Gordon Messmer

Public Key

npub1ul47nuenjz88fryvg94fgjn8tp9vnkngml3u4d4gfcltlvt3smxqf5wh3u

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw06lf7veeprn53jxyz655ffn4sjkfmf5dlc72k65yu04lk9ccdnqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9cexd3

Publishing to

relay.primal.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1ul47nuenjz88fryvg94fgjn8tp9vnkngml3u4d4gfcltlvt3smxqf5wh3u

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-22 18:15:22 UTC

- reply

CentOS Stream updates are published after QA, and Red Hat's engineers have been pretty clear about that for years. I'm surprised there are still misconceptions about this.
If you aren't familiar with Carl, do note that he was part of the CentOS team at Red Hat.

2026-04-13 07:38:54 UTC

- reply

That's not really what CentOS Stream is, though. CentOS Stream is a major-version stable release, just like CentOS Linux was.
But unlike CentOS Linux, Stream is supported all year long. CentOS Linux was unsupported for 2-3 months out of the year, every year. That's not a good security posture.
It is very very likely that the people who've told you about Stream have also never used it. Since I do, I can say: It's good! Much better than the old process.

2026-04-13 04:47:15 UTC

- reply

A lot of what you're saying sounds like common myths and misconceptions, so I have to ask: Have you actually used CentOS Stream?

2025-11-07 19:45:53 UTC

- reply

Firmly agreed. Paraphrasing, especially as a way to communicate how one feels about a statement will almost always hit 1 and 2 and 5, with a sprinkle of 4, and notes of 3.
It really is a perfect storm of unhelpful dialog.
Perfectly legitimate to quote someone and talk about the logical conclusions, or the way the statement is perceived, or how you feel, but it's almost always unfair not to start with what someone actually said, in their own words.

2025-11-06 03:36:39 UTC

- reply

I wasn't really trying to continue making top-5 lists, but here we are.

2025-11-06 03:36:10 UTC

- reply

5: Criticism should be constructive. It should identify a specific issue, and conditions under which that issue would be considered to be resolved.

2025-11-06 03:36:00 UTC

- reply

4: Avoid metaphors. Metaphors are often good because of the connotations they carry, but we do not all have the same context for any given metaphor, and especially during negotiation or conflict resolution that can make others defensive.

2025-11-06 03:35:46 UTC

- reply

3: Don't speak for others who have not asked you to speak on their behalf. (e.g. "no one..." is speaking on behalf of everyone, and everyone has surely not asked you to speak for them.)

2025-11-06 03:35:33 UTC

- reply

2: Ask someone to clarify their intent if you are upset by a statement.

2025-11-06 03:35:22 UTC

- reply

1: Don't attribute motive to others or speculate about others motives. Accusations tend to make the people defensive, which will make resolution more difficult.

2025-11-06 03:34:36 UTC

- reply

So, on that topic:
I feel like I've seen a number of really unproductive conversations over the last couple of weeks, and I'm interested in hearing how you all keep conversations respectful.
I'll go first. Please chime in!

2025-11-04 18:12:55 UTC

My first in-person exposure to security researchers was a review performed by ATstake at my employer. It was the most shockingly unprofessional and abusive display I had ever seen, and I spent the rest of my career talking about the importance of collaboration and respect.