On 07/04/11 14:41, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 07/04/11 15:11, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: >> On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote: >>> On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> >>>> Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post >>>> to this list. >>> This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go >>> away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than >>> others trying to open up communications between a projects members and >>> the developers. >>> >> Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS >> in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right >> direction. >> I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm >> looking for alternatives. > > Fully agree! Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific > Linux. It doesn't provide 100% binary compatibility, compared to CentOS. > But I'm also not using software packages which should depend on that. > Ahem, but as far as I'm aware, CentOS (at least 5) has never provided 100% binary compatibility either (yes, I've checked). Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of CentOS, sometimes it's just not possible to maintain 100% binary compatibility when RHEL is built and linked against some package version that have never been made publicly available. Anyone who has ever rebuilt packages from RHEL will know and understand this. CentOS AIMS to be 100% binary compatible and for the most part it is, but I'm tired of seeing this misnomer repeated over and over like some holy grail. Personally I'm with Russ on this one that whilst an admirable goal I think the importance of binary compatibility is sometimes overstated and often misunderstood. BTW I've not checked SL binaries so I have no idea if their distribution is any more or less binary compatible with upstream than CentOS but it's easy enough to do so for anyone interested.