[CentOS] Centos 6.3 - which repos to use?

Sun Jan 27 22:46:22 UTC 2013
Rob Kampen <rkampen at kampensonline.com>

On 01/28/2013 04:18 AM, John Hinton wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 4:21 PM, James Freer wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Reindl Harald<h.reindl at thelounge.net>  wrote:
>>> Am 26.01.2013 22:07, schrieb James Freer:
>>>>    From what i have seen of fedora and centos in the rpm world the repos
>>>> are very much better in the debian world. To me the stability comes
>>>> from the distro and it's repos. Not being able to install Abiword or
>>>> yumex, having to spend time selecting options for repos to me simply
>>>> isn't worth it.
>>>> I've just installed a Slackware distro today and it's the best i've
>>>> ever tried in 6 years of using linux. It's speed, ease of installation
>>>> put's it in a league of its own. Or as their 'chilling warning goes'
>>>> Once you go Slack... you never go back!
>>> have fun with a package management without dependency tracking
>>> well, without the probles above are hidden, but not solved
>>> a funny thing to play with - but laughable for production environments
>>> which you maintain over many years without reinstall them ever
>> Like debian is improved on with derivative distros, when i said slack
>> i was referring to a derivative Salix... with package management
>> Gslapt which is very similar to synaptic. Hate to say it but imo very
>> much better than yum.
>> You've been a nice friendly crowd but centos isn't for me.
>> james
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> If I were doing a desktop setup, I would very likely not use CentOS
> "EL". Remember E stands for Enterprise. What is an enterprise? What
> expectations does an enterprise have? Our 'enterprise' is web facing
> servers doing hosting and email mostly. In the hosting world, the users
> get to put up their content. Most of the time this 'enterprise' solution
> is great. I don't have to worry about upgrades that break things. I
> would not know for instance if a PHP upgrade broke a website until the
> client let us know. This might be the day it happened or it might be
> months after it occurred. Yes, some folks don't actually look at their
> website or maybe just one portion of their website for months. For
> instance, maybe a photo album script. The enterprise life pretty much
> avoids any of these issues. I can update something like Postfix without
> worrying about it being a new version with a new config file. The
> benefits to the 'enterprise' world are huge. Stuff very rarely breaks.
> If I am developing for CentOS 'EL', I would likely use CentOS as my
> desktop version. If my goal is watching movies, viewing images, doing
> graphics work... I think I would at least look at the other distros for
> something that stays current.
I use CentOS 6.x for my desktops for these enterprise long life 
stability reasons.
I do want to see movies, work with image files etc, but I also need it 
to work everyday,
just like it did the previous day. It is my workstation, it needs to do 
all the basics reliably
year after year. So for me the upgrade path is use CentOS 5.x until 6.1 
was released - at that time
the various repos usually have all the tools I need for a desktop 
I will use 6.x until 7.1 comes out and at that time upgrade my various 
workstations - say every 4 years or so.
I guess the decision varies around the user either wanting to play with 
the OS and related software
  use it to perform work reliably day after day.
> CentOS is not bleeding edge. I rarely ever suffer a cut. Instead,
> stability and reliability. If we do something to break email or web
> services, our phones start ringing within 5 minutes. Those are not happy
> customers.