Posted Aug 5, 2009 9:14 UTC (Wed) by hppnq
In reply to: Demand More.
Parent article: CentOS turbulence and enterprise Linux tradeoffs
I was a bit surprised by the article, and found it somewhat lacking with respect to relevant facts and insights. Project governance is not an easy topic but I had expected somewhat more ambitious than "If you need serious support, you should pay for serious support". There must be a whole world out there where CentOS plays a significant role as the platform of choice for small IT companies and consultants, whose customers do not really care about the implementation or its name.
Surely, it is understood by CentOS users that there is no certainty the project will exist tomorrow, because of the dependence on the ability of specific people in the community to keep contributing to it. I feel the Free Software way out of forking or continuing a project may have been understressed, and this episode may have been a nice opportunity to look into the viability that option a bit more seriously. Instead, the article looked at the delays in applying fixes, which seems irrelevant.
So I wouldn't share the article's main conclusion, that there is a lesson to be learned here. CentOS is not chosen despite its weaknesses, but because of its strong points.
to post comments)