Talk:CentOS

message: There seems to be a bit of an edit war over whether the family for CentOS should be "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux".  Personally, I prefer "Unix-like", because the body of the article already explains how it's based on RedHat, and "Unix" seems to be a pretty good description of what CentOS is.   Thoughts?  Samboy (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the family should be "Linux", because that is what the base of the OS is. "Unix-like" seems a bit too obscure IMHO. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: After viewing a dozen articles for the most popular distributions, as well as four major BSD variants, there doesn't seem to be any clear standard.  The most popular value is "Unix-like", but not by an overwhelming amount (perhaps 50%?).  I believe my vote goes to "Linux, Unix-like".  UncleverOnion (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't the expression be chosen by semantics or correctnes instead of popularity? If CentOS uses a Linux Kernel isn't it just Linux. And maybe in the article about Linux there should be written that Linux is Unix-like? That would be some kind of a recursive definition. Just an proposal. ẼDIT: Just saw that this discussion is maybe a bit outdated.--79.226.153.33 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux" 

message: As a result of a  previous discussion the article was changed in April to read: "Red Hat includes proprietary software to access the Red Hat Network (up2date in older versions, yum with custom plugins in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5) for managing software installation."
Sorry, but this is not correct, both are GPL'ed just like the whole RHN. Grab the srpm from http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS/up2date-4.4.5-1.src.rpm, extract it and take a look at the headers of the source code: 
: # Copyright (c) 2001-2002 Red Hat, Inc.  Distributed under GPL.
Same for yum-rhn-plugin http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/yum-rhn-plugin-0.5.3-6.el5_2.6.src.rpm:
: #   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
: #   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
: #   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
: #   (at your option) any later version.
Can somebody please fix this? --80.143.239.60 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprietary up2date and yum-plguins?  

message: I removed this line because it sounded subjective, no citation, weasel words, and for all I know... not even necessarily true (I could go on.):
As of right now, in the public eye, Lance's credibility and potential for being trusted for involvement in future business endeavors is on the chopping block.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right here. 71.234.145.90 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Wording is very important because of WP:BLP issues.  Samboy (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance open letter stuff 

message: It would be nice to document the Redhat/Fedora release on which a RHEL version is based.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.176.30 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  link RHEL <-> regular Redhat/Fedora releases 

message: Citation 36 links back to the same article...  Always bad to use circular reasoning...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.85.9 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny Citation 

message: I've heard it as sen-tos and sent-oh-ess. 173.9.10.235 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be "sent-oh-ess". A colleague of mine went to a Red Hat conference in London recently (June 2014) and said that the Red Hat representatives were pronouncing it sent-oh-ess. Unfortunately I don't have a URL reference for that :-) Gareth.randall (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this YouTube video can help. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation?

message: What exactly does the delay column mean? The delay in releasing the distribution? What about updates? - Letsbefiends (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delay column 

message: Quote: In July 2010, CentOS overtook Debian to become the most popular Linux distribution for web servers, with almost 30% of all Linux web servers using it,[5] although Debian retook the lead in January 2012
Really? C'mon, quit lying about Debian, CentOS, whatever. NO ONE has a clue to "which OS is most popular".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.105 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this paragraph. Lmatt (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: I know that an :Image:CentOS_full_logo.svg  is registered in "non-free". However, there is clear statement of Creative Commons as far as I look at the applicable site:
*Graphics and Artwork
*Logo
If this is right, it is necessary to change the license of the picture file definitely. This greatly influences an exhibition to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia of other languages in particular. I demand comment and the support of user everybody. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA  (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the licensing info of tjis file and uploaded this file in Wikimedia Commons. If you notice that a procedure has a problem, please revise it definitely. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA  (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the license change. I was not sure at the time whether the logo was free or non-free. I couldnt find a license for centos artwork, but you are right. The logo seems to be free under the GPL license (based on the artwork license). Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. If you are still not sure, you can always file a bug report about the CentOS logo and contact the centos artwork team. (Sav_vas) Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. (Sav_vas)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.89.145 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is CentOS Logo free or non-free? 

message: I was always under the impression that CentOS was a continuation of the White Box project.  Never heard of cAos linux before.  Gigs (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No white box? 

message: The architectures section would benefit from a table showing which processor architectures are supported by which CentOS versions, so that people can see with which version an architecture became supported and with which version it lost support.   Could someone in the know replace the existing list with such a table?  FreeFlow99 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Please see the (collapsed by default, as it otherwise makes the article less readable) table in  section, it should be exactly what you're asking for. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectures 

message: The Repositories section states, "There are two primary CentOS repositories," but the list that follows has three items. My first thought was to edit the page to say three instead of two, but then I thought there might be some distinction that I'm not aware of. One of those three might not belong. Could someone with knowledge on the topic look at this? un4v41l48l3 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Thank you for pointing it out,  by changing "two" to "three".  It might be debatable how much the addons repository makes up the CentOS distribution, as it is no longer used in CentOS 6 and 7; the footnote I've added should be clear enough, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 ≠ 3 mistake

message: The last 6 days someone who is not registered keeps changing CentOS verion 8 from latest, still supported version to Old unsupported version. This is factually incorrect. CentOS will receive normal updates for another whole year. Supports ends in decenber 2021, not This december.
Can we make this stop, please? Maybe by protecting this page from edits by unregistered users for a week or two? Solbu (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Centos was free, so i expected it to end dev anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  You get what you pay for 

message: Are there any plans to update the article to describe the recent decision to terminate CentOS 8 in favor of CentOS Stream?
See 
Seldenball (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CentOS Stream 

message: Commercial advertisements are not allowed . All your edits are going to be reverted!!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xose.vazquez (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Xose.vazquez, my edits you reverted were not "commercial advertisements".  They were factual and written from a neutral point of view.  If you disagree, please discuss it here on the talk page so we can come to an agreement on the best possible phrasing.  Blindly reverting edits out of spite and emotion is not ok.  Reverting multiple edits is like you did is also a violation of the 3RR rule.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, “CentOS” is synonymous with CentOS Linux, so I am going to make sure this article stays as is. Quetstar (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that CentOS is synonymous with CentOS Linux, but the proper name of the distribution is CentOS Linux.  Refusing to describe it accurately could be interpreted as a trademark violation.  Wikipedia and its editors do not determine proper usage of the trademark, the trademark holder does.  Would you be amenable to the phrasing "CentOS Linux (commonly referred to as just CentOS)"?  Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. “CentOS” means CentOS Linux and that's final. You’re also an RH employee who has made multiple comments on Twitter defending Red Hat’s decision, which makes you biased.  Your argument about the trademark doesn’t stand either, because RH does not determine what CentOS means, the community does. And it has already decided that CentOS means one thing, and that’s not the project or Stream. That thing is CentOS Linux. Quetstar (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not final.  You are not the arbiter of this.  Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your personal vendetta.  I'm happy to get the admins involved here if we need dispute resolution, but I'd prefer to handle it ourselves.  My employment status is irrelevant when it comes to provable facts.  I've publicly stated I dislike the Linux/Stream split and have been openly critical of how Red Hat decided to handle this.  It should have been done entirely at a major version without the split, but unfortunately that's not how things happened.  That doesn't change the fact that CentOS the project produces two Linux distributions, CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream, and having a consistent way to clearly describe the two distributions is necessary.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about CentOS Linux, not Stream. Therefore it should remain as is, with the article describing CentOS Linux, with Stream being relegated to a footnote. Quetstar (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is already about CentOS (the project), CentOS (the distribution, officially CentOS Linux), CentOS Stream, and CentOS SIGs.  All of these things are appropriate for this article, because they are all part of CentOS (the project).  Furthermore, from CS9 going forward, CentOS Stream will be the only CentOS operating system.  There will be no more need to distinguish between two operating systems.  I'm hopeful that one day the Stream suffix can be dropped, because in practice few people will use it, just like they didn't use the Linux suffix.  They will just refer to the distribution as CentOS as they always have.  For these reasons, creating a separate page for CentOS Stream is not a good idea.  I don't know why your goal is to "make sure this article stays as is", but that is against the spirit of Wikipedia.  I am going to continue to make edits to the article.  If you feel any of these edits are not factual or demonstrate bias, please discuss it here on this page, because I would like to come to agreement on them.  My goal is not to defend the project's decision to end CL8 earlier than expected, but rather to have a factual article free of all bias, including from those upset by the decision.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: “The project’s decision?” Ha! Red Hat was the one who ended CentOS. That stupid and illegitimate “governing board” signed off on it without the community’s consent, which led it to create Rocky and Alma to replace CentOS as the free downstream RHEL. Quetstar (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I reverted your edits because I felt they were controversial. I also wanted (and still want) the article to uphold the community line, not one tainted by Red Hatters. Quetstar (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how they are controversial.  I would like to add factual information to the CentOS Stream "footnote", and if there is a better way I can phrase it I'm happy to discuss.  For posterity, here is an example of something User:Quetstar reverted.  Everything I added or changed is factual and provable, phrased in the most neutral way I can come up with.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits you made are something a Red Hatter would say, not a community member. Furthermore, the text of the CentOS Stream section before your changes, which  described it as a midstream rolling release, was appropriate due to it being clear and concise. Quetstar (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM/Red Hat edits 

message: Wikipedia has a documented procedure for addressing bias.  Failure to follow this procedure will be reported to the admins.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case you should not be editing the article directly, but should make edit requests here on the talk page and let other uninvolved editors decide whether to add them to the article. CodeTalker (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I want to edit the section describing CentOS stream to read the following:
“CentOS Stream is a rolling release Linux distribution midstream between the upstream development in Fedora and the downstream development for RHEL. The initial release was based on CentOS Linux 8 software packages the project was building with the latest RHEL 8 development kernel.”
Any more ideas? Quetstar (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to read this article - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-have-already-been-centos-stream-back-2019-smith/ - which talks, in part, about why the "rolling release" name is inaccurate, or, at least, misleading. FWIW, that is written by someone who is NOT a Red Hat employee, and not involved in the CentOS Stream effort. I would also ask what point you're trying to make with the second sentence, as it no longer reflects the current state of the project. Rbowen2000 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What i really want to do is to restore the section back to its original state (that is before the edits by Carl). Quetstar (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that's what you want to do, but since it's more accurate now than it was then, I'm unclear *why* you want to do that. What was there before was *false* and what is there now is *true*. Surely, truth is the goal here, isn't it? Rbowen2000 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were made in violation of Wikipedia's COI policy, so i am going to restore the original text and work from there. Quetstar (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your passion for rules over truth is commendable. Congratulations. Rbowen2000 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad, the text reflects the community definition and is therefore true. I am going to make sure the text stays as is until the community (and I mean CentOS users, not that worthless “governing board”) decides otherwise, but because of how the decision was made by that crappy “board”, (It was made in November, at an executive meeting you attended in your capacity as the CentOS CM, but only announced in December, a month later, after which the board ran away like spoiled brats instead of doing a Q&A immediately after the news and face the backlash from the community.) that’s unlikely to happen. Quetstar (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this additional commentary. It clearly demonstrates that this is a personal vendetta, and not any interest in truth or accuracy. Which, of course, we already knew. Rbowen2000 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CentOS Stream edit 

message: * Specific text to be added or removed:
Please add this row to the chart under "Latest version information".
scope="row"	x86_64, ppc64le, aarch64	8.4	4.18.0-305	2021-06-03	2021-05-18	16
* Reason for the change: CentOS Linux 8.4.2105 release
* References supporting change: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2021-June/048316.html
Carlwgeorge (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done   Quetstar (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CentOS Linux 8.4.2105 release 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  Quetstar (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: CentOS →  – The CentOS Project offers 2 Linux distros: "CentOS Linux" and "CentOS Stream", please check https://centos.org/distro-faq/ , https://centos.org/about/ , https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General , and https://centos.org/ -- per this and also since there is a consensus to keep this article only about "CentOS Linux" and there is need to a standalone and different article for "CentOS Stream", this article should be renamed to "CentOS Linux", thanks. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose : CentOS is rarely refered to as "CentOS Linux", so i think it should stay as is. Quetstar (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: see https://distrowatch.com/CentOS --FMM-1992 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: i know, but i speak from a community standpoint, not an official one. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 June 2021 

message: This article is becoming a place for people to put their pitches for other RHEL clones, which is also resulting in edit wars.
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Neither the pitches or the edit warring is appropriate.  I suggest we remove all references to other specific RHEL clones from this page, leaving only a link to Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it should be ALL RHEL clones or NO RHEL clones.  Incidentally Springfield also ought to be included if Alma, Oracle and Rocky are. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Springdale doesn't even have an article. As for the other RHEL clones, i think they should stay referenced until consensus emerges on how to treat them. Quetstar (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point of this talk topic, to reach some kind of general agreement.  100% consensus is not a reasonable ask.  If the majority of people that reply on this topic agree it makes sense, the edit should be made.  I think the logical choice is to reference the Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives article.  Is there some specific issue you have with that approach?  That other article is a better location for a detailed listing of RHEL clones anyways, and it doesn't make sense to duplicate the listing in this article.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably not reasonable to keep allowing this rather bizarre edit war in the CentOS article and just cut it all out in favor of referencing the Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives article instead. Conan_Kudo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would scrub Alma and Rocky, which were created because of the 2020 announcement, from the article. They would have never existed had not been for it, so i think they should stay referenced. However, I would remove Oracle since it was already in existence when the changes were announced. Quetstar (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your standard, then why haven't you added Anolis OS, Circle Linux, or Navy Linux?  From what I can tell they were all started in response to the CentOS shift.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These distros are not notable, as they are not well known. Including them would bloat the article, so the RHEL derivatives page is suitable for them. Also, I would like to say that removing all mentions of Rocky and Alma, which are the most notable of the pack, would cause balance issues, that is, pushing Stream as the sole replacement, which is not the case as there are other alternatives, thus violating WP:BALANCE and giving undue weight to Stream. Yes, Stream is a legitimate replacement, but its not the only one. Also, no other RHEL rebuild page has a link to the derivatives list, so I think it should be the same here. Quetstar (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing references to other RHEL clones 

message: The diagram is seriously out of date (10 years), particularly with the ending of CentOS and the subsequent rise of a new crop of RHEL derivatives.  I woukld suggest that it should be deleted pending a more up to date diagram. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Martin of Sheffield: Where is the diagram you're talking about? Quetstar (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies all for the noise.  The diagram is at Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives and I copied the comment on without double checking.  Mea maxima culpa! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Quetstar (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivative diagram