[CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities

Sun Mar 20 22:52:22 UTC 2011
William Warren <hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>

On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
>> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
>>>>> competition with
>>>>> RH
>>>>> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers
>>>>> installable
>>>>> binaries for free.
>>>> Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
>>>> is better to pay for real
>>>> RH instead of oracle linux..
>>> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that
>>> matched
>>> their binaries...  Personally, I think everyone would be better off
>>> today if
>>> they had turned their back on anything RH-related the day they
>>> stopped
>>> permitting redistribution of their binaries among the community
>>> that created
>>> them and made them usable in the first place.  I was too lazy to
>>> change and
>>> Centos made it look reasonable to leave things approximately the
>>> same.  But, now
>>> that RH is putting the screws on anyone who doesn't pay up it is
>>> probably time
>>> for anyone who cares about free software to rethink things.
>> exactly.  Nothing against Centos but I've deployed my last RH based
>> box.  It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
> I don't get it, why so radical?
> Why not go SL and maintain the same methodology?
> - aurf
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
because the software i use for myself and my clients...rhel availability 
is dropping and unbuntu debian is increasing.  rhel's various code 
decisions aren't helping.  It's not radical..it's still Linux and still