On 4/19/2011 1:39 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote: > > I'm not sure there is an open-source software company in existence that > releases more high quality, open source software for use by the general > public. Whatever we can say about Red Hat, > > > if we really didn't like the results of their efforts, we wouldn't be > here, now would we? > Here's a more objective view from Linux Mag: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8608/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1231269&hq_l=12&hq_v=41484763bd If you have trouble with the link, some relevant quotes: "Enterprise-class is partially true, as the project takes great pains to be binary compatible with RHEL. So let’s give half points for that one. The other half of “enterprise-class” is that updates arrive in a timely fashion, which is notably false for the 5.x series. If I understand correctly, there have been a handful of updates prior to the release of CentOS 5.6 for the 5.x series — but nothing else. So, if you consider timely updates a requirement for “enterprise-class,” we can count CentOS out now." OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands. And: "Nobody Got Fired for Buying IBM: You Might for Deploying CentOS" with some elaboration about how the question from your boss about when a known vulnerability will be patched might go. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com