| |||||||||||||
CentOS 5.3 releasedCentOS 5.3 releasedPosted Apr 1, 2009 17:47 UTC (Wed) by orev (subscriber, #50902)In reply to: CentOS 5.3 released by kragil Parent article: CentOS 5.3 released
CentOS tracks RedHat, so whatever RedHat does, CentOS does, and however long a version is supported by Redhat will be supported in CentOS. BUT, the guys who are supporting CentOS are doing it for free, and sometimes life steps in. As a free product, you are not guaranteed support for anything, so if that's part of your requirements, the paid version of Redhat might be a better fit for you.
(Log in to post comments)
CentOS 5.3 released Posted Apr 2, 2009 14:36 UTC (Thu) by dag- (subscriber, #30207) [Link]
I do not disagree, but a project could decide to arm itself against some of the risks causing release-delays. If a release would depend on a single person, the project could look into changing this dependency, or making sure that we have the resources at the time a release is imminent. (A release never happens unexpectedly)
Let me assure you that a delay of 6 weeks is not uncommon for CentOS, because the builds, installer, artwork, translation and documentation needs to be adapted and tested. There is a separate QA team involved for testing, which was something we learned from previous releases. Another cause of delays used to be the translation/documentation of the release notes, which is now maintained outside of the release (on the wiki) which is much better :-)
Often issues found during QA testing cause unexpected delays, and we need to reserve at least two weeks to make sure the QA team has enough time to find, report and fix issues. So while it is theoretically possible to release a few days after Red Hat releases, there are a few reasons why this is not ideal and unwanted.
I fully agree with the fact that if you need guarantees, your best option is to go with Red Hat's offering. If your business relies on timely security updates, or certification, or legal indemnification, or support then RHEL is the best option and I would be dishonest (and foolish) to tell you otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||