Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Mr. Smith,
1. If you can show me a FREE rebuild project that has released update 3 respun ISOs ... I would like to see it.
2. Maybe you should either start your own rebuild project ... or use one of these other, much superior products.
3. We don't just rebuild the SRPMS ... we rebuild them ... install and test them ... QA them ... fix issues with them if it doesn't work ... respin it again ... provide support for 3 arches that the upstream provider doesn't even support ...
But I digress ... back to making a quality distro
Johnny Hughes wrote:
But I digress ... back to making a quality distro
1. 'You' [meaning Johnny and the whole team] are doing a great and outstanding job.
2. Thanks for the volunteered hard work, I use CentOS regularly, and I could not afford the RHEL costs and would have to change to something else.
killfiled here(mr. smith that is)..<G>
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Mr. Smith,
- If you can show me a FREE rebuild project that has released update 3
respun ISOs ... I would like to see it.
- Maybe you should either start your own rebuild project ... or use
one of these other, much superior products.
- We don't just rebuild the SRPMS ... we rebuild them ... install and
test them ... QA them ... fix issues with them if it doesn't work ... respin it again ... provide support for 3 arches that the upstream provider doesn't even support ...
But I digress ... back to making a quality distro
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:11 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks.<snip>
Mr. Smith,
There's your 2nd mistake: giving undeserved respect! Your 1st was wasting time responding to such an obviously inane individual, based on his current and previous contributions to the project list, which has consisted only of hot air which, as we all know, is cheap.
My only complaint about this project is the suppression of *occasional* ad-hoc and short-lived humor by certain team members and the relatively frequent and long-lived brouhahas that seem to consistently swirl around individuals named "Smith".
<snipped some of my own highly scathing comments about gene pools and behavior since it was non-productive. Unusual self-control demonstrated.>
For me, if it takes 6 months to do the job "right", I still appreciate it. If that's not fast enough, I can contribute, as was suggested by another.
- If you can show me a FREE rebuild <snip>
And at the risk of being called an "ass kisser" by the current "Smith", I'll add my voice to the chorus of thanks.
Let's all not waste anymore time on things of this ilk. Ignore them like you must sometimes ignore spoiled children who <snippage again of my comments>
Bill
Johnny Hughes spake the following on 3/18/2006 6:11 AM:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Mr. Smith,
- If you can show me a FREE rebuild project that has released update 3
respun ISOs ... I would like to see it.
- Maybe you should either start your own rebuild project ... or use
one of these other, much superior products.
- We don't just rebuild the SRPMS ... we rebuild them ... install and
test them ... QA them ... fix issues with them if it doesn't work ... respin it again ... provide support for 3 arches that the upstream provider doesn't even support ...
But I digress ... back to making a quality distro
I came here from the slowest one, and I am not looking back. Like you say, if a distro isn't doing what you want, find one that will. I don't want to put down Whitebox either. They built it for their own use, and released it to the public, so it will always follow the release cycle that they want. There are sooo many distros out there that it is harder to pick than to move.
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
---- is it possible that you don't consider how offensive that comments like this and your insensitive and ill-informed comments last week about the various repos are?
You just earned the ticket to /dev/null on my sieve scripts
Craig
--- Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
is it possible that you don't consider how offensive that comments like this and your insensitive and ill-informed comments last week about the various repos are?
You just earned the ticket to /dev/null on my sieve scripts
Craig
Are you the same Craig who claims to have no experience at all of kde somewhere on the net and elsewhere you praise the kde-redhat repo? Shambolic?
As the the rest of you cowboys, tell me other than WhiteBox who is the slowest to release updates.
Don't take this personally, but a cold reality check will enable you to understand the reality of the situation.
Don't get me wrong, CentOS is (for the most part) doing a superb job. You can guess what needs to be improved upon.
Johnny and the team need reality comments rather than ass-kissing lamers.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 07:40 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
--- Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
is it possible that you don't consider how offensive that comments like this and your insensitive and ill-informed comments last week about the various repos are?
You just earned the ticket to /dev/null on my sieve scripts
Craig
Are you the same Craig who claims to have no experience at all of kde somewhere on the net and elsewhere you praise the kde-redhat repo? Shambolic?
As the the rest of you cowboys, tell me other than WhiteBox who is the slowest to release updates.
Don't take this personally, but a cold reality check will enable you to understand the reality of the situation.
Name one distro ... other than Lineox ... that has respun CDs for EL4 update3 out right now.
Don't get me wrong, CentOS is (for the most part) doing a superb job. You can guess what needs to be improved upon.
Johnny and the team need reality comments rather than ass-kissing lamers.
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
Name one distro ... other than Lineox ... that has respun CDs for EL4 update3 out right now.
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Some of you are taking this way too personally, take the truth one pinch at a time.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:26 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
Name one distro ... other than Lineox ... that has respun CDs for EL4 update3 out right now.
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Some of you are taking this way too personally, take the truth one pinch at a time.
Last time I checked, PieBox and Lineox were not Free ... and require subscriptions to buy their products
On 3/18/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:26 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
Name one distro ... other than Lineox ... that has respun CDs for EL4 update3 out right now.
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Some of you are taking this way too personally, take the truth one pinch at a time.
Last time I checked, PieBox and Lineox were not Free ... and require subscriptions to buy their products
I said it all int my earlier post. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?
Johnny, you have no need to (although you are most articulate in doing so) justify the well thought out and effective process of release a high quality distro. Just keep up the good work.
-- Collins Richey The agnostic dyslexic insomniac lies awake wondering if there is a dog.
--- Collins Richey crichey@gmail.com wrote:
I said it all int my earlier post. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?
Johnny, you have no need to (although you are most articulate in doing so) justify the well thought out and effective process of release a high quality distro. Just keep up the good work.
-- Collins Richey The agnostic dyslexic insomniac lies awake wondering if there is a dog.
Have you Collins Richey escaped from a lunatic asylum? No wonder you have such trash in your sig.
Collins Richey - the agnostic dyslexic insomniac lies awake wondering if there is a dog.
If you are unable to provide the response expected from an adult, wonder off to the kiddies site. Everyone else is taking this on the chin.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jim Smith wrote:
Have you Collins Richey escaped from a lunatic asylum? No wonder you have such trash in your sig.
Collins Richey - the agnostic dyslexic insomniac lies awake wondering if there is a dog.
If you are unable to provide the response expected from an adult, wonder off to the kiddies site. Everyone else is taking this on the chin.
All I can say is, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. The CentOS maintainers are doing a fantastic job and it shows in both the public recognition (Linux Journal poll) and in the number of installations at hosting facilities using it for real work (Tm). Your trolling post contained not one whit of new or otherwise useful information.
Now run along...
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:26 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
Name one distro ... other than Lineox ... that has respun CDs for EL4 update3 out right now.
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Some of you are taking this way too personally, take the truth one pinch at a time.
Last time I checked, PieBox and Lineox were not Free ... and require subscriptions to buy their products
Should also point out that neither of these two, piebox and lineox, have either more than a handfull of users, nor do they support the same number of Arch's or support the extra work that we do as a part of CentOS.
John,
There are three _REALLY_ simple solutions:
1) Purchase RHEL and get the updates when they release them, or 2) Go to RedHat's web/ftp site and download the source RPMs and roll your own, or 3) Go somewhere else!!!!
This is a _GREAT_ OS with _OUTSTANDING_ support and a mailing list with people that will give you better than 'paid for' support.
A wise man _NEVER_ looks a 'gift horse' in the mouth!
"In order to offer all users of Pie Box Enterprise Linux products easy access to compiled updates and packages that have not yet been installed, we supply a number of subscription based services. By charging a small fee we can provide the network infrastructure and cover the associated costs.
Three subscription options are offered:
1. 3 Months 2. 6 Months 3. 12 Months "
http://www.piebox.com/products.php
On Saturday 18 March 2006 11:26 am, Jim Smith wrote:
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 12:10 -0500, ryan wrote:
"In order to offer all users of Pie Box Enterprise Linux products easy access to compiled updates and packages that have not yet been installed, we supply a number of subscription based services. By charging a small fee we can provide the network infrastructure and cover the associated costs.
Three subscription options are offered:
- 3 Months
- 6 Months
- 12 Months
"
http://www.piebox.com/products.php
On Saturday 18 March 2006 11:26 am, Jim Smith wrote:
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Just to carry this a little further ...
If the 850,000 unique IPs that get updates from us in the last 12 months paid the project $30.00 each .... that is:
$25.5 Million Dollars
Now, if I had $25.5 million dollars, I would make sure that you got your respin updates the next day (exactly as they come form upstream).
Of course, CentOS is free ... and we don't get paid anything ... BUT, it would be nice.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
If the 850,000 unique IPs that get updates from us in the last 12 months paid the project $30.00 each .... that is:
$25.5 Million Dollars
Sorry, but there is a better business model. Think about GoogleAds in the distribution. GoogleAds during the install, GoogleAds during OpenOffice, GoogleAds during ping...
Then the possibility becomes endless.
Then, CentOS wouldn't be free, and google ads create all sorts of privacy concerns if done during an OS install.
I think an excellent business model would be to ask for money from government agencies and businesses that use CentOS.
Sometimes IT departments need to spend money or it "goes away" (more so in government than elsewhere).
On Saturday 18 March 2006 1:04 pm, centos@911networks.com wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
If the 850,000 unique IPs that get updates from us in the last 12 months paid the project $30.00 each .... that is:
$25.5 Million Dollars
Sorry, but there is a better business model. Think about GoogleAds in the distribution. GoogleAds during the install, GoogleAds during OpenOffice, GoogleAds during ping...
Then the possibility becomes endless.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Jim Smith wrote:
Piebox released theirs on March 10th. See distrowatch weekly or http://www.piebox.com/news.php#2006-03-10
Some of you are taking this way too personally, take the truth one pinch at a time.
The only reason for someone to insult people on this list and complain about CentOS is someone who has a vested interest to do so. The fact that he is hiding behind an anonymous email-address makes it all the easier.
Move along folks, there is _nothing_ to see here.
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Sunday 19 March 2006 03:41 am, Dag Wieers wrote:
The only reason for someone to insult people on this list and complain about CentOS is someone who has a vested interest to do so. The fact that he is hiding behind an anonymous email-address makes it all the easier.
Move along folks, there is _nothing_ to see here.
True, this kind of posting also appears in the Openoffice.org list once in a while.
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 21:41 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
The only reason for someone to insult people on this list and complain about CentOS is someone who has a vested interest to do so. The fact that he is hiding behind an anonymous email-address makes it all the easier.
Move along folks, there is _nothing_ to see here.
thx, Dag...says it all
John
rado rado@rivers-bend.com wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 21:41 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
The only reason for someone to insult people on this list and complain about CentOS is someone who has a vested interest to do so. The fact that he is hiding behind an anonymous email-address makes it all the easier.
Move along folks, there is _nothing_ to see here.
thx, Dag...says it all
John
In my college days of "CB" radio usage, we use to call them "AGITATORS".....
In Ham Radio they are called "LIDs".... :-(
Just for the record. 3 of the arches we support have respun trees and are totally ready to go (i386, x86_64, ia64). These were ready to go on the 3rd day after release. They are currently syncing to our 100 external public mirrors.
There was, however a showstopper problem with ypserver that rendered NIS login authorizations worthless. This issue was fixed by the CentOS team (and integrated into our install CD) prior to it's release by the upstream provider.
Also integrated into this release is boot support for both the i586 and i686 kernels on the standard i386 CD .. something that the upstream provider does not do .. so that people who need dd= driver image support can use existing RHEL drivers and i686 boot kernel, while i586 users (not even supported upstream) can also use our product.
Also, there are several problems (Glade, libtool, apr) that don't work when built as provided ... and without fixes they are worthless. We need to analyze those fixes and see if they were still necessary. There were other things that used to be a problem (dhcp, thunderbird, etc.) where patches that we required on the last version were no longer required and where removed.
There are also the logistics of rolling these trees to more than 100 mirrors all over the world ... a problem that "other fast distro" does not need to worry about.
There is also an unresolved issue concerning glibc and the building of anaconda on the the new release. This issue will not be fixed (most likely) by release time.
If you remember, the last update did not go well because it was rushed out the door ... and upgrades stated happening prior to all external mirrors being updated. Something that we will not repeat.
We have done several things to not repeat those mistakes .... including a geoip enabled update system that passes out geographically relevant, non-stale (meaning only updated) mirrors. There is no distro out there, rebuild or not, that provides this type of updates that I am aware of.
Gentoo is the closest .. they provide a process that you can spend an hour testing ... and it will tell you the best servers at that point in time. You can then update your configuration.
That system does not poll mirrors for freshness, nor is there a way to look at which mirror is fastest NOW ... both aspects that our mirror system now provides.
On Mar 18, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Also integrated into this release is boot support for both the i586 and i686 kernels on the standard i386 CD .. something that the upstream provider does not do .. so that people who need dd= driver image support can use existing RHEL drivers and i686 boot kernel, while i586 users (not even supported upstream) can also use our product.
Also, there are several problems (Glade, libtool, apr) that don't work when built as provided ... and without fixes they are worthless. We need to analyze those fixes and see if they were still necessary. There were other things that used to be a problem (dhcp, thunderbird, etc.) where patches that we required on the last version were no longer required and where removed.
It is too bad for me that the upstream vendor does not support Intel chips older than than the i686. At work, it just causes hassle since I need to use a 686 box to install, replace GLIBC and SSL support with the i386 versions, recompile the kernel targeting an older chip, all before I can install it on the obsolete Pentium and 586 computers we also have to support.
Unfortunately, for this case, we have to use the upstream provider's version of the OS since the Army requires the use of a "Certified" OS, and no one is likely to spend the money to get rebuilt version like Cent OS certified.
But at least I can run an equivalent version at home without the upgrade issues the use of Fedora, for example, would bring. So thanks to CentOS for a version we can freely used.
Kevin
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 at 7:40am, Jim Smith wrote
Don't take this personally, but a cold reality check will enable you to understand the reality of the situation.
Don't get me wrong, CentOS is (for the most part) doing a superb job. You can guess what needs to be improved upon.
Johnny and the team need reality comments rather than ass-kissing lamers.
Ok, then, in reality, how do you expect them to get out a fully *tested and QAed* quarterly update for as many arches as CentOS does any faster than currently happens?
If you want to help, donate $$ or hardware. Otherwise, quit wasting everyone's time. Johnny's already wasted way too much time on you.
Jim Smith wrote:
As the the rest of you cowboys, tell me other than WhiteBox who is the slowest to release updates.
Scientific Linux usually takes between 4 to 8 weeks for the updates, but their goals are very different from CentOS. They provide a distribution based on RHEL, plus they add on all their many extras.
Jim Smith spake the following on 3/18/2006 7:40 AM:
--- Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
is it possible that you don't consider how offensive that comments like this and your insensitive and ill-informed comments last week about the various repos are?
You just earned the ticket to /dev/null on my sieve scripts
Craig
Are you the same Craig who claims to have no experience at all of kde somewhere on the net and elsewhere you praise the kde-redhat repo? Shambolic?
As the the rest of you cowboys, tell me other than WhiteBox who is the slowest to release updates.
Don't take this personally, but a cold reality check will enable you to understand the reality of the situation.
Don't get me wrong, CentOS is (for the most part) doing a superb job. You can guess what needs to be improved upon.
Johnny and the team need reality comments rather than ass-kissing lamers.
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Anyone calling CentOS slow hasn't used Debian! But why sit here and bash someone for their unpaid volunteer work! It isn't like they are getting six figure salaries to make people happy. If you want fast, go get the source rpms and rebuild them, and don't come back here asking for help from these overworked and under respected volunteers!
Dear All,
Centos works for me, it is indeed a godsend. I know how much effort it takes to create such a distribution and test it. I am grateful for all the hard effort it takes.
Lets not keep the Centos team tied up with threads like this that really do little more that use bandwidth and storage space in the long run for no real benefit.
Those people who make good use of Centos know had solid it is, nothing more needs to be said, if anyone disagrees, they should vote with their feet and go somewhere else, but don't bother flaming people here, because it neither necessary nor wanted, nor justified.
Anybody who has the audacity to criticise people who do stuff to their very best for free for the benefit of others really, does need grow up and have a reality check.
Lets end it here boys and girls, if you don't like Centos then stop wasting the time of those of us who do, and push off now.
regards
Pete
Scott Silva wrote:
Jim Smith spake the following on 3/18/2006 7:40 AM:
--- Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
is it possible that you don't consider how offensive that comments like this and your insensitive and ill-informed comments last week about the various repos are?
You just earned the ticket to /dev/null on my sieve scripts
Craig
Are you the same Craig who claims to have no experience at all of kde somewhere on the net and elsewhere you praise the kde-redhat repo? Shambolic?
As the the rest of you cowboys, tell me other than WhiteBox who is the slowest to release updates.
Don't take this personally, but a cold reality check will enable you to understand the reality of the situation.
Don't get me wrong, CentOS is (for the most part) doing a superb job. You can guess what needs to be improved upon.
Johnny and the team need reality comments rather than ass-kissing lamers.
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Anyone calling CentOS slow hasn't used Debian! But why sit here and bash someone for their unpaid volunteer work! It isn't like they are getting six figure salaries to make people happy. If you want fast, go get the source rpms and rebuild them, and don't come back here asking for help from these overworked and under respected volunteers!
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 13:04, Peter Farrow wrote:
Lets not keep the Centos team tied up with threads like this that really do little more that use bandwidth and storage space in the long run for no real benefit.
Speaking of benefits, does anyone happen to know if this update will resolve all of the LVM2 problems with snapshots? I can see the RH announcements show some things are fixed but it isn't clear if that is all that was wrong.
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Have you thought about roasting in hell for a bit lately? If not, you really should, it's an enlightening experience.
Cheers.
On 3/18/06, Maciej Żenczykowski maze@cela.pl wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Have you thought about roasting in hell for a bit lately? If not, you really should, it's an enlightening experience.
Probably just a troll; not worth the wasted bits to lambaste him.
Everyone on this list (and elsewhere) is aware of what a fantastic job Johnny and the troops are doing.
-- Collins Richey The agnostic dyslexic insomniac lies awake wondering if there is a dog.
Maybe there should be a fund raiser for updates - if you want them faster, you donate more money.
How much would you be willing to donate to get updates sooner?
On Saturday 18 March 2006 8:45 am, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
I feel that the CentOS team does an outstanding job. I have never used any other RHEL rebuilds, because CentOS is the clear leader in RHEL rebuilds. Nothing is more important than quality, and no one does it better than CentOS. In many ways, CentOS has a harder job than Red Hat does. Regardless of how the CentOS engineers might choose to solve a problem, they are committed to following in Red Hat's footsteps, no matter how difficult it is. CentOS also adds value on top of RHEL by providing the centosplus software, and by supporting architectures that RHEL doesn't. I'm certain that rebuilding SRPMS on architectures that were never considered in the original packages takes a great deal of skill, expense, time, and effort. You may have also noticed that CentOS placed 2nd out of all other distributions for Linux distribution of the year in Linux Journal Magazine. I also find it remarkable that CentOS provides rebuilds of RHEL 2.1, 3, and 4.
It is unfortunate that you are not satisfied by the tremendous efforts of the CentOS team.
I feel that the CentOS team does a remarkable job. I use CentOS on many servers and workstations to perform a wide variety of tasks. I have never once been disappointed.
Barry Brimer, RHCE
On Saturday 18 March 2006 08:45, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Mr. Smith, this is quite offensive. Each project has its own philosophy on releases; the CentOS philosophy is to release after the internal team has done thorough QA on the code.
Another RHEL rebuild is Scientific Linux; they have released beta ISO's as of yesterday afternoon; however, my experience with SL is that this is likely the first of three or four beta ISO releases before the final quarterly update release, which typically takes (wait for it)..... two weeks, if not more. They just have made the process more visible.
However, spinning ISOs takes resources; Connie Sieh has the resources of FermiLabs to do this, and uses them well, and is doing a great job. This is one reason I'd love to see CentOS and SL do more together; the combination of resources would be wonderful. Of course, there are a few differences in the distributions, and some of those might be showstoppers.
I'm sure the SL team wouldn't mind you helping beta test their ISO's.
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 05:45 -0800, Jim Smith wrote:
Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable.
Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :)
hummm, I can't believe I am really reading this. Rather than think that Johnny Hughes and others are making a ton of money (which would warranty such statements or subject matter); I think they spend much more than a hap-hazzard amount of time providing this quality distro! I dunno, statements like these just tell me you are either bored or for some reason expect much much more for the grand cost of not a single cent. whew! If you are not happy maybe you should move on to another freebie or even spring big money for something that better suit your needs. please don't burn our eyes with this kind of subject matter that I suspect that goes against many others grain besides mine. The crew providing this for us are doing one hell of a job and I think commendation should be in line rather than this kind of thought.
John Rose
-
Barry Brimer -
BRUCE STANLEY -
centos＠911networks.com -
Chris Mauritz -
Collins Richey -
Craig White -
Dag Wieers -
Fajar Priyanto -
Jim Smith -
Johnny Hughes -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Karanbir Singh -
Kevin K -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Peter Farrow -
rado -
ryan -
Scott Silva -
Thomas E Dukes -
William L. Maltby -
William Warren