- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Future of CentOS and Criteria For Choosing a Business Distribution
|
|
|
Comments (55)
35 earlier comments in the full thread.
perhaps caitlyn, however I am of the firm opinion that words and actions define who we are at our core. You can not unsay something, you can apologize, walk away, or call everyone who doesn't see your point mentally deficient. However attempting to remove proof that you said something right, wrong, or indifferent is unconscionable.
@caitlyn
If you don't want it to be a discussion about Slackware, don't casually toss out things like, "By the way, you'd have to be insane to use Slackware. As anyone other than nosering-wearing fanbois knows, it is very risky. It'll disappear tomorrow and then you'll have your legs and arms cut off." I didn't understand why you made the comment in the first place, except for the fact that you want to push the buttons of Slackware users, but it's still a fact that you started the conversation on Slackware and some of us felt compelled to respond.
If you don't want it to be a discussion about Slackware, don't casually toss out things like, "By the way, you'd have to be insane to use Slackware. As anyone other than nosering-wearing fanbois knows, it is very risky. It'll disappear tomorrow and then you'll have your legs and arms cut off." I didn't understand why you made the comment in the first place, except for the fact that you want to push the buttons of Slackware users, but it's still a fact that you started the conversation on Slackware and some of us felt compelled to respond.
> I actually think Red Hat's GNOME desktop is reasonably pretty and well executed so I'm not sure I'd agree with your analogy either.
Well, that's part of what I meant by the crafting being equally good. I'm sorry it didn't come across properly. The cabinet looks just as good, it simply doesn't quite fit into a kitchen setting, if that makes any sense.
> ...it has often been said by many people that business people in general just don't get FOSS. There is a large degree of truth in that
Yep.
> It is also true that a lot of geeks including many technical professionals just can't see things from a business perspective.
Again, yep. AFAICT, I'm perfectly capable of seeing things from a business perspective if I want to, I just have very little interest in doing so.
Well, that's part of what I meant by the crafting being equally good. I'm sorry it didn't come across properly. The cabinet looks just as good, it simply doesn't quite fit into a kitchen setting, if that makes any sense.
> ...it has often been said by many people that business people in general just don't get FOSS. There is a large degree of truth in that
Yep.
> It is also true that a lot of geeks including many technical professionals just can't see things from a business perspective.
Again, yep. AFAICT, I'm perfectly capable of seeing things from a business perspective if I want to, I just have very little interest in doing so.
@bigg: I'm going to call B.S. on you just as I did on Garymax. Patrick Volkerding's health scare and the concerns it raised about Slackware were a primary example of why small distros, including Slackware, which is very close to a one man show, are problematic. It was a perfectly valid example considering the topic up for discussion. Someone can disagree with that with no problem without going off on how superior in every respect Slackware is like Garymax did.
My example is nothing like what you wrote. Your recharacterization of my comment is over the top hyperbole at best and an attempt to start a flame war at worst.
My example is nothing like what you wrote. Your recharacterization of my comment is over the top hyperbole at best and an attempt to start a flame war at worst.
@caitlyn:
Look at the -current ChangeLog.txt and you'll see that Slackware is far from a one-man show. Patrick thanks many people who pull a lot of weight. If he had to give it all up tomorrow, work on it would continue.
Look at the -current ChangeLog.txt and you'll see that Slackware is far from a one-man show. Patrick thanks many people who pull a lot of weight. If he had to give it all up tomorrow, work on it would continue.
@gus
Nevermind. Caitlyn is obviously not interested in facts. She has made her point and she's sticking to it. She's defined Slackware as a one-man show and she's defined government funded distros as extremely safe. We'll just have to accept it.
Nevermind. Caitlyn is obviously not interested in facts. She has made her point and she's sticking to it. She's defined Slackware as a one-man show and she's defined government funded distros as extremely safe. We'll just have to accept it.
@bigg: I guess I get to call B.S. on you twice, or perhaps you are totally uninterested in facts and only interested in flaming me. OK, Slackware isn't a one man show. It's a group of volunteers just like CentOS. Same objections apply, of course, but I get my facts straight this way.
How many government funded distros did I talk about? Let's see, Pardus and MoLinux weren't mentioned in my article. I guess that makes none. Scientific Linux is funded by multiple institutions which, in turn, are funded by multiple governments. Who isn't getting their facts straight now?
No, I don't have to accept your fictions, especially when your fictions are talking trash about me.
How many government funded distros did I talk about? Let's see, Pardus and MoLinux weren't mentioned in my article. I guess that makes none. Scientific Linux is funded by multiple institutions which, in turn, are funded by multiple governments. Who isn't getting their facts straight now?
No, I don't have to accept your fictions, especially when your fictions are talking trash about me.
Just in case it slipped your mind:
I will leave it at that, because it is obvious to any objective reader that you are (a) defining Slackware as risky, and (b) saying Pardus and Scientific Linux are much safer because of government and institutional backing, and that is what I'm responding to. Call whatever you want.
Quoting:I also remember Patrick Volkerding's health scare a few years back and the concerns it raised regarding Slackware. I may admire what Mr. Volkerding has done with Slackware but I sure can't recommend it for business use.
This week I've worked a lot with two distros, Pardus, which is funded by the Turkish government, and Scientific Linux, which has well funded laboratories and universities behind it. Neither is less free or less open than a community project. Both have community involvement. They also have the foundation and backing to assure their futures.
I will leave it at that, because it is obvious to any objective reader that you are (a) defining Slackware as risky, and (b) saying Pardus and Scientific Linux are much safer because of government and institutional backing, and that is what I'm responding to. Call whatever you want.
And just in case you decide to edit your post, here is what the last post is responding to:
Clearly we have different definitions of "fiction" and "talking trash".
Quoting:How many government funded distros did I talk about? Let's see, Pardus and MoLinux weren't mentioned in my article. I guess that makes none. Scientific Linux is funded by multiple institutions which, in turn, are funded by multiple governments. Who isn't getting their facts straight now?
No, I don't have to accept your fictions, especially when your fictions are talking trash about me.
Clearly we have different definitions of "fiction" and "talking trash".
> Clearly we have different definitions of "fiction" and "talking trash".
Guys, while it should be obvious I disagree with Caitlyn about the risks associated with Slackware, and about the lack of risks associated with government/institutional backing; she's talking about distros for business use. And whether any of us like it or not, the things most business folks want from a distro aren't the same things you or I want. Seen through that lens, Caitlyn is almost certainly correct about the most suitable distro for their use.
Now, whether that lens provides an accurate view of reality is another matter entirely, and I think my opinion on that matter should also be pretty obvious.
Guys, while it should be obvious I disagree with Caitlyn about the risks associated with Slackware, and about the lack of risks associated with government/institutional backing; she's talking about distros for business use. And whether any of us like it or not, the things most business folks want from a distro aren't the same things you or I want. Seen through that lens, Caitlyn is almost certainly correct about the most suitable distro for their use.
Now, whether that lens provides an accurate view of reality is another matter entirely, and I think my opinion on that matter should also be pretty obvious.
Quoting:I will leave it at that, because it is obvious to any objective reader that you are (a) defining Slackware as risky, and (b) saying Pardus and Scientific Linux are much safer because of government and institutional backing, and that is what I'm responding to. Call whatever you want.
That does accurately reflect my views as expressed in the article and here, but as jdixon points out, that has to be taken in the context of the article, which is business/enterprise use. The risk on a personal system is, by comparison, minimal, because changing distros where the quantity of systems is very small is much, much less work. jdixon is also entirely correct that my views represent a business perspective, not a home/geek user perspective, and should be taken as such.
If you asked me if Slackware is risky to use at home on a personal machine my answer would be a resounding "no", I have Slackware 13 rc2 installed here. The system is multi-boot so if Slackware were to disappear tomorrow (which is highly unlikely) what have I lost?
Again, everything has to be put in context.
Context is not relevant. The risk that we are talking about is the risk that Slackware will not be supported in the future vs one of the other distros not being supported. This is a matter of assigning probabilities to events. How the probabilities affect your decisions (which is where context matters) is a different issue.
Event 1: PV stops providing updates (security or releases) of Slackware, and the community is unsuccessful at replacing PV, so Slackware is dead and a business relying on Slackware is in serious trouble.
Event 2: The institutional or government funding for the other distros ends, so businesses relying on the distro are in serious trouble.
There's a simple way to assess risk. If Pr[Event 1] > Pr[Event 2], Slackware is riskier. If Pr[Event 1] < Pr[Event 2], Slackware is less risky. From what I've seen, Pr[Event 1] is much smaller than Pr[Event 2]. This is particularly true given the state of the economy and the fact that institutions/governments are one lunch with a Microsoft rep from dropping the project.
Event 1: PV stops providing updates (security or releases) of Slackware, and the community is unsuccessful at replacing PV, so Slackware is dead and a business relying on Slackware is in serious trouble.
Event 2: The institutional or government funding for the other distros ends, so businesses relying on the distro are in serious trouble.
There's a simple way to assess risk. If Pr[Event 1] > Pr[Event 2], Slackware is riskier. If Pr[Event 1] < Pr[Event 2], Slackware is less risky. From what I've seen, Pr[Event 1] is much smaller than Pr[Event 2]. This is particularly true given the state of the economy and the fact that institutions/governments are one lunch with a Microsoft rep from dropping the project.
@bigg:
Methinks you forgot to turn "<" into "<".
(Please, God, let this post correctly so I don't have to edit it...)
Methinks you forgot to turn "<" into "<".
(Please, God, let this post correctly so I don't have to edit it...)
@gus: Thanks, I actually wanted to use a double < to signal "much less than". Luckily it only ate my last sentence.
> f Pr[Event 1] > Pr[Event 2], Slackware is riskier. If Pr[Event 1] < Pr[Event 2], Slackware is less risky. From what I've seen, Pr[Event 1] is much smaller than Pr[Event 2].
Even if not, Patrick could be replaced. Replacing government/institutional funding? Well, good luck with that.
Not to say that it can't be done. There are people who are good at doing that kind of thing. They're called lobbyists, and they're well paid for their efforts. What's that? You're a small business and don't have that kind of money to spend? Well, see my above comment.
However, Caitlyn's point still stands. In the environment she's deaing with, the above argument will go in one ear and out the other, and they'll look at you as if you're speaking Greek. If you continue in the hopeless task of trying to explain it to them, they'll eventually call security to escort you off the premises.
In such an environment, Slackware is not going to be considered. Oh, the IT department may use it internally for one off projects or personal IT use, but management will never hear about that, and will threaten to fire folks if they do find out.
To do her job, Caitlyn has to deal with the reality those folks define, whether it actually exists or not. Doing otherwise puts her out of a job.
Even if not, Patrick could be replaced. Replacing government/institutional funding? Well, good luck with that.
Not to say that it can't be done. There are people who are good at doing that kind of thing. They're called lobbyists, and they're well paid for their efforts. What's that? You're a small business and don't have that kind of money to spend? Well, see my above comment.
However, Caitlyn's point still stands. In the environment she's deaing with, the above argument will go in one ear and out the other, and they'll look at you as if you're speaking Greek. If you continue in the hopeless task of trying to explain it to them, they'll eventually call security to escort you off the premises.
In such an environment, Slackware is not going to be considered. Oh, the IT department may use it internally for one off projects or personal IT use, but management will never hear about that, and will threaten to fire folks if they do find out.
To do her job, Caitlyn has to deal with the reality those folks define, whether it actually exists or not. Doing otherwise puts her out of a job.
@jdixon: Thank you. That is precisely why context DOES matter and why the article was framed the way it was. The title itself talks about business.
Let's end this discussion. I don't think it is useful to go on.
Quoting: Replacing government/institutional funding? Well, good luck with that.Why so? Just as with any other FOSS project it could as well be picked up by anyone interested so even in such a case it will, arguably, still not be any worse off than Slackware or CentOS for that matter.
> even in such a case it will, arguably, still not be any worse off than Slackware or CentOS for that matter
That's not the point. Caitlyn is arguing that government and/or institution funding make a distribution safer. I read such statements with shock.
That's not the point. Caitlyn is arguing that government and/or institution funding make a distribution safer. I read such statements with shock.
> ...Just as with any other FOSS project it could as well be picked up by anyone interested...
Yes, it could. What's that got to do with government/institutional funding?
Yes, it could. What's that got to do with government/institutional funding?
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post