There seem to be people who feel there is a "race" between CentOS and SL.
SL has always been following their routine of going from Alpha (1 or 2) -> Beta (1 or 2) -> RC (1 or 2) -> GA. Each release is separated by 1 week. So, it typically takes 2 to 3 months for them to do the final release. This time scheme is not a problem for SL users because security updates are made available in a timely manner (similar to the CR repo by CentOS) and they have been doing this exercise from day one (back in 2003??).
So, when CentOS had a [huge] delay, people say SL "beat" CentOS. When CentOS gets the release out in 2 weeks, they say CentOS "beat" SL. As far as SL is concerned there is no such race. I don't think SL would ever change its release process to "beat" other clones.
Another reason why there is no true race between CentOS and SL is the fact that, whichever distro people choose, it is still within the RH ecosystem. CentOS' trouble in the last year or two no doubt raised questions in people's mind about its reliability or stability. But migrating to other RHEL clones such as SL is, in my opinion, not a problem. Well, for the CentOS project, it might seem to be an issue in a short term. What is really a serious problem is people migrating to non-RH distros -- most notably debian/ubuntu. This trend is clearly seen in [url=http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux]this graph[/url]. Loss of RH+CentOS+Fedora apparently equals gain of debian+ubuntu.
Clones are, whether it's CentOS or SL or others, all contributing to the RH ecosystem after all. The real "race" is against those that are outside.
CentOS 6.2 Release?
-
sblantipodi
- Posts: 252
- Joined: 2009/07/10 09:43:13
- Contact:
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
Wow I updated to 6.2 :-o
Congratulations and thanks for your valuable work.
Happy holidays :-)
Congratulations and thanks for your valuable work.
Happy holidays :-)
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
[quote]
toracat wrote:
So, when CentOS had a [huge] delay, people say SL "beat" CentOS. When CentOS gets the release out in 2 weeks, they say CentOS "beat" SL. As far as SL is concerned there is no such race. I don't think SL would ever change its release process to "beat" other clones.[/quote]
I understand this. It's just that I was so tired of seeing all the anti-CentOS FUD (by some posters) here that it is *very* nice not to have to put up with it for at least several months on this release. And, besides, the 14 day rebuild time is simply amazing, I thought someone should "crow" for the developers. But I like Scientific Linux and, if it ever appears, ClearOS Core will be nice addition also. Choice is good. (I'm not a fan of Oracle, so won't go into that distribution.)
Thanks again for all the hard work. I've got a feeling a lot of people think the 6.2 release announcement is just an echo of the 6.1 and don't really realize 6.2 is already out.
toracat wrote:
So, when CentOS had a [huge] delay, people say SL "beat" CentOS. When CentOS gets the release out in 2 weeks, they say CentOS "beat" SL. As far as SL is concerned there is no such race. I don't think SL would ever change its release process to "beat" other clones.[/quote]
I understand this. It's just that I was so tired of seeing all the anti-CentOS FUD (by some posters) here that it is *very* nice not to have to put up with it for at least several months on this release. And, besides, the 14 day rebuild time is simply amazing, I thought someone should "crow" for the developers. But I like Scientific Linux and, if it ever appears, ClearOS Core will be nice addition also. Choice is good. (I'm not a fan of Oracle, so won't go into that distribution.)
Thanks again for all the hard work. I've got a feeling a lot of people think the 6.2 release announcement is just an echo of the 6.1 and don't really realize 6.2 is already out.
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
Hmmm... I wanted to bet "before Christmas/New Year", but not "before solstice" ;-)
Let's hope RH won't do too many changes in the next dot release(s) to delay again O... (you know that person which guessed in ancient Greek, RH "competitor") and, implicitly, CentOS and SL.
I quoted competitor because the competition is only for money from shameless "big company" clone. I didn't mentioned the name from obvious reasons :-)
Congratulations to all the people involved: devs, QAs, moderators. etc.
You have at least one beer/wine/scotch/alcohol from me when we meet :pint:
Happy holidays! You deserve them!
Let's hope RH won't do too many changes in the next dot release(s) to delay again O... (you know that person which guessed in ancient Greek, RH "competitor") and, implicitly, CentOS and SL.
I quoted competitor because the competition is only for money from shameless "big company" clone. I didn't mentioned the name from obvious reasons :-)
Congratulations to all the people involved: devs, QAs, moderators. etc.
You have at least one beer/wine/scotch/alcohol from me when we meet :pint:
Happy holidays! You deserve them!
-
rubyplusplus
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2011/12/24 00:20:04
- Contact:
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
This is my first post and I'm very happy to be here and getting started with Cent OS. I have no real understanding about the delays that occurred in the past, so all I can say is that it appears that the developers did one heck of a job with getting this release out as quickly as they did.
I am installing now on my linux system and am anxious to get started.
At work we have a couple of Red Hat servers and I have mostly an ubuntu background. I'm going to be pushing to get some certifications paid for by my employer and am eyeing the Red Hat certs, so the conversion is my weekend project. Here goes 6.2!
I am installing now on my linux system and am anxious to get started.
At work we have a couple of Red Hat servers and I have mostly an ubuntu background. I'm going to be pushing to get some certifications paid for by my employer and am eyeing the Red Hat certs, so the conversion is my weekend project. Here goes 6.2!
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
[quote]
toracat wrote:
There seem to be people who feel there is a "race" between CentOS and SL.
SL has always been following their routine of going from Alpha (1 or 2) -> Beta (1 or 2) -> RC (1 or 2) -> GA. Each release is separated by 1 week. So, it typically takes 2 to 3 months for them to do the final release. This time scheme is not a problem for SL users because security updates are made available in a timely manner (similar to the CR repo by CentOS) and they have been doing this exercise from day one (back in 2003??).
So, when CentOS had a [huge] delay, people say SL "beat" CentOS. When CentOS gets the release out in 2 weeks, they say CentOS "beat" SL. As far as SL is concerned there is no such race. I don't think SL would ever change its release process to "beat" other clones.
Another reason why there is no true race between CentOS and SL is the fact that, whichever distro people choose, it is still within the RH ecosystem. CentOS' trouble in the last year or two no doubt raised questions in people's mind about its reliability or stability. But migrating to other RHEL clones such as SL is, in my opinion, not a problem. Well, for the CentOS project, it might seem to be an issue in a short term. What is really a serious problem is people migrating to non-RH distros -- most notably debian/ubuntu. This trend is clearly seen in [url=http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux]this graph[/url]. Loss of RH+CentOS+Fedora apparently equals gain of debian+ubuntu.
Clones are, whether it's CentOS or SL or others, all contributing to the RH ecosystem after all. The real "race" is against those that are outside.[/quote]
I agree. I don't see the SL team changing their DOCUMENTED (this is key) behavior in a "one upmanship display" and fully expect things to roll out on their regular schedule. I'd much rather have this arrangement than the current undocumented (well, it's documented but infrequently used) schedule used by the CentOS dev team. Those guys burned a lot of bridges over the last 18 months. Maybe a few on-time releases and less of a "my way or the highway" attitude on the mailing lists will smooth things over. Time will tell. I've still got a number of legacy systems running CentOS that I've got no immediate plans to upgrade, but anything new has been getting SL for the past few months. Sometimes the answer is "use both." :-)
Best of luck and happy holidays!!!
toracat wrote:
There seem to be people who feel there is a "race" between CentOS and SL.
SL has always been following their routine of going from Alpha (1 or 2) -> Beta (1 or 2) -> RC (1 or 2) -> GA. Each release is separated by 1 week. So, it typically takes 2 to 3 months for them to do the final release. This time scheme is not a problem for SL users because security updates are made available in a timely manner (similar to the CR repo by CentOS) and they have been doing this exercise from day one (back in 2003??).
So, when CentOS had a [huge] delay, people say SL "beat" CentOS. When CentOS gets the release out in 2 weeks, they say CentOS "beat" SL. As far as SL is concerned there is no such race. I don't think SL would ever change its release process to "beat" other clones.
Another reason why there is no true race between CentOS and SL is the fact that, whichever distro people choose, it is still within the RH ecosystem. CentOS' trouble in the last year or two no doubt raised questions in people's mind about its reliability or stability. But migrating to other RHEL clones such as SL is, in my opinion, not a problem. Well, for the CentOS project, it might seem to be an issue in a short term. What is really a serious problem is people migrating to non-RH distros -- most notably debian/ubuntu. This trend is clearly seen in [url=http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux]this graph[/url]. Loss of RH+CentOS+Fedora apparently equals gain of debian+ubuntu.
Clones are, whether it's CentOS or SL or others, all contributing to the RH ecosystem after all. The real "race" is against those that are outside.[/quote]
I agree. I don't see the SL team changing their DOCUMENTED (this is key) behavior in a "one upmanship display" and fully expect things to roll out on their regular schedule. I'd much rather have this arrangement than the current undocumented (well, it's documented but infrequently used) schedule used by the CentOS dev team. Those guys burned a lot of bridges over the last 18 months. Maybe a few on-time releases and less of a "my way or the highway" attitude on the mailing lists will smooth things over. Time will tell. I've still got a number of legacy systems running CentOS that I've got no immediate plans to upgrade, but anything new has been getting SL for the past few months. Sometimes the answer is "use both." :-)
Best of luck and happy holidays!!!
Re: CentOS 6.2 Release?
Hmm, still waiting for SL 6.2 :-)