CentOS - Dec 2015 - wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on boot]

On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is
> that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora
> developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or
> hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may
> impact a server installation.  ....
>
> Am I correct?
Yeah, pretty much.  At least you have the ability to have some input 
upstream, unlike with Windows.

Once it is in RHEL, it is simply *going* to be in CentOS, full stop.  If 
you don't want it in CentOS, then it needs to be yelled about when it 
appears in Fedora.  Yes, this is work.  But many are already doing this 
work; it is those people whose voices are being heard; it is also some 
of those people that are making dynamic networking happen (which is 
useful for more than just laptops).

If you want your voice to be heard, you have to use your voice in the 
venue where changes can happen.  Once it is in a particular major 
version of CentOS, it is simply not going away (unless RHEL removes it).

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:37:33AM -0500, Lamar Owen
wrote:
> On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is
> >that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora
> >developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or
> >hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may
> >impact a server installation.  ....
> 
> If you want your voice to be heard, you have to use your voice in
> the venue where changes can happen.  Once it is in a particular
> major version of CentOS, it is simply not going away (unless RHEL
> removes it).
> 
The best place to keep track is probably the Fedora testing list.  Adam
Williamson, among others, does listen to reasonable disagreements and some
decisions that would be bad for a server O/S do get turned down.

-- 
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is
>> that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora
>> developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or
>> hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may
>> impact a server installation.  ....
>>
>> Am I correct?
> Yeah, pretty much.  At least you have the ability to have some input
> upstream, unlike with Windows.
<snip>
Can't remember if I posted this here - I've posted this comment in a one
or two other places - but one thing that's always aggravated me is when
the development or architecture side simply DOES NOT TALK to end users,
but Knows How It Needs To Be.

I'm sure it's *far* too much work for, say, the fedora development team
to
put out once a quarter a notice to upstream, and maybe CentOS, Scientific
Linux, and whatever other main user groups to inform them of major
changes, and see the feedback....

Nahhh, who cares whether end users are happy, they'll just do what is
K3wl, never mind if it's appropriate, or overly complicated....

      mark

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:45:55AM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us
wrote:
> I'm sure it's *far* too much work for, say, the fedora development
team to
> put out once a quarter a notice to upstream, and maybe CentOS, Scientific
> Linux, and whatever other main user groups to inform them of major
> changes, and see the feedback....
I'm not sure what you mean by "to upstream".

But overall, why do you think I'm here suggesting that CentOS users
follow Fedora development?

And, if following the actual development cycle is too hard, we actually
do produce something else that's designed for exactly what you're
asking: the actual Fedora OS releases.



-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader

On 12/09/2015 09:37 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is
>> that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora
>> developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or
>> hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may
>> impact a server installation.  ....
>>
>> Am I correct?
> Yeah, pretty much.  At least you have the ability to have some input
> upstream, unlike with Windows.
>
> Once it is in RHEL, it is simply *going* to be in CentOS, full stop.  If
> you don't want it in CentOS, then it needs to be yelled about when it
> appears in Fedora.  Yes, this is work.  But many are already doing this
> work; it is those people whose voices are being heard; it is also some
> of those people that are making dynamic networking happen (which is
> useful for more than just laptops).
Hi,

I think saying that you can have some say as to what goes into Fedora is being a
little
naive, look at systemd, many people complained about its inclusion but the
powers to be
heard none of it, and the refrain I saw was if you don't like systemd then
run something else.

Regards,
Steve
>
> If you want your voice to be heard, you have to use your voice in the
> venue where changes can happen.  Once it is in a particular major
> version of CentOS, it is simply not going away (unless RHEL removes it).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

-- 
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:15:56PM -0500, Steve Clark
wrote:
> I think saying that you can have some say as to what goes into Fedora
> is being a little naive, look at systemd, many people complained
> about its inclusion but the powers to be heard none of it, and the
That's not a historically accurate picture of the process. And, I know,
because I was one of the people very skeptical of systemd's inclusion.
"Powers to be" didn't really come into it.

I'm not going to argue about systemd in specific, because that horse is
so dead that its zombie skeleton version is _also_ dead, but the
general point is important enough that I'll say it again: anyone who
puts in the effort to contribute can have a meaningful say in any and
every part of Fedora.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader