Johnny Hughes wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 21:33 +0200, Dominik Sk?adanowski wrote:
>
>
>>Hello list.
>>
>>I've just read this news (http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=02638) - in
>>my opinion very good idea. What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I was looking at that :)
>
>Question is ... does it really serve a purpose?
>
>
>
Well, from my perspective as a user, what I was looking for when I found
CentOS was not a LiveCD, but RHEL without the service contract. One of
the reasons for that was that Fedora Legacy started off with big plans.
We're gonna support RH7.3 and RH8.0 and RH9 forever, and we're gonna
support, FC1, and FC2, etc. on a 1,2,3, out basis. That's ambitious.
They finally gave up on RH8.0 but are still holding onto 7.3, 9, FC1,
FC2. And as of now, any honest observer would have to say that the only
currently supported distro is FC3, and that by the Fedora community and
not Fedora-legacy. Fedora-legacy was too ambitious and everyone
suffered. The last updates for FC2 are from Apr 7. The last for the
other versions came out on Feb 27.
Now, of course, in the open-source world, people work on what they want
to work on, and its really nobody else's business. But as a user, I
would as soon see CentOS focus on being a great RHEL clone, and the core
essentials of providing quick and reliable updates and long term
support. If the CentOS team started spreading themselves too thin I,
and I'm sure others, would start to worry. CentOS is about faith in
ongoing support. Not about maintaining live CD's. Leave that to
Knoppix, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
-Steve Bergman
