Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:31 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 434690
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
No it isn't a fact, both you and Caitlyn haven't provided an average from an adequate sample size.
Maybe because you want to push CentOS everywhere, and don't want anyone to buy RHEL?
No I have endorsed CentOS in the past for two primary reasons:
1. Conservative update policy
2. Software/Hardware compatibility
And then Caitlyn the "Linux security expert" comes along and writes multiple articles lambasting CentOS for delaying critical security updates and cites a Firefox update for her netbook as the only example.
PS: Oh, and I wouldn't recommend Oracle Unworkable Linux even to an enemy. Oracle support is worse than useless, any money thrown in their direction is wasted.
They have a rather impressive customer list including Dell and Yahoo:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046978/OpenWorld_1_500_comp...
It's also been endorsed by the Edison group:
http://www.appsinsight.net/2009/01/16/realize-true-cost-savings-wit...