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

It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in
/etc/os-release

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> > you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as
the
> > iso file name.
>
> You may wear them, many of us don't :-)
>
> > if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.
>
> Its about a consistent and logical approach to identifying versions,
> revisions and differences between changes.
>
> How is the latest numbering system an improvement ? Marks idea of
>
> {major version}-{sub version}-{mmdd} ......
>
> is clearly a good proposal
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Paul.
> England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


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

On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most?  It is unwelcome 
by you and a few others I've seen comment; what percentage of the list's
subscribers do you suppose that might be?  (It is neither welcome nor 
unwelcome by me, as I've said before.)

Feedback on the direction of the distribution's development is taken on 
the -devel list; this list is for questions about using the distribution.

On 04/02/2015 03:12 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> 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.
They know Service Packs and Build numbers.  Call it CentOS 7 Build 1503 
if you'd like.  They will understand that nomenclature just fine.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 16:12 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> > Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most'
change ?
> 
> Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most?
Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
majority do not complain in public.  Where is your contrary evidence
that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority
of Centos users ?


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
>> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most'
change ?
>>
>
> Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most?  It is unwelcome
> by you and a few others I've seen comment; what percentage of the
list's
> subscribers do you suppose that might be?  (It is neither welcome nor
> unwelcome by me, as I've said before.)
>
> Feedback on the direction of the distribution's development is taken on
> the -devel list; this list is for questions about using the distribution.
>
>
See my reply earlier. The description of the centos-devel list says "this
is strictly about development."

I take that to mean it is for developers. I am not a developer for CentOS.
I don't know this, but I'm guessing there are many many users and admins
of
CentOS who are not on that list, like me. Even a "Please check out this
thread for an important discussion about the future of CentOS release
names." would have been appreciated.

Now it's too late.

(As I said earlier, it's not just the ISO name either).

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

On 04/02/2015 04:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
> majority do not complain in public.  Where is your contrary evidence
> that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority
> of Centos users ?
The burden of proof for your statement is on you, not me.  I never said 
it was welcome by most, either.  I might even agree with your statement, 
for that matter; but you made the statement; you have the burden of 
proof of that statement.  I do not need to prove the converse.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 17:37 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 04:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> > Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
> > majority do not complain in public.  Where is your contrary evidence
> > that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the
majority
> > of Centos users ?
> 
> The burden of proof for your statement is on you, not me.  I never said 
> it was welcome by most, either.  I might even agree with your statement, 
> for that matter; but you made the statement; you have the burden of 
> proof of that statement.  I do not need to prove the converse.
Lamar,

You are a really great guy. Earlier you admitted the change was not
beneficial and now you seem to agree the change was NOT welcome by most.

Query .... why did Centos bosses make the change ?


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.

On 04/02/2015 07:00 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> stretching this a bit futher : lets see if we can find 10 people who 
> might be considered 'community beacons', who could / would act as 
> commnuity comms and liason to make sure we are driving in the right 
> directions and communicating things in the most impactful manner. ... 
> thoughts ? 
I really think that if someone is actually interested in helping the 
project, rather than being a backseat driver and griping at every change 
from the Steeped Tradition of the Unix Protectors - In Training , a 
division of the National Organization of Whiners (STUP-IT / NOW) 
standards, that someone should be willing to take the initiative to 
follow the -devel list.   (Yes, that contrived acronym is 
tongue-in-cheek and meant as a joke to lighten things up a bit.... no 
offense to any particular person intended; please take a good laugh, 
smile, and enjoy your Friday!)

I am as pressed for time as anyone else on this list; I especially feel 
Matt Phelps' pain, as part of an educational institution where funding 
and staffing is never enough.  But there has to be a bar to meet so that 
feedback given is useful and not trollish.

I would suggest that a periodic informational FAQ be added to the 
monthly mailman reminders for the CentOS lists that can give a pointer 
to those who would like to give feedback, or help out, or otherwise do 
something to benefit the project as a whole.

I would also suggest that changes to the distribution that directly 
affect users and users' expectations be more widely announced, and 
something like a request for comment be made for the proposed change, 
with replies to be sent to the -devel list.   While I consider the very 
specific issue of the ISO naming  to be a tempest in a teacup, I also 
appreciate the fact that mine is not the only opinion.

But I believe that we would experience heavy turnover in such a 
go-between position as you describe.

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:23 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> I really think that if someone is actually interested in helping the 
> project, rather than being a backseat driver and griping at every change
........
But first one ought to know exactly where the "project" is going. In
which direction is Centos heading ?

Am I mistaken in thinking, after reading recent postings, Centos is
slowly moving in a different direction to RHEL and the removal of useful
and informative sub-version numbers is merely the first of many
manifestations of the growing-gap, or eventual gulf, between
"upstream"
and Centos ?

Will Centos versions eventually become incompatible, partially or
wholly, with its parent's RHEL versions ?  I can understand why that
would be commercially advantageous to RH.




-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.