On 04/13/2011 12:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 4/13/2011 11:55 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >> People have a choice. They can use CentOS or they can use something else. > > Or they can try to convince the project not to follow the Whitebox > example of not matching resources to the task. > >> There is no "time limit" that we would go past where I would allow >> people who I do not know and trust to commit items into the CentOS tree. >> I have to use this in production and it has to be done correctly. It >> does not matter how long it takes if it is done right. > > No one has suggested any of these things. I don't understand why you > keep repeating that as if it were a contradiction. Or why you are so > convinced that CentOS could not be both timely and correct. In fact, I > thought one of your other postings implied that it was possible. > >> Whitebox is not, nor was it ever, deployed on 29% of all Linux webserver >> servers worldwide. CentOS is ... right now ... deployed on 29% of web >> servers on the Internet that use Linux. That is more than RHEL and >> Ubuntu combined: >> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all > > OK, if you are going to use that as an example, please tell me how many > of those people made that choice knowing that updates were going to be > months behind upstream. There's certainly nothing on the project web > site to imply that. > How about I just use YOU as an example. You CERTAINLY know how long the updates take. How many INSTALLS of CentOS do you still choose to have?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
