On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote: > > The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go > > system. Centos has the polish, but lacks the new stuff. > > sigh. > > And right there is the core (or maybe it's 'sore') point to all of this; it > really depends on what you need and how much work you have to do to make it > fit your needs. And then keeping up with your needs, as they inevitably > change. > > CentOS is what it is: as close as possible to upstream EL without being > upstream EL. Nothing more, nothing less, and bug-for-bug compatible. If > that's not what you need, then CentOS won't meet your need. ---- close?
May 19, 2011 (RH 6.1) I thought the term 'close' only applied to horseshoes and hand grenades. Given the track record for CentOS for v 6, it's pretty clear that installing it means that you are likely to have deployed servers that will lag for months without security updates and it's awful easy to set up iptables ;-) I'm not saying this to disparage the developers because I'm sure that they're doing the best that they can but I can't tell my friends/clients/employer/etc. that I can recommend using CentOS knowing the struggles they are having getting out releases & updates. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
