[CentOS] release/update question

Scott Silva ssilva at sgvwater.com
Wed Jun 3 16:58:12 UTC 2009

on 6-3-2009 6:10 AM Ralph Angenendt spake the following:
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
>>> Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
>>> than CentOS 5.3
>> Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
> It clearly is the other way round, Red Hat has adopted ours.
> Let's see if we can pull that one again! >:)
> Ralph
I think the RedHat CentOS relationship is mutually beneficial. We get a kick
ass distro for only the cost of the work involved, and they get lots of bug
fixes, and bug reports with very detailed reproduction steps. They also get a
very large base of potential users when businesses move up to wanting/needing
support. Replace a few rpm's and you have a RedHat system ready for a paid
support contract.

And where would Oracle's unbreakable linux be if CentOS hadn't done most of
the heavy lifting first?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090603/535eb52b/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS mailing list