On 4/19/2011 1:39 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
>
> I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that
> releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general
> public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat,
>
>
> if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be
> here, now would we?
>
Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag:
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1231269&hq_l=12&hq_v=41484763bd
If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes:
"Enterprise-class is partially true, as the project takes great pains to
be binary compatible with RHEL. So let’s give half points for that one.
The other half of “enterprise-class” is that updates arrive in a timely
fashion, which is notably false for the 5.x series. If I understand
correctly, there have been a handful of updates prior to the release of
CentOS 5.6 for the 5.x series — but nothing else. So, if you consider
timely updates a requirement for “enterprise-class,” we can count CentOS
out now."
OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the
slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands.
And:
"Nobody Got Fired for Buying IBM: You Might for Deploying CentOS"
with some elaboration about how the question from your boss about when a
known vulnerability will be patched might go.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
