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. Regards, Dennis