On 03/20/2011 05:02 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? Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. SL is a fine product and people can use it if they want, but lets not pretend that they are releasing every point release before CentOS. In fact, I would suggest that someone check the release dates for all version 3.x, 4.x, and 5.x releases for both CentOS and SL (I'll include it in this post) SL did indeed release a 6.0 before CentOS. For all of the other 25 possible releases, SL released before CentOS on 5 of the 25 times. Here is the list: CentOS SL 3.1 03/19/04 05/10/04 3.2 NR 06/28/04 3.3 09/17/04 10/01/04 3.4 01/10/05 02/13/05 3.5 06/09/05 07/26/05 3.6 10/31/05 NR 3.7 04/10/06 05/27/06 3.8 08/25/06 08/02/06 3.9 07/26/07 10/12/07 4.0 03/02/05 04/21/05 4.1 06/15/05 08/26/05 4.2 10/13/05 12/03/05 4.3 03/21/06 05/08/06 4.4 08/30/06 10/10/06 4.5 05/18/07 06/26/07 4.6 12/16/07 03/12/08 4.7 09/13/08 09/03/08 4.8 08/22/09 07/21/09 4.9 03/02/11 NR 5.0 04/12/07 05/07/07 5.1 12/02/07 01/16/08 5.2 06/24/08 06/28/08 5.3 04/01/09 03/19/09 5.4 10/21/09 11/05/09 5.5 05/15/10 05/19/10 5.6 NR NR Don't get me wrong, SL is a good build and I highly recommend it ... but they do not beat CentOS on releases by months as seems to be insinuated here in the last couple of weeks. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110322/15aa8db2/attachment-0004.sig>