On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 02:35 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
Zing!
Not to mention I'd think the Belgian police might be more concerned at your invitation for mischief on their systems.
Just because CentOS is a relatively small operation compared to commercial offerings or maybe other community offerings, does not mean that it is any less suited for critical applications. Perhaps the CentOS project could use some more man power to insure updates are not stalled because a key player is unavailable at the wrong time, but I don't think it's a situation that only CentOS suffers from. With CentOS it is perhaps more visible -- we know when the update was available upstream and how long it took to show up in CentOS repos. This is less obvious upstream, unless you are paying close attention to every individual Open Source project that upstream draws from... in which case perhaps you could use some of that time contributing to CentOS. Problem solved.
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: rordway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unix Systems Administrator rordway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331 Office: Valley Library #4657
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
