Sent from T-Mobile G2, please excuse any typos On Jul 25, 2011 2:52 PM, "JR van Rensburg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:19 -0500, Troy Dawson wrote: > > On 07/23/2011 12:14 PM, Yasha Karant 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. > > .... > > This is one of two myth's going around about CentOS. > > > > The other myth is that CentOS is "100% Compatible" with RHEL. > > > > I call these myth's because both of them cannot be correct. > > > > Either CentOS fixes RedHat's bugs (which would break compatibility), > > or > > CentOS is 100% Compatible. > > > > I am not a developer for CentOS, so I cannot comment more. > > .... > > Strange, I started using SL when Centos 5 refused to recognise my older > 3com PCI network card. > Yet SL installed and picked up all the hardware without a hitch > > As far as RH support/Sales reps making adverse comments about SL/Centos > or any other nix says one of two things: > He is either trying to drum up business/sales for RH or > He is totally ignorant on what Linux is. > > At the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you have the money, > and are happy that what the vendor supplies is always the only solution, > go with RH or SuSE. > Otherwise, thank the developers of SL/Centos for taking the time to > remove the RH branding and roll out an enterprise version that also > allows some customization.
Four words: Beggars Can't Be Choosy. :)
