On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray <murrayie at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing > (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got > that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the > website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as > it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they > would make you take out all references just like RH do. It sounds to me like "your big beef" is that you can't run the CentOS distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or Scientific Linux. As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS name. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6