--- In linux@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:00:22AM -0600, Allen D. Tate wrote:
> > > Thad Floryan wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Ubuntu team has made some other recent questionable
> > > > assertions and assumptions. [...]
> > >
> > > I read the article mentioned earlier in the thread, and it fit
> > > right in with the problems I've had.
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, I've been messing with CentOS 5.2 and I'm liking it very
> > much.
> > I've been messing with Ubuntu but CentOS so far seems to be
> > working a bit better. http://www.centos.org/
>
> Despite being a server O/S, if you're not really into having the
> absolute latest, greatest, only works sometimes (oops, I didn't mean
> that) type stuff, CentOS is quite good. Its documentation team has some
> pride in their work, unlike Fedora where it seems to be done with an
> attitude of "It's my turn????".

It seems it's time again to mention CentOS is essentially an unbranded
RHEL. Based on that, it seems a good choice for a stable workhorse
system without all the bleeding-edge gotchas (re: wireless, movies,
and audio).