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-0005.sig>