On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Anne Wilson wrote: >> The takeaway was that I need to 'test as I do, and do as I >> test'. My testing regime will have to include 'cloning' a >> test box, and simply 'moving into it' for an afternoon when >> doing 'updates' QA testing. > I took it for granted that CentOS would be server, not > client. Silly to assume anything, I guess. * nod * we tend to forget our culture's history I have used Linux as my desktop ( and CentOS as the lead one since the death of RHL ) that I can only stare in wonderment at people who do _not_ use it as their stable production environment, or those sell it but do not believe in it [1]. 'Back in the day when dinosaurs roamed the earth,' Bank One, (now rolled up in JPMorgan Chase) ran X-tops at the C level on down, because it was the full featured (for the day) GUI window environment that 'just worked' [and no other credible alternative existed]; on a walk through I did at the NYSE trading floor two years ago, X based Motif windowed applications abounded at the trading posts; ditto at the CME for options traders. Not the sole platform any more of course, but clearly suitable for mission critical with major real money. Note that I am not saying a ephemeral 'distro du jour' is suitable, but clearly, despite what some upstream might say, it 'just works' ;) "The craft lives so long as it is remembered, but the children can only stare in wonderment at the Easter Island stone heads, unable to summon the spirits" -- NFS homes is part of that culture -- Russ herrold [1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/03/25/Red-Hat-CEO-questions-desktops-relevance-in-Linux-debate_1.html Red Hat's CEO Jim Whitehurst pointed out several issues with running Linux on the desktop, including financial concerns the company has as a Linux vendor. "First of all, I don't know how to make money on it," Whitehurst said. "Very few people are running a desktop that's mission-critical," so they do not want to pay the company for a desktop OS, he said. Query: Isn't making money on a desktop, orthogonal to its suitability ... unless one is just in it for the money? sad that is the 'first of all' objection.