On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Johnny Hughes
<mailing-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 06:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Christopher Chan
>> <christopher.chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No LTS? - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
>>>> ----
>>>
>>> For Ubuntu's definition of 'support'. It is in no way comparable to what
>>> you can get in previous Centos releases. It is 'comparable' to CEntos 6
>>> - none
>>
>> Errr, what? Apt-get is still happily getting updates, and without any
>> fiddling around with temporary changes to recommended-but-not-default
>> repositories.
>>
>
> Feel free to not use CentOS if it does not meet your needs.
>
> No matter what we try to do ... some kind of rolling updates for people
> who do not want to wait ... or whatever the next thing is ... well you
> do not seem to be happy.
>
> If you aren't happy, well then we would recommend "something else" that
> does make you happy.
>
> Happy is important ... don't go through life unhappy because of an OS.
>
> If Ubuntu makes you happy ... use Ubuntu. If Debian makes you happy use
> that. Or Scientific Linux, or Open SUSE, or Fedora.
>
> We just want you to be happy Les.
>
Regardless of what I do on my own machines, I don't see much
opportunity to be happy about the large installed base of Centos not
getting security fixes by default as fast as you can process them
which is the behavior I always expected from a 'yum update'. I
don't understand the argument that making rolling updates the default
would change expectations (who ever expected to have to change from
the default to get security fixes?), or why you should recommend doing
one thing on the mail list yet not make it the default. And the
inability to do a kickstart install that will continue to follow the
recommended action shows the problem.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
