UPDATED 8/01/09 – It appears there has already been progress in addressing some of the issues raised among CentOS developers. A visit to the project’s home page provides explanation, as well as the original plea from developers.

There’s been some disharmony and disruption in the developer community of CentOS, the freely available clone of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) open source OS. Key CentOS developers resorted to a message on the project’s home page for CentOS co-founder Lance Davis, whom they say they was otherwise unreachable.

Immediately we saw some hype and some declarations that CentOS was going to die, dying or dead. That prompted response from the would-be mutineer CentOS developers who stressed the project would live on at the same time they conveyed that they had tried, reportedly for years in some cases, to call attention to and address the issues of project management and control of CentOS. Let’s remember this is a Linux version that has no commercial backer, no foundation or other oversight body and which runs on the pure free and open source software spirit and volunteer work of its developers. These guys work on CentOS because they love CentOS. Apparently, they love it so much, they’re willing to go through this public circus of sorts to reach the person and leadership they feel is sorrily lacking.

The open source (in this case meaning available for all to see) discussion is, rightly, prompting some serious concern and questions from enterprise organizations, yes enterprise organizations, that are among CentOS users. We’ve written extensively about enterprise-grade use of community Linux distributions, and CentOS is a prime example alongside Debian and Ubuntu (which admittedly has a commercial backer in Canonical, but which provides its server version for free distribution. These free Linux versions do not necessarily appeal to enterprise users in all situations, but they are increasingly on the radar with a rising generation of developers and system administrators, and they are increasingly attractive as cost-cutting measures where feasible. Furthermore, enterprise organizations are among those with the development teams, expertise and experience to comfortably use a community Linux distribution. Sometimes it leads to commercial Linux use, such as RHEL or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) from Novell, but it also sometimes leads to more community, free Linux use, particularly if it works.

So what does this dust-up mean for enterprise users of CentOS? In the end, it is proof of a vibrant, well-supported Linux project and community. Similar to how a fork can serve as a necessary check on an open source project or vendor in a positive way, this nasty public display of the struggle for leadership, strategy and longevity shows that CentOS matters to these dedicated developers. Enterprise users may not want to hear about such disruptions, but they should not fear them. What is far more threatening is the silence of a stagnating project.

There was also further explanation of the call fortrust, delegation and leadership in the CentOS community. Regardless of what happens from here (and it appears some bureaucratic changes, such as Web domain, may suffice), the open discussion is reflective of the transparency and openness of open source software communities, and when things need to get aired out, they get aired out. At the very least, this seems a superior alternative to bottling up the politics, disputes, struggles and progress of any organization or project.