On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:40:37 +0100, Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwenkanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what
it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux distributions, as desktops tend to need to run the latest and greatest for as far the latest and greatest lets them.
Does that make sense?
No, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. You say a market for this is the corporate desktop, but a government department I work with runs their scientific desktops on RHEL 4. They have a lot of in-house apps that are known to work on that platform. There is absolutely no sense in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that version's EOL is in sight.
You just made (part of) my point, I hope you realize:
There is absolutely no sense in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that version's EOL is in sight.
Thanks!
Also, note that one example of a corporate environment that runs Enterprise Linux grade distributions on their desktop systems does not make the rest less true. And before anyone else is going to say it; I bet there's dozens if not hundreds if not thousands if not millions of similar environments happy to run with the Enterprise Linux distributions out there.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip