centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, March 2, 2011 20:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast
>> as we possibly can?
>>
>> What, exactly, is the problem here?
>
> The problem here is fear.
Your fear is not shared by me, in the least.
> And, if the need arises, I will no doubt find acceptable alternatives
> to CentOS.
RHEL and Scientific Linux come to mind. So does *assisting* rather than
*handwringing* about CentOS.
> But other may feel, sometimes with good reason, their competence
> questioned or job security threatened if their selection turns out
> to be a dead end.
This is *speculating* about a reasonable basis of fear on the parts of
"Anonymous Others".
> These people desire some sort of assurance that
> their choice will still prove correct however things appear now.
> That is what they are looking for.
The choice is "a free alternative packaging of RHEL". Make that choice,
and you're in the good.
Johnny: Killfile the thread, we (loyalists) got you covered.
Insert spiffy .sig here
//me
*******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
