-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
<snip>
Well, this is a natural consequence of the "safe play"
strategy of the grid
teamleaders.
<snip>
you know them? or did you read this?
However, if any type of problem occours in any of the teams for
whatever
reason, SL will start lagging behind for however long a period neccessary,
<snip>
sl is only one who does this? i would rather see a complete system delayed
than have a 'piece mill' system. [f9 + kde 4, net.man.]
Given this strategy, I *hope* that SL will always be in sync with
RHEL, but
*expect* it to lag behind, as a potential (and realistic) situation.
dependability is not realistic? and as for lag, i do believe that
'team strength' is of a much higher number than what centos has.
So this is not just my thinking, it is a reasonable (and intended)
conjecture
based on the design philosophy of SL.
something else i missed reading. but i do not see what is wrong with it.
Predicting the future is never easy, and providing such a
large-scale
mission-critical infrastructure such as the grid on a 24/7 basis for several
years is practically bound to have problems at some point. ;-)
centos is with out problems? you seem to be trying to have someone think
that if centos has no problems.
There are two possible distinct situations here:
1) You are a member of a grid site. This means you are *required* to use SL,
<snip>
2) You are not a member of a grid site. This means you are not
required to use
<snip>
The bottom line is that you have no gain in using SL over RHEL/CentOS
unless
<snip>
i gain by using a system that is not released until it is fully ready.
again, f9 + kde4 + network manager??? very far from ready, and why i also
have f8 installed.
compared to using RHEL/CentOS. This
is my sole point. :-)
and you are doing it again, 'RHEL/CentOS'. centos is only one group's hashing
of rhel source. you use them together as if they are one in same, when actually
they are not. similar yes, but not same. just as rhel and sl are similar, but
not same. if one uses centos, they are only using rhel source modified by
centos. just as using sl is using rhel source.
so, as a personal choice, i will continue with sl. i would rather be a
'tester' aiding *critical research*, than a *group filling their pockets*.
[note *]
anyway, you need to have a 'baskin-robbins 31' near you. :o)
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition'
http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz
'The Linux Documentation Project'
http://www.tldp.org/
'HowtoForge'
http://howtoforge.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIvvjJ+C4Bj9Rkw/wRAsXPAKC0ST4lHSiADsfDThkcRnaIb1HHtwCeKQHt
ZB3ShZBxXzN2h9agYDbq6Sw=
=qJlp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----