On Tue, April 7, 2015 12:48, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Seems odd to mention Oracle's name at all in the link without pointing
> out that they have a product very similar to CentOS with the option to
> purchase support.
>
For what it is worth.
If RedHat (or someone else) offered support contracts f
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Holway
> wrote:
>
> > In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list
> > might have on this article I wrote for my new company.
> >
> > http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-brief/
Surely a fair, balanced and proportionat
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:32 AM, SilverTip257 wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Holway
> wrote:
>
>> In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list
>> might have on this article I wrote for my new company.
>>
>> http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-b
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Holway
wrote:
> In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list
> might have on this article I wrote for my new company.
>
> http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-brief/
Well put.
For a non-technical person, your brief clues
Le 04/04/2015 18:57, Bill Maltby (C4B) a écrit :
Been UNIX (programming and user) since 1978, Linux since some early
Slackware distributions, CentOS since 4.x. Will now be looking for
something staying truer to the original UNIX concepts but full-featured
and stable - may not be available, but I'
On Sun, 2015-04-05 at 21:27 +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> If this is a problem, just pick another RHEL clone like Scientific Linux ?
I thought I read on this List the intention of Scientific to base its
future distribution on Red Hat's Centos product.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je
2015-04-04 4:01 GMT+03:00 Francis Gerund :
> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along,
> nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to
> read this.
>
> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
> plans for the fu
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 20:12 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/4/2015 8:10 PM, dE wrote:
> >
> > If you guys have that much of a problem with CentOS/RedHat
> > collaboration, why not just move on things like Debian, arch, Suse etc...
>
> they just like to whine.
If the *whole* truth had been
On Sat, April 4, 2015 10:12 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/4/2015 8:10 PM, dE wrote:
>>
>> If you guys have that much of a problem with CentOS/RedHat
>> collaboration, why not just move on things like Debian, arch, Suse
>> etc...
>
> they just like to whine.
>
Some did move to other systems (eve
On 4/4/2015 8:10 PM, dE wrote:
If you guys have that much of a problem with CentOS/RedHat
collaboration, why not just move on things like Debian, arch, Suse etc...
they just like to whine.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
___
Cent
On 04/04/15 07:16, Always Learning wrote:
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:30 -0400, Digimer wrote:
If you and others believe this to be the case, then form an
organization and fork CentOS. Or, do as CentOS did in the beginning
and recompile the RHEL binaries to be binary-compatible and create
your ow
On Fri, April 3, 2015 22:54, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 22:47 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>
>> No, people are speculating about the future of CentOS.
>
> . . .
> The future is certain. To benefit from this free operating system,
> tolerate the RH control and desire to ensure Centos
>
> You seem to be overlooking Debian. Ubuntu (and many others) at some point
> were "clones of Debian". One can argue Ubuntu stepped up (or aside) a lot
> since. Still...
>
This is very true. Maybe I should say "yum based systems" and "apt based
systems" but I did not want to turn it into a techn
On Sat, April 4, 2015 11:46 am, Andrew Holway wrote:
> In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list
> might have on this article I wrote for my new company.
>
> http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-brief/
Once you asked for comments, here it goes:
You are saying
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 19:14 +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
> >
> > Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes
> > untouched entering April, which I don't recall happening prior to RH
> > subsuming the project, it takes away impetus to ever file one again from
> > lowly end use
>
> Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes
> untouched entering April, which I don't recall happening prior to RH
> subsuming the project, it takes away impetus to ever file one again from
> lowly end users like me I think.
It appears that you are the only one to have
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 11:12 +0100, Nux! wrote:
> 100% with Digimer here.
>
> All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the project,
> testing, helping out community.
Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes
untouched entering April, which I don't reca
In the context of this discussion I would appreciate any feedback the list
might have on this article I wrote for my new company.
http://otternetworks.de/tech/rhel-centos-brief/
I for one welcome our Redhat overlords. I think they will provide better
governance which should give Centos better cre
On 04/04/2015 06:12 AM, Nux! wrote:
100% with Digimer here.
I think there are no conspiracy theories. IMO RedHat does not want nor does it
afford to mess up CentOS.
All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the project,
testing, helping out community.
Lucian
Agreed, and I
On 04/04/2015 07:04 AM, Always Learning wrote:
I think it inevitable that Red Hat will introduce some closed source
packages for the its paying customers, ...
For the sake of perspective, even in the old Red Hat Linux boxed sets in
1997 this was true. There was a whole CD of closed source stuff
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 11:10 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Now if you look at the SIGs coming up and delivering content - it
> should again be pretty clear what sort of content we are facilitating
> here.
I think it inevitable that Red Hat will introduce some closed source
packages for the its p
technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Digimer"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Saturday, 4 April, 2015 02:27:53
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] The future of centos
> On 03/04/15 09:01 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
>> Almost everyone here h
On 04/04/15 02:40, Digimer wrote:
> On 03/04/15 09:39 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:27 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these
>>> companies to switch the RHEL proper.
>>
>> Not if Centos and RHEL become too incompatible.
>
> Exactly w
Le 04/04/2015 03:01, Francis Gerund a écrit :
Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along,
nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to
read this.
Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
plans for the future of
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 22:47 -0400, Digimer wrote:
> No, people are speculating about the future of CentOS.
I agree with your point that if RH is to commercially benefit from
Centos installations transferring to (or upgrading to) RH, then the base
systems should not be radically different or even
On 03/04/15 09:46 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:30 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>
>
>> If you and others believe this to be the case, then form an
>> organization and fork CentOS. Or, do as CentOS did in the beginning
>> and recompile the RHEL binaries to be binary-compatible
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:30 -0400, Digimer wrote:
> If you and others believe this to be the case, then form an
> organization and fork CentOS. Or, do as CentOS did in the beginning
> and recompile the RHEL binaries to be binary-compatible and create
> your own OS.
>
> It is the open-source way
On 03/04/15 09:39 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:27 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these
>> companies to switch the RHEL proper.
>
> Not if Centos and RHEL become too incompatible.
Exactly why I believe it will not come to be.
SIGs/v
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 21:27 -0400, Digimer wrote:
> Being on CentOS, it is then trivial for these
> companies to switch the RHEL proper.
Not if Centos and RHEL become too incompatible.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
___
Cent
On 03/04/15 09:25 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 20:01 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
>> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
>> plans for the future of Centos.
>>
>> community.redhat.com/centos-faq
>
> It is what many of us feared.
>
>
On 03/04/15 09:01 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along,
> nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to
> read this.
>
> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
> plans for the f
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 20:01 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
> plans for the future of Centos.
>
> community.redhat.com/centos-faq
It is what many of us feared.
I never noticed any of the Centos bosses stating they are on
Almost everyone here has probably read this by now. If so, move along,
nothing new here. But just in case you haven't, please take the time to
read this.
Here it is, in their own words: what Redhat thinks of Centos, and it's
plans for the future of Centos.
Can you read between the lines? In th
33 matches
Mail list logo
