details
> as to how that's implemented).
> 
That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out
here.  CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been ..
yet that seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt
on this issue.

-------------- 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/20150402/42f4f791/attachment-0001.sig>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>
wrote:
>>
>> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it,
>> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done
anyway.
>> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific
Linux actually
>> does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of
the details
>> as to how that's implemented).
>>
>
> That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out
> here.  CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been ..
> yet that seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt
> on this issue.
But you are adding more confusion than you resolve if the designation
does not indicate that a specified version is 'at least' up to the
equivalent of some RH minor rev.  Even for the people who might have
incorrectly thought is was pinned there.   And now there yet another
arbitrary difference in what you need to know about one major number
vs. another for the long interval they will co-exist.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>
wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>>> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know
if a given
> >>>> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that
the needed
> >>>> driver was added in an RH minor rev?
> >>> always use the latest one.
> >> Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per
minor
> >> rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos
minor
> >> release, really means nothing.
> >
> > Well...
> >
> > "Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest
release
> > announcement".
> >
> > Like
> >
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html
> >
> > A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually
> > hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version
you
> > need, or it isn't yet.
> >
> >
> > If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on
it,
> > to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done
anyway.
> > You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific
Linux actually
> > does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure
of the details
> > as to how that's implemented).
> >
>
> That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out
> here.  CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been ..
> yet that seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt
> on this issue.
>
>
I'm sorry, but I think you all have chosen a very poor way to put out a
message.

For me at least, this deviation from both the past conventions, and from
the current
naming conventions of the upstream vendor has real and annoying
consequences.

Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
names would
have been nice.


-- 
Matt Phelps
System Administrator, Computation Facility
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on
it,
>>> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done
anyway.
>>> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think
Scientific Linux actually
>>> does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not
sure of the details
>>> as to how that's implemented).
>>
>> That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out
>> here.  CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been ..
>> yet that seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt
>> on this issue.
>
> But you are adding more confusion than you resolve if the designation
> does not indicate that a specified version is 'at least' up to the
> equivalent of some RH minor rev.  Even for the people who might have
> incorrectly thought is was pinned there.   And now there yet another
> arbitrary difference in what you need to know about one major number
> vs. another for the long interval they will co-exist.
Let me also add to Les' argument, in that there *are* point releases -
when we go from x.y to x.z, there are usually on the order of 300 packages
(I believe when I upgraded two servers yesterday from 7.0 to 7.1, there
were 267 or so packages updated, and I think a few installed. That's *not*
the same as yum update, and I get 10 or even 70 packages.

And when you have to talk to Windowsiacs, who know nothing other than
version and point, it works best to tell them we're on that point, so go
away, and don't bother us....

      mark

On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
> names would
> have been nice.
We did.

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html



-- 
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that
>  seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt on this
>  issue.
Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?

If Centos is the same as RHEL then RH can loose valuable sales income
because customers, actual and potential, use free Centos. However if
Centos version numbers are vastly different from RHEL version numbers
and there is no reliable method of equating Centos sub-versions with
RHEL sub-versions, RH gains extra sales because of the uncertainty of
Centos being 'just like' reliable RHEL.

Just a casual thought.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.

On Thu, April 2, 2015 2:55 pm, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that
>>  seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt on this
>>  issue.
>
> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
>
> If Centos is the same as RHEL then RH can loose valuable sales income
> because customers, actual and potential, use free Centos. However if
> Centos version numbers are vastly different from RHEL version numbers
> and there is no reliable method of equating Centos sub-versions with
> RHEL sub-versions, RH gains extra sales because of the uncertainty of
> Centos being 'just like' reliable RHEL.
Indeed. And some conspiracy theorist might add this happened after CentOS
"marrying" RH (well, getting tighter relations that is) ;-)

Just a joke to put down everybody's fighting mood (or likely switching
fire onto myself ;-(

Valeri
>
> Just a casual thought.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Paul.
> England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

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

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:55:46 +0100
Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote:
> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
I must be part of one the "by most". Since I'm one of the mostly
silent majority.

I want to express my thanks to the team that does all of the work.

Thank you guys!

As far as the version numbering, just let me know what you are
calling it (already done) and I'll deal with it. If I am unhappy,
then there is RedHat but there's also SuSE, Ubuntu/Debian, Slack,
Gentoo...

sknahT

vyS
> 
> If Centos is the same as RHEL then RH can loose valuable sales
> income because customers, actual and potential, use free Centos.
> However if Centos version numbers are vastly different from RHEL
> version numbers and there is no reliable method of equating Centos
> sub-versions with RHEL sub-versions, RH gains extra sales because
> of the uncertainty of Centos being 'just like' reliable RHEL.
> 
> Just a casual thought.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul.
> England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 

-- 
sknahT

vyS