CentOS: For the community, not by the community.

[PvtCupcakes]

I was just perusing the CentOS mailing list, trying to find the status on 5.6 and 6.0, and I found this gem from one of the developers.

[quote]
CentOS is for the community ... it is not BUILT buy [sic] the community.
[/quote][URL]http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-March/007101.html[/URL]

A guy was just asking about how CentOS builds their OS, which would be pretty useful information to know in an open source project I think. The point is to kind of share the source and let people build it themselves.

Heres a bit more from an earlier mail
[quote]
> That last part, "easily accessible", is just as important as "public".
> There might be lots of tidbits of information on this list, but finding
> them is a drag.
>

Why is that important. Red Hat did not tell me how to build it. The
purpose of the CentOS Project is to produce an operating system that you
can choose to use or not to use. It is not to tell someone else how to
produce an operating system. Why should I tell someone how to build a
replacement OS to CentOS. That makes no sense at all.
[/quote][URL]http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-March/007081.html[/URL]

I'm gonna move my personal stuff to Scientific Linux (also based on RHEL) now, because CentOS isn't really open. And Scientific Linux syncs with RHEL much faster. SL6 was released at the beginning of March, and CentOS 6 is looking more like April.

It was nice knowing you CentOS. :byewhore:

[macerator]

You moved from one RHEL clone to another?

[FPtje]

[QUOTE=macerator;28620253]You moved from one RHEL clone to another?[/QUOTE]
Obviously because the former is being a dick towards the community.

I'm not a red hat fan myself, but if I were, I would know my choice too based on this information.

[macerator]

I'm now just questioning using Red Hat in the first place.

[PvtCupcakes]

[QUOTE=macerator;28620373]I'm now just questioning using Red Hat in the first place.[/QUOTE]

RHEL costs money. :saddowns:
I don't have any need for official support or anything like that because I'm not an enterprise.

[macerator]

I meant a red hat based distro. I got an evaluation copy from 'em and honestly, its just a cut back and more stable ( cut in here to say that I've yet to have any stability problems with linux other than installing ATI drivers) verison of Fedora. Of course, to each his own, but wry?

[PvtCupcakes]

[QUOTE=macerator;28624083]I meant a red hat based distro. I got an evaluation copy from 'em and honestly, its just a cut back and more stable ( cut in here to say that I've yet to have any stability problems with linux other than installing ATI drivers) verison of Fedora. Of course, to each his own, but wry?[/QUOTE]

Same reason why some people use Debian.

[Wyzard]

[QUOTE=macerator;28624083]Of course, to each his own, but wry?[/QUOTE]
Because
[QUOTE=macerator;28624083]more stable[/QUOTE]
And because RedHat offers enterprise support.

[nikomo]

I'm pretty sure both CentOS and Red Hat will stay up a long enough time that the company running the server will get bought, change owners, get bankrupted due to new owners and power gets cuts, thus killing the servers.