On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Apparently there was some confusion around the release of SL 5.6
> alpha. Troy Dawson cleared it up in his post to the main SL mailing
> list:
>
> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1102&L=scientific-linux-users&T=0&X=78ED2C774C38226BC0&Y=amyagi%40gmail.com&P=6965
I am not confused; as a former summer employee at ORINS and ORNL when
in college 4 decades ago, what's good enough for the national labs is
good enough for me _now_. See
<http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/SL/>
for the gory details of changes since Jan 14.
Back in the Sputnik days, one had to leaf through meters of Nuclear
Science Abstracts to find applicable gems; these days, Troy announces
on distrowatch.
I think Troy's (ANL) and Matthias' (CERN) approach is VERY GOOD,
having released preliminary alpha/beta/gamma code a week after RedHat
and we have benefited from that with the only inconvenience being that
the install process starts with boot.iso and required mirroring the SL
repository in order to avoid load on ANL, which is probably
unnecessary given they are on Internet2.
IMHO, "Complete and correct" doesn't exist in the sw world (vs.
hardware) and Troy's and Matthias' approach is very reasonable and
timely.
Which leads me to another favorite point: has anyone calculated the
average age of RHEL at release time?
kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
