Boycott Novell runs on a CentOS server, so it is painful to watch The Register and some other publications spreading FUD about the project. Basically, the lead person (one among a large group) may be departing, and that's not even news. The word has been circulating for quite a while. All that happened was that the team posted a public letter on the Web site and it is quickly being misinterpreted.
The head of the CentOS GNU/Linux project has gone missing and other contributors to the project are sufficiently concerned to post an open letter to him on the project's website.
CentOS is not dead or going away. The signers of the Open Letter are fully committed to continue the CentOS Project. Updates and new releases will continue.
Comments
whatever
2009-07-31 14:20:29
I have a VPS running CentOS, and it's fine for that purpose -- it isn't mission crticial -- but this and past domain security issues have led me and many others to flat-out refuse to use it in a professional setting. I could pay RHEL, I'd rather not (their support isn't worth the paper it is printed on so if I'm going to go Linux, I'm going Debian and having in-house guys do it. Otherwise we'll compile for the various Unixes our client servers use).
It's not a very comforting sign for a guy with all the keys to go AWOL.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-31 14:50:32
zatoichi
2009-07-31 14:54:29
He's also been "just being possessive" of all the monetary contributions made to the project, and after 9 months—and a repeatedly-requested accounting of these funds from Lance has never been produced—that's starting to sound kind of like larceny.
Why are you whitewashing this story, Roy?
zatoichi
2009-07-31 15:14:49
Since you seem to be unclear, you just did make a direct comparison.
zatoichi
2009-07-31 16:44:50
Is he "just being possessive" (relative to whom? the entire rest of the project team? and with the piggy bank?) as you'd "like to think"?
Or has he done some sort of a runner, as the "open letter" seems to be suggesting?
zatoichi
2009-07-31 14:50:43
That, and the many instances of the "open letter" to Lance, are legitimate news. Roy, weirdly, would seem to want to take a "don't worry, be happy" approach to the whole thing; one can only speculate why.
Nothing to see here, people, move along. Is that it, Roy?
David Gerard
2009-07-31 16:15:10
zatoichi
2009-07-31 16:41:24
And who mentioned Mono (other than you, I mean)? That seems a little...monomaniacal...
verofakto
2009-07-31 18:43:11
Let me pull a quote from each of those:
As they say in Wikipedia, [who?]
Except if you're CentOS, then it's almost an opportunity!
That last one you were forced to correct, I note. Yet the FUD (because how else does one call that?) remained.
Further, doing a site search for "suse departures" reveals you banged on that horse for about a week afterward. As you've said before, "repetition counts" (I can also pull that quote if you need me to).
I might agree that the tech rags are exaggerating this. The letter on the CentOS site certainly seems a bit on the desperate side, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the project cannot survive the departure of this single person, whatever his position might be. But that's what the rags do, they exaggerate and spin and troll for page views and ad revenue. I also agree that this breathless type of reporting on issues like these is FUD. Funny that?
By the way, is my account going to be deleted immediately after this comment, or how does it work now?
zatoichi
2009-07-31 18:59:07
whatever
2009-07-31 20:57:25
You might not like that a project you respect is publicly dealing with some issues, but it is legitimate and it is news.
Sadly, this sort of thing reflects poorly on community projects. How do I sell my boss or a client on using this open source solution if I can't guarantee any level of accountability (even if just in appearance) behind the scenes?
I'm glad the CentOS team is finally talking. Someone needs to get the keys from Lance so they can move forward.
zatoichi
2009-07-31 22:50:27
verofakto
2009-07-31 21:58:49
My blog has nothing to do with David Schlesinger. I contacted him through his blog when I finished the timeline I made of the Mark Fink episode and asked him to provide corrections if he wanted. That was the first post I made, even though I had other drafts, because I wanted to make sure he had something factual to refer to as he battled with your accusations. I also used it as a test case to see how using Blogspot would work at managing large posts (not well, but I digress).
I will however freely admit that your treatment of him was one of the things that finally motivated me enough to take the time to organize the information I had and push it online. That doesn't mean we take long showers in the wee hours of the morning together and crack jokes about you. It means the "Fink" thing is an important part of what I'm going to be writing in the future. David just happened to be the victim.
I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and think twice before you play fast and loose with people's identities that way. Eventually I'm sure you'll figure out who I am, but I assure you I am not David, and David has nothing to do with my blog, other than being an unwilling character in your ongoing soap opera.
The Mad Hatter
2009-08-02 18:10:47
Let's say you start something. You have a vested interest in it. It's your child (from one point of view). You want to maintain control, so you keep everything under your own hand. Or alternatively you set up a group to control the project, with yourself in charge to start, and a succession plan in place.
I've been through both. In cases where one person maintains control things tend to be better defined, but when that person leaves/dies/etc. all hell breaks loose. In cases where a control group is set up, and a succession plan implemented, there's more stability, if less definition.
I'd rather have less definition, and more stability myself.