On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Craig White <craig.white at ttiltd.com> wrote: >> Lastly, Johnny has made clear that this is not supposed to be an SL discussion list but curiously enough, SL is invoked by those who want to use SL to justify the alacrity of the CentOS 6.0 release. As was pointed out, though their 5.6 update was slow or apparently still not out, the updates all came out long ago so what you are actually referring to was the set of installation discs that are only really needed by people who want to install on newly supported hardware. << Give me a break. Comparing SL and CentOS release dates is not the same as saying "I've moved to SL, but I'm still going to come to the CentOS mailing list and bitch about it for the rest of my life." My point is that both CentOS and SL had to deal with two point releases and a major release all at the same time... err... in the same "time frame." They each chose to handle the situation differently, and it appears that both will *finish* their three releases at approximately the same time. This is an exceptional case, it doesn't happen very often. By it's very nature a rebuild's distribution release *must* be delayed from its upstream release. Most CentOS users understand and accept this. So, if you *must* have the newest, cutting edge, release *immediately* you're going to need to license the upstream product. If you want to call that a "take it or leave it" proposition, then use that phrase. Personally I see it as simply bowing to the dictates of reality. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6