[CentOS] Getting ready for CentOS 5.4

Mon Mar 30 03:56:56 UTC 2009
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>

Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:25:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Neil Aggarwal wrote:
>>> Les:
>>> Honest question, not intended to be smart assed in any
>>> way:
>>> Why have you not moved to SL since they have released the
>>> update before CentOS?
>> If I liked changing things on a whim, I wouldn't be using enterprise 
>> type distributions in the first place.  And since this '5.4' discussion 
>> is about the future - it's sad but I don't any more faith in the future 
>> of research funding than in volunteer efforts.
>> But philosophically, it just seems wrong that the rebranding work has to 
>> be done at all, much less multiple times.
> Maybe so.  But a much more difficult problem to overcome, and not one
> that's likely to change.
> RH has $$, and $$ are a target for lawsuits.  RH needs to be able to
> make it clear they are *not* CentOS.
> Just the world we live in.  Honestly, RH doesn't even have to make it
> as easy as they do (see SLES).

So what would be the down side to just walking away from everything 
RH-related now that Ubuntu has a free alternative with long term 
support?   I thought perhaps when I mentioned it earlier there would be 
a flurry of responses pointing out functional deficiencies but so far 
there have been none.   I would never have started using RH in the early 
days if it had not been freely redistributable.  Now the clones are 
better than nothing, but it still seems wrong.

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com