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

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

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 

More information about the CentOS mailing list