On 07/24/2011 01:24 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Yasha Karant<[email protected]> wrote:
To be clear: this is not a "friend", but a high ranking engineering person
at a vendor who was presenting his personal, or his firm's internal, expert
opinion. My posting was an attempt to discover any data relevant to the
opinion, as well as to at least get the distribution release testing
policy/methodology for SL (and perhaps CentOS if there were any CentOS
organization persons on the SL list willing to comment) once there is a
release of source from RH (source that RH is required to release).
You should ask that "high ranking engineering person" for the proof
and the bugs. I've asked two of our RHEL "reps" what they think of SL
or CentOS and they've said that they're "crap." Personal and/or
institutional bias isn't fact.
I fully agree. I have heard similar sentiments from RH sales/marketing
employees who need the licensing volume. I actually have asked the
vendor, but those are internal matters to this vendor. On a separate
matter, responding to a poster who indicates something akin that one
gets one pays for and that the SL/CentOS deployment methodology is the
same as Fedora, I have looked over the documents to which that poster
refers, and based upon that reading, is one of the reasons I attempt to
avoid Fedora or any other beta- or enthusiast-software unless there is
no choice (right now, this machine is using a sub 1.0 NetworkManger rpm
implementation as provided with the RHEL 5.6 release -- but it is
working and allows a substantially simpler user interface for connection
to myriad networks when one must travel). I have not been able to find
equivalent documents for CentOS or SL (or RHEL for that matter). In
reality, RH support for EL is defective as well -- the issue of a major
defect in the USB 3 support in RHEL 6 that was not considered serious
enough for a fix in actual RHEL support correspondence is an example in
point. To that same poster, one should point out that Fermilab (to
date), CERN, and Princeton University all are (reasonably) well funded
organizations (much more so than the institution at which I am tenured),
yet each has elected to support a redistribution of RHEL from RH source
instead of simply licensing the executable environment RPMs with support.
Yasha Karant
