On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:28 PM, John H. Outlan CPA
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sent from T-Mobile G2, please excuse any typos
> On Jul 23, 2011 1:15 PM, "Yasha Karant" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> A vendor professional systems person whom I know has been requested to
>> install SL 6 on a system that is being configured for us.  In a discussion
>> with him, he gave me the opinion that his (vendor's) experience with SL is
>> that it is "buggier" than CentOS, and CentOS often "fixes" RHEL bugs.  I did
>> not understand this in that the base distribution without extensions of both
>> CentOS and SL is RHEL with only the artwork being changed in the sense that
>> all RedHat logos or use of RedHat licensed-for-fee binary distribution
>> repositories have been removed, replaced by the appropriate entities for the
>> distribution in question.  Red Hat is required to release full source from
>> which the entire distribution can be built for personal use -- but not
>> redistributed without removal of the RedHat copyrighted logos, etc. -- under
>> the GPL, Linux licenses, etc.
>>
>> Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that CentOS does the best job of testing
>> the distribution in pre-CentOS release -- although both start from the RHEL
>> sources.  I commented that SL is professionally supported by a joint
>> Fermilab-CERN effort with paid professionals doing the work, not the more or
>> less volunteer organization of CentOS, just as the Red Hat source is
>> developed by paid professionals.  Although the future is unclear for
>> Fermilab with the imminent decommissioning of the Fermilab accelerator, this
>> professional status currently is correct.
>>
>> I fully understand that individuals may disagree with the opinion, and
>> that specific organizations may have official statements that disagree with
>> the opinion -- I only am interested in the "facts".  For anyone on this list
>> who is familiar with the post-RH release handling and qualification/testing
>> procedures of RHEL source by either or both organizations, or by the
>> Princeton University distribution of RHEL, direct comments would be
>> appreciated.  Is there any factual data, including procedural differences,
>> to support the opinion that I have been given?
>>
>> Yasha Karant
>
> My opinion basically is that CentOS has proved itself slow to update in the
> last year but if I may ask:
>
> Who told you FNAL was being "decommsioned". There are at least three FNAL
> employees on this list who can respond to that :)  I've heard no such thing.
> Maybe you are confusing it with the Space Shuttle :)
>
> Oh. SL is not "buggier" than CentOS. In fact someone on the CentOS forum
> stated they had problems with ver 6.0 and wouldn't install until 6.1 was
> released.  I don't have the details of that statement or don't know if its
> purely oparator errors
>
> Others here I'm sure can shine more light on your concerns.

Yasha's just being a troll...