> On 4/7/07, DamianS <dsteward at internode.on.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 12:14 +1000, Andy wrote: >> > On Sunday 08 April 2007 03:00, centos-request at centos.org wrote: >> > > I wonder if this is one of the most anticipated releases or if it just >> feels >> > > like it is. Either way the mirrors should be getting hammered when it's >> out. >> > >> > I suspect this release is widely and eagerly anticipated. There will be >> many our here like me who are looking to migrate to a stable, long-term >> upgradeable distro that comes with a specification that is not far behind >> the latest "cool but buggy" efforts. Some people want a Linux to >> experiment with, others need one they can rely on to earn a living. CentOS >> 5 looks like it should fit the bill. >> > >> Not wishing to put a dampener on things, but I don't think CentOS 5 will >> be any more eagerly anticipated than CentOS 4 or CentOS 3. >> And as for 'cool but buggy', there are still many people who consider >> the 2.6 kernel is not yet up to production standard, and insist on using >> 2.4 > > Heck 2.4 is crap. I am using my 2.2 systems for the important work > LOL ... well for some of us running in production, the 2.6 kernels were needed for connection to our SANs and certain HBA controllers (also LVM2). On top of that there are some vendor requirements for features in the 2.6 kernels etc. I guess that what keeps everything interesting and wonderful :p personally ... we've had zero issues running the 2.6 kernels in prod but, to each their own :) -- L