Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Spiro Harvey schrieb:
>> I've got a couple of cents change here...
>>
>>
>
>
> While I do think some of the wording of the post that the above post was
> replying to was a bit mis-chosen, I like to believe it had a positive spin.
> (In that it didn't want to put blame on anybody)
>
> I *do* agree with the sentiment that people should buy RHEL for stuff
> they consider critical.
> Or just change distro if they think they get a better deal elsewhere.
>
> Which is what I normaly do, unless management decides they can get away
> cheaper and in essence get RHEL + updates for free with CentOS.
>
> The CentOS team certainly doesn't owe me CentOS 5.3 by now - in the same
> way I can't really complain about a late (again) FreeBSD release.
While I love CentOS, think the team does the best possible job, and
appreciate the work they put into undoing the restrictions on
redistribution by the upstream distro, I have to wonder if it isn't time
to just switch to a base distribution that doesn't impose those
restrictions that force the extra work and delays in the first place.
Is there still any reason other than having to learn to type 'apt-get'
instead of 'yum' to prefer Centos over Ubuntu? I think for me it is
just that I started with RH before they imposed the redistribution
restriction nonsense and have been too lazy to change administration
styles (and debian's "release-when-it's-ready" schedule wasn't
attractive at the time). On a test machine I've noted that Ubuntu
worked with the wireless adapter where Centos didn't, Sun Java is
included, and the update mechanism seems faster and better suited to
caching proxies. But it still feels slightly weird and unfamiliar. Are
there reasons to not trust it?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com