[CentOS] Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Tue Nov 15 13:19:15 UTC 2011
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml at conversis.de>

On 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting and informative.
> I guess one question that I've never seen raised
> is if there has ever been a suggestion that Centos and SL
> should combine, or at least work together?
> They seem to have exactly the same aim.
> I wonder why SL was set up,
> rather than offering to help the CentOS team?

SL does betas and CentOS does not for example. I think the way both 
projects chose to operate is simply incompatible.

> I saw statistics - I don't remember where - saying that
> CentOS had 30% of the Linux market,
> which I found very surprising, though also satsifying (to me).
> SL had a tiny share.
> (I remember now, it was someone complaining that Fedora's share
> was slipping badly.)

Fedora is basically an incubator for new technologies and as such not 
really an attractive system to install for end-users. If you deal with 
servers you probably go with CentOS, SL, Debian, etc. and if you want a 
desktop you probably use Ubuntu.

> I belong to what may be the silent majority
> who don't really care if CentOS is absolutely up-to-date.
> (As far as I can see, none of the changes in CentOS-6.1
> would make the slightest difference to me.
> I run CentOS on 3 home servers, and Fedora on my laptops.)
> I was very struck by the ease with which I upgraded to CentOS-6,
> compared with the nightmare (now hopefully over)
> upgrading from Fedora-15 to Fedora-16.
> It reminded me why I would never run Fedora on a server.

I tend to skip one Fedora release and then do a a plain reinstall and copy 
my old data I need over. Fedora upgrades always sound rather messy.