[CentOS-devel] progress?

[Larry Vaden]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Have you attempted the same involvement with SL? Or considered building
> a non-scientific respin of their version?  (Basically backing out their
> changes...).  Given the economic environment, maybe it would be good if
> they had some volunteer backup.

IMHO Dag should _consider_ what centos.alt.ru has done and either vet
them or do the same thing if they can't be vetted.  There's a need for
current BIND, et al and RH's policy of backporting takes time and puts
perhaps millions of systems at risk.

SL could have been named "US Government Linux";  there's nothing
"scientific" about sl-base and sl-security.  It plays well in the same
environments RH and CentOS play well in, of course, because of the
charter.

kind regards/ldv/vaden at texoma.net

<quote from top management of Internet2 security>
It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches
for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in
fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at
Dr. Vaughn's place of employment.
</quote from manager of Internet2 security>