On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > WRT the age of RHEL ... that is what enterprise Linux is. Fedora (or > Ubuntu non LTS, or opensuse, or Debian SID, or any number of other > alternatives) exist if you don't want the more stable (ie, older) items. > > Again, nothing wrong with their approach (I like Troy in any dealings we > have had), however it is not what CentOS does or is going to do. When > we release, we basically loose meaningful access to our machines for a > week as dozens of internal servers, hundreds of external mirrors, and > millions of individual machines get updated. 1) With industry experts saying things like "It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at Dr. Vaughn's place of employment." I think I'll continue with the effort to get RedHat to see the wisdom wrt certain essential elements of the Internet infrastructure (like BIND). 2) Further, I think I'll continue with RedHat/CentOS/SL because I have the layout of the file system memorized, if for no other reason. Too much time on "where did they put that?" in Ubuntu/Debian/et al. Yeah, I should probably stress the 64 year old neurons with memorizing the Ubuntu file structure, but then I wouldn't have time to post remarks like these, including prodding the CentOS team to follow Browning and "grasp beyond their reach." :) kind regards/ldv