On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM, R P Herrold <herr...@owlriver.com> wrote: >> If the patch cycle is as >> quick as Cent/RHEL, it may be prod-ready. > > net patch cycles have historically track out substantially identically; > CentOS just completed a re-engineering cycle with the 6 major release which, > with any luck, will shorten the release turn
Awesome :) I know getting 6 sucked for you guys. >> But saying "It's >> indistinguishable from CentOS" just makes me think "Why not just use >> CentOS then?" If it lacks any compelling, distinguishing feature , I >> don't know why I wouldn't use the ubiquitous, widely supported option. > > Under that argument, simply pay for RHEL [1]. Diversity is good Diversity is good, so use this thing with some indistinguishable difference? Diversity is only good when it provides something unique or different- it's not good for its own sake. I use RHEL when the business needs a Throat To Choke, CentOS when RHEL and CentOS are the supported options, Ubuntu or Debian when I can otherwise. I agree that diversity is good, SL just doesn't seem very diverse from Cent. ~Ben --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
