Ever since with the disapperance of a key dev who held half the
pillars of CentOS, it's not surprising that it happens to end like
this. At least the SL effort is backed by a few research labs funded
by a government (which hopefully, will sustain for quite some time)

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Victor Helsing <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You have performed a great service setting up the forum.  It has been quite
> helpful for a lot of people, and long overdue.
>
> Your comments on CentOS are exactly correct.  I think very few people
> actually take much pleasure in the events there, since CentOS has been a
> great service to the community for many years.  Their development crew seems
> to be under a lot of stress and not responding perfectly.
>
> It does make a striking contrast with the supremely helpful people I've
> dealt with on the Scientific side though.  I hope they get their issues
> resolved soon.
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:46 PM, john h outlan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:39 PM, john h outlan <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:31 PM, curriegrad2004
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you link to the forums so we can all discuss stuff on there. It
>>>> would also be nice if somebody created a #sl channel on freenode too
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi....the forum link is http://scientificlinuxforum.org.  It's up to 155
>>> members today.  We're getting many CentOS "refugees" as of late at the rate
>>> of about 4 or 5 per day :)  The Survey notice has been posted there under
>>> Announcements.
>>>
>>
>> to clarify:  we are pleased at the forum that we gain 4 or 5 members or
>> more per day, steady.  It's a lot of work and I'm actually out of pocket on
>> it.  We are not pleased with a CentOS demise.  We don't allow any such
>> meaningless remarks on the forum either, other than civil conversation
>> and/or speculation in good conversation.  Sorry for the waste of time.
>
>