On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > RHEL is much better about that, although by now the "production" RHEL > 5 is 4 years out of date, the "leading edge" RHEL 6 is now one year > out of date after the lengthy release testing, and CentOS will always > lag that. I believe "out of date" is the wrong wording. RHEL/CentOS 5 is maintained, i.e. security issues and bugs are fixed. There's nothing "out of date" about a tool that works and is cost-effective. RHEL 6 still has to prove itself. In my day job I support dozens of developer desktops that run CentOS 5 with a modified kernel supporting non-standard devices. It takes a few hours a week. Trying to track the bleeding edge supporting, say, Ubuntu would take much more time. Ge'