On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> WRT the age of RHEL ... that is what enterprise Linux is. ÂFedora (or
> Ubuntu non LTS, or opensuse, or Debian SID, or any number of other
> alternatives) exist if you don't want the more stable (ie, older) items.
>
> Again, nothing wrong with their approach (I like Troy in any dealings we
> have had), however it is not what CentOS does or is going to do. ÂWhen
> we release, we basically loose meaningful access to our machines for a
> week as dozens of internal servers, hundreds of external mirrors, and
> millions of individual machines get updated.
1) With industry experts saying things like
"It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches
for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in
fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at
Dr. Vaughn's place of employment."
I think I'll continue with the effort to get RedHat to see the wisdom
wrt certain essential elements of the Internet infrastructure (like
BIND).
2) Further, I think I'll continue with RedHat/CentOS/SL because I
have the layout of the file system memorized, if for no other reason.
Too much time on "where did they put that?" in Ubuntu/Debian/et al.
Yeah, I should probably stress the 64 year old neurons with memorizing
the Ubuntu file structure, but then I wouldn't have time to post
remarks like these, including prodding the CentOS team to follow
Browning and "grasp beyond their reach." :)
kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
