On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:19 -0500, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On 07/23/2011 12:14 PM, Yasha Karant 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.
> ....
> This is one of two myth's going around about CentOS.
> 
> The other myth is that CentOS is "100% Compatible" with RHEL.
> 
> I call these myth's because both of them cannot be correct.
> 
> Either CentOS fixes RedHat's bugs (which would break compatibility),
> or 
> CentOS is 100% Compatible.
> 
> I am not a developer for CentOS, so I cannot comment more.
> .... 

Strange, I started using SL when Centos 5 refused to recognise my older
3com PCI network card.
Yet SL installed and picked up all the hardware without a hitch

As far as RH support/Sales reps making adverse comments about SL/Centos
or any other nix says one of two things:
He is either trying to drum up business/sales for RH or
He is totally ignorant on what Linux is.

At the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you have the money,
and are happy that what the vendor supplies is always the only solution,
go with RH or SuSE.
Otherwise, thank the developers of SL/Centos for taking the time to
remove the RH branding and roll out an enterprise version that also
allows some customization.