Re: The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities

[aurfalien@xxxxxxxxx]

On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:

> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>> .
>>>> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct  
>>>> competition with
>>>> RH
>>>> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers  
>>>> installable
>>>> binaries for free.
>>> Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
>>> is better to pay for real
>>> RH instead of oracle linux..
>> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that  
>> matched
>> their binaries...  Personally, I think everyone would be better off  
>> today if
>> they had turned their back on anything RH-related the day they  
>> stopped
>> permitting redistribution of their binaries among the community  
>> that created
>> them and made them usable in the first place.  I was too lazy to  
>> change and
>> Centos made it look reasonable to leave things approximately the  
>> same.  But, now
>> that RH is putting the screws on anyone who doesn't pay up it is  
>> probably time
>> for anyone who cares about free software to rethink things.
>>
> exactly.  Nothing against Centos but I've deployed my last RH based
> box.  It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.

I don't get it, why so radical?

Why not go SL and maintain the same methodology?

- aurf
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos