On 07/24/2011 01:24 AM, Tom H wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Yasha Karant<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

>>

>> To be clear:  this is not a "friend", but a high ranking engineering person

>> at a vendor who was presenting his personal, or his firm's internal, expert

>> opinion. My posting was an attempt to discover any data relevant to the

>> opinion, as well as to at least get the distribution release testing

>> policy/methodology for SL (and perhaps CentOS if there were any CentOS

>> organization persons on the SL list willing to comment) once there is a

>> release of source from RH (source that RH is required to release).

>

> You should ask that "high ranking engineering person" for the proof

> and the bugs. I've asked two of our RHEL "reps" what they think of SL

> or CentOS and they've said that they're "crap." Personal and/or

> institutional bias isn't fact.



I fully agree.  I have heard similar sentiments from RH sales/marketing 

employees who need the licensing volume.  I actually have asked the 

vendor, but those are internal matters to this vendor.  On a separate 

matter, responding to a poster who indicates something akin that one 

gets one pays for and that the SL/CentOS deployment methodology is the 

same as Fedora, I have looked over the documents to which that poster 

refers, and based upon that reading, is one of the reasons I attempt to 

avoid Fedora or any other beta- or enthusiast-software unless there is 

no choice (right now, this machine is using a sub 1.0 NetworkManger rpm 

implementation as provided with the RHEL 5.6 release -- but it is 

working and allows a substantially simpler user interface for connection 

to myriad networks when one must travel).  I have not been able to find 

equivalent documents for CentOS or SL (or RHEL for that matter).  In 

reality, RH support for EL is defective as well -- the issue of a major 

defect in the USB 3 support in RHEL 6 that was not considered serious 

enough for a fix in actual RHEL support correspondence is an example in 

point.  To that same poster, one should point out that Fermilab (to 

date), CERN, and Princeton University all are (reasonably) well funded 

organizations (much more so than the institution at which I am tenured), 

yet each has elected to support a redistribution of RHEL from RH source 

instead of simply licensing the executable environment RPMs with support.



Yasha Karant