On 07/30/2009 09:51 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Apparently one guy has always had a stranglehold on centos, hasn’t been > willing or able to grant additional control to other delegates, and has > disappeared from the face of the earth. (over a year ago).
Wherever you look, there's always a bad apple. I can't say that this was officially the case, but that sure seems what it was like. Fortunately the combined knowledge of many individuals knows better, and in more detail, their respective piece. I think everyone should have confidence in that type of commitment by the other members. > I sincerely doubt centos could truly die. If they have to, they’ll take > a severe setback, get a new domain, rebuild everything from scratch, and > get back into operation. But that would in fact be a severe setback. > This setback won't be nearly as bad as people believe. CentOS has a huge following, and a great community. They have dedicated people at every turn, and these people really know what they're doing. Nothing will be rebuilt from scratch; where do you keep YOUR backups? Assume there is no setback - preparations are already well underway, and have been for quite some time. The news that we saw today is not new news. That being the case, what's another few weeks of the same 'ole trying to get the old resurrected, when the new (and under new management) will be operational very shortly? You're right in the fact that CentOS may change some things such as URLs and PayPal accounts, but I don't think anyone should be worried. I can't tell a Corporation not to worry and expect them to immediately believe me, but those who know better will help convince others that they have nothing to dread. If there is one single setback over all of this, that would be it. Thanks -dant _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
