On Thu, 8/14/08, Bryan J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I cannot speak for CentOS, especially given who I work > for. But CentOS does strive for bit-by-bit compatibility > with RHEL, per their goals. I can attest that they do a > pretty good job. > In fact, Johnny Hughes regularly has to remind people > that deviation will never be an option they will expore.
I should probably put this more first-hand ... Regardless of the 3rd party rhetoric, I (and many others I work with) see CentOS ltd. as a brand that is both ... - A "community" brand alongside Fedora(TM), that the Fedora Project works with, as most anything Red Hat does with the community is under the Fedora(TM) brand for many reasons, and - A "community" brand that complements "commercial" Red Hat(R) products well, outside of Red Hat(R) IHV/ISV certifications and SLAs, but serves the needs of an offshoot userbase I never speak in negatives about CentOS, only positives. I (and many others I work with) see CentOS as a value in the community and userbase. In fact, if you ever see a Red Hat employee say anything negative, please let me know. I do not believe you ever will. The most you'll ever see if someone in the media or someone in the blogsphere confuse and/or misrepresent things, and sometimes Red Hat has to differentiate the branding and trademarks. Since CentOS strives for RHEL parity, you can assume the technical specifics are striving for the same. At least I do. BTW, just the other day, when people were once again nagging Johnny Hughes for CentOS 5.2, he responded, as he typically does, with the comment that basically if you want it faster, it's already available as RHEL 5.2. _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
