Yes, it was another successful New Year's party at Lorri's house.<br><br>I'm back home now. I'm ready for a long nap. :)<br><br>- Mike<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Florian La Roche <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Florian.LaRoche@gmx.net">Florian.LaRoche@gmx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:44:00PM +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:<br>
> Am 28.12.10 10:37, schrieb Filip Bartmann:<br>
><br>
> > So why is CentOS development so closed? Why users can't have alphas,<br>
> > or betas of this distro and must use some other rebuild as Scientific<br>
> > Linux?<br>
><br>
> One of the reasons is the sheer volume. CentOS is in use (wild educated<br>
> guess here) on a massively larger scale than SL is. Just getting out the<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>For RHEL5 I have preferred CentOS as it stays more closely to upstream,<br>
but given the number of very special cases that need to be considered for<br>
the rebuild, I hope CentOS will catch all items that get reported by the<br>
open Sientific Linux devel/test cycle. (This won't be too easy...)<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Florian La Roche<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>