Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we > will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
Thanks very much for that. I found your account most interesting and informative. I guess one question that I've never seen raised is if there has ever been a suggestion that Centos and SL should combine, or at least work together? They seem to have exactly the same aim. I wonder why SL was set up, rather than offering to help the CentOS team? I saw statistics - I don't remember where - saying that CentOS had 30% of the Linux market, which I found very surprising, though also satsifying (to me). SL had a tiny share. (I remember now, it was someone complaining that Fedora's share was slipping badly.) I belong to what may be the silent majority who don't really care if CentOS is absolutely up-to-date. (As far as I can see, none of the changes in CentOS-6.1 would make the slightest difference to me. I run CentOS on 3 home servers, and Fedora on my laptops.) I was very struck by the ease with which I upgraded to CentOS-6, compared with the nightmare (now hopefully over) upgrading from Fedora-15 to Fedora-16. It reminded me why I would never run Fedora on a server. To me, the reliability and solidity of CentOS are what I relish, and I'm very grateful to the CentOS team for their work. I don't mind them getting a bit crotchety at times! -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
