Chris wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:27:10 +0200 Peter Kjellstrom cap@nsc.liu.se wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date,
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
/Peter
You are assuming of course that these end users are NOT Windows users. I tried Cent as an alt-desktop for our users. It lacks big time what the end user needs without the IT department getting involved and installing for the end user.
IMHO, what Cent ought to do - is some how get hand on the RHEL Desktop and see what's done there and work along those lines.
UMMMM .... In versions of RHEL that are <= 4 ... RHEL Desktop is a watered down version of RHEL.
CentOS contains all packages that are RHEL proper ... which contains all packages in RHEL Desktop.
=====
In RHEL 5 ... the Client/Workstation version does contain some packages that are not in the server version ===HOWEVER=== CentOS contains all the packages that are in BOTH versions.
Therefore, CentOS does contain all the packages that are in RHEL Desktop.
The only exceptions are packages that are not redistributable .. and those do not come on RHEL CDs, but are only available via RHN ... things like Java, FlashPlayer, etc.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes