On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 13:55 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Marcus Moeller<mail at marcus-moeller.de> wrote: > > > > But please note: CentOS itself has a clear strategy which means > > upstream compatibility. Nothing more and nothing less. No focus on > > specialized systems (which does not mean you can create a custom spin > > for an specific purpose, e.g. a CentOS netbook spin) > > This is one of the reasons I chose CentOS -- specifically because it > is a Red Hat "rebuild" with upstream compatibility. Although, in my > opinion, CentOS stands on its own -- I figured it was a plus that > while I was learning CentOS I was also learning Red Hat. I first found > CentOS via Trixbox and asterisk (I'm a Nortel phone tech with interest > in asterisk). As it turns out a career change may be forced on me -- > so I'm now studying to take the Red Hat Technician (or Engineering) > certification exams to augment my resume. It has been a huge head > start to have been using "Red Hat" for the past year and a half. > > So, I guess, this is just a vote for keeping CentOS "as is." Although > I think community rebuild projects would be cool also. > Agree. My customers buy RHEL by the thousands of copies. I use CentOS so that I stay on top of what my customers are experiencing, to test the integration of security tools, and to test various levels of "hardening" guidance. RH, whether or not they know it, has a lot to gain by ensuing that CentOS continues. Dave