Re: [CentOS] 5.3 on an EeePC??

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 17:39 -0400, fred smith wrote:

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:26:22PM -0400, JohnS wrote:

...

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate centos@linuxpowered.net wrote: R P Herrold wrote:

    > oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
    > hijacking.  Quantity does not imply quality, and AWOL
    > maintainers who move on is a problem in all of FOSS

    Quality is implied by the hefty QA process debian goes
    through, and the long release cycles. I thought I had
    communicated that in the previous message. The last two
    major releases took almost 2 years of work each. Similar
    to the QA that Red Hat does, which is why their base packages
    are solid and well tested. This same level of QA of course
    doesn't apply to 3rd party repos.

    > and so R-2.9.0 is not available to you, and if your users
    > wanted R-xts, to extend zoo [which extends R], the only
    place
    > for those packages in Debian packaging are r-forge and CRAN
    > (as they are not in any 'official' Debian archive, and only
    > in the independents).

    The users will have to make do with what there is. The same
    is true for CentOS/RHEL on my systems. I can't remember the
    last time I went to CPAN. I did maintain a couple dozen ruby
    on rails packages at my last company for the systems there,
    everything built by hand, it wasn't easy, or fun.

For what it's worth, I like both CentOS and Debian. (Heck, I even like openSUSE as an OS, but I'm not crazy about Novel's smooching with Microsoft.)

---

Not crazy about smooching huh? Ever bother to really research the facts? RedHat and MS are parteners! In the Virtualization area and more.

Speaking of researching the facts, I suggest you do the same.

RedHat's "partnership" with MS most specifically does NOT include any kind of patent licensing crap.

-- Ohh yes I aware of am that. :-)