On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:28 PM, John H. Outlan CPA <[email protected]> wrote: > Sent from T-Mobile G2, please excuse any typos > On Jul 23, 2011 1:15 PM, "Yasha Karant" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A vendor professional systems person whom I know has been requested to >> install SL 6 on a system that is being configured for us. In a discussion >> with him, he gave me the opinion that his (vendor's) experience with SL is >> that it is "buggier" than CentOS, and CentOS often "fixes" RHEL bugs. I did >> not understand this in that the base distribution without extensions of both >> CentOS and SL is RHEL with only the artwork being changed in the sense that >> all RedHat logos or use of RedHat licensed-for-fee binary distribution >> repositories have been removed, replaced by the appropriate entities for the >> distribution in question. Red Hat is required to release full source from >> which the entire distribution can be built for personal use -- but not >> redistributed without removal of the RedHat copyrighted logos, etc. -- under >> the GPL, Linux licenses, etc. >> >> Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that CentOS does the best job of testing >> the distribution in pre-CentOS release -- although both start from the RHEL >> sources. I commented that SL is professionally supported by a joint >> Fermilab-CERN effort with paid professionals doing the work, not the more or >> less volunteer organization of CentOS, just as the Red Hat source is >> developed by paid professionals. Although the future is unclear for >> Fermilab with the imminent decommissioning of the Fermilab accelerator, this >> professional status currently is correct. >> >> I fully understand that individuals may disagree with the opinion, and >> that specific organizations may have official statements that disagree with >> the opinion -- I only am interested in the "facts". For anyone on this list >> who is familiar with the post-RH release handling and qualification/testing >> procedures of RHEL source by either or both organizations, or by the >> Princeton University distribution of RHEL, direct comments would be >> appreciated. Is there any factual data, including procedural differences, >> to support the opinion that I have been given? >> >> Yasha Karant > > My opinion basically is that CentOS has proved itself slow to update in the > last year but if I may ask: > > Who told you FNAL was being "decommsioned". There are at least three FNAL > employees on this list who can respond to that :) I've heard no such thing. > Maybe you are confusing it with the Space Shuttle :) > > Oh. SL is not "buggier" than CentOS. In fact someone on the CentOS forum > stated they had problems with ver 6.0 and wouldn't install until 6.1 was > released. I don't have the details of that statement or don't know if its > purely oparator errors > > Others here I'm sure can shine more light on your concerns.
Yasha's just being a troll...
