SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: SL vs. CentOS vs. RH EL qualification testing
From:
Tom H <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tom H <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:24:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines) 
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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2