What is the overall timeline from CentOS 5 becoming public beta to becoming GA? Thanks. Scott
--- Scott Ehrlich <scott at MIT.EDU> wrote:> What is the overall timeline from CentOS 5 becoming > public beta to > becoming GA? > > Thanks. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >When Ever They Decide to Release IT..... That is the Time Line!!!!! Steven "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux."
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:37:36 -0400 (EDT), Scott wrote:> What is the overall timeline from CentOS 5 becoming public > beta to becoming GA?You disgusting pig. How DARE you ask such a question. Those developers are working as hard as they can, and all you can do is pressure them to take time out of their day to make up for your ignorance! Do you pay them to work? No! They don't answer to you--you got that?! You're probably American. Go to HELL! Miark P.S. Probably 'bout a week. But you didn't hear that from me. :-D
Okay, who are you and what have you done to Jim!! ;-P> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Jim Perrin > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:55 AM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 timeline? > > If this was an attempt at humor, it may not come across that > way to everyone. > > We need a kinder, gentler centos. > > Yes, it's me asking for this, and no I'm not on medication. :-P
"Larry Vaden" <vaden at texoma.net> wrote:> On 4/5/07, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: >> > If I am allowed to add one more thing: >> > >> > Please do not top-post. >> > > This is a personal preference; most professional records are kept > with the most recent item on top (read: at the front) of a physical > file. Even the public library does it that way :) > > rgds/ldvThe following was shamelessly plagiarized from the signature of Steve Searle on the Fedora-list: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? I think that nicely sums up why top-posting is a bad idea. Cheers, Dave -- Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
On Sunday 08 April 2007 03:00, centos-request at centos.org wrote:> I wonder if this is one of the most anticipated releases or if it just feels > like it is. Either way the mirrors should be getting hammered when it's out.I suspect this release is widely and eagerly anticipated. There will be many our here like me who are looking to migrate to a stable, long-term upgradeable distro that comes with a specification that is not far behind the latest "cool but buggy" efforts. Some people want a Linux to experiment with, others need one they can rely on to earn a living. CentOS 5 looks like it should fit the bill.
On Monday 09 April 2007 03:00, centos-request at centos.org wrote:> > I suspect this release is widely and eagerly anticipated. There will be many our here like me who are looking to migrate to a stable, long-term upgradeable distro that comes with a specification that is not far behind the latest "cool but buggy" efforts. Some people want a Linux to experiment with, others need one they can rely on to earn a living. CentOS 5 looks like it should fit the bill. > > > Not wishing to put a dampener on things, but I don't think CentOS 5 will > be any more eagerly anticipated than CentOS 4 or CentOS 3. > And as for 'cool but buggy', there are still many people who consider > the 2.6 kernel is not yet up to production standard, and insist on using > 2.4As an upgrade to existing installations, particularly servers, it will be business as usual, certainly, but there are people out here, desktop users, who will be looking to switch. I, for one, have experimented quite enough, and I am looking for a desktop distro that is good for the long haul. I currently run Kubuntu 6.06 LTS, and I like it, but I don't like the support plan. My impression is that CentOS upgrades, following the upstream vendor, are going to be more solid than those of other distros, genuinely upgradeable, and supported for a sensible length of time. And I like the tone of the mailing list. There has been a rapid increase in Linux use over a very few years. Most people will have tried Fedora, Ubuntu, SUSE, etc. for a year or two, and many will now have refined their requirement to match the CentOS virtues. The historical hit rates on DistroWatch make an interesting study, revealing not only the changes in volume of interest, but also the changes in relative popularity. CentOS came in at 62 in 2004, in 2005 it was at 15, where it stayed for 2006, but a current 30 day span brings it up to 11. I would say this indicates increased curiosity, surely the imminence of CentOS 5 cannot be a coincidence?