Hi,

> Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Sorry to be offtopic but given that there is already talk on the next 
> > version of RHEL 
> >
http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/07/29/whats-next-in-red-hat-enterprise-linux-part-1/

> > 
> > i am wondering the idea of common repositories is still in place...
> > Thanks for any feedback,
> > Best regards,
> > Adrian
> 
> Although there is talk of the next RHEL, it's not going to be until 
> late next year.  So there is still a long way away. The answer is 
> that there is talk of working more with CentOS on the next release.  
> We currently haven't hammered out many details, so there isn't 
> really too much to say. One thing I do want to point out, because 
> the rumor keeps comming up.  There will be a Scientific Linux 6.  We 
> will keep our identity.  We will not completely merge with CentOS.

I remember when first looking at all this after Fedora became unmanageable for
me in the enterprise. I originally looked at Whitebox Linux (yes early days
I'm talking), Tao, Scientific Linux and CentOS. 

The reason I chose Scientific Linux was simple, stability. My highest priority
was to have an OS which was rock solid and didn't require me to spend the
large part of my life fixing it, maintaining it, patching it and upgrading it.

Why didn't I choose CentOS? a couple of reasons:

* CentOS would immediately re-package and release updates straight after Red
Hat, bugs and all. SL would perform further tests meaning I had something more
stable and tested than what Red Hat and CentOS would release. Saving me heart
ache, stress and time.

* at the time CentOS forced upgrades to the latest released Red Hat Updates
kits. This meant that when I ran, say, CentOS 4.1, and CentOS 4.2 was out,
CentOS would no longer package and release the errata for 4.1. SL would
closely follow the same support regime as Red Hat, which supports releases for
8 years (although SL committed to 3, which is still ok), no matter what update
kit/release you're running. I don't want to be forced to do anything
especially in enterprise production environments where things cannot go wrong.

Since making the decision to go SL over CentOS I've never looked back. I use
repo's from Dag/Dries, ATrpms, EPEL and even CentOS extras/plus and
utterramblings (when I really need them for clients). But the point is, the
approaches's were different for both CentOS and SL when I was looking at this
years ago, and I needed/preferred the SL approach over the CentOS approach.

Regards,

Michael.

> Troy
> -- 
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
> Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
> __________________________________________________
------- End of Original Message -------