On 02/22/2011 02:35 PM, Ian Murray wrote: > > > >> >> 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. I think 8 million unique machines disagree with you assessment. Who knows, maybe all 8 million are wrong and the 10-20 people who are discussing it on this list are right.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
