>
> Calling it Enterprise is important because doing so establishes the
> *origin* and the *objective* of the work: a BUG-FOR-BUG-IDENTICAL
> de-branding/re-branding of Red Hat ENTERPRISE Linux.
How about BugforbugIdenticaldebreandingrebrandingofupstreamenterpriselinuxOS?
Only joking. I take your point, but the critical fixes being held up for a dot
release isn't really very Enterprise friendly either. I think it fair to say
that CentOS is not suitable for the enterprise unless the servers are
non-public, on a secure network and the risk of internal hacking is low. That is
just an unfortunate nature of a rebuild project but it does make the release
time a sensitive matter.
Karanbir tweeted during FOSDEM that the Belgian police use CentOS. As everyone
who is paying attention knows that any exploit that RedHat has released an
updated package for post is 5.6 is sat waiting to be exploited on those police
servers because it won't make the CentOS repositories until 5.6 is out. I wonder
if the Belgian police know that.
So.... if anybody can be bothered to check the errata from upstream and want to
do some mischief.....fill your boots...
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.polfed-fedpol.be
>
> > If you can't adjust the release time, then adjust the expectations.
>
> We have: It's done when it's done. That's what we expect, and that's
> what we get. On time, every time.
I did think about that when when I made my earlier comment. The trouble is is
that it obviously isn't working because we have these list flame-ups.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
