|
On Friday, March 04, 2011 09:48:03 am Simon Matter wrote: > I'm not sure that's true. You have to understand that at the same time > everybody should have worked on EL6.0, both EL5.6 and EL4.9 came out and > for very good reason those responsible for CentOS decided to build those > first. Just remember, the folks doing SL have been a bit faster with 6.0, > but they did IIRC not do the 5.6 nor the 4.9 yet (maybe they rebuilt some > packages to still be secure, but I think they didn't finish the full > distribution). So, I'm quite sure it's not as bad as you think. Personally, I'd rather have my fixes for an older release (such as my in-production CentOS 4.x and 5.x servers) than get the latest stuff for development and new deployment while leaving older, still-in-production systems vulnerable. I wonder, though, if this wasn't intentional? By releasing all three at once, RH gang has delayed anybody deploying EL6 with any of the "free as in beer" solutions for at least a few months, giving them a sales edge. We may see this more in the future, because even if it wasn't intentional this time, they have undoubtedly seen the effect it has caused and may want to repeat it. Not that I mind that all much, it's their dime and they can do what they want with it. And the end result is still everything I'm looking for: stable, secure, reliable, even if not punctual. I'm curious to see if this represents the start of a trend. -Ben -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
