[ale] CentOS 5.0 released!!

[Warren Myers]

>From personal experience (and only that): I've also found CentOS to be a lot

more stable than FC-anything. And when I want to run 'interesting' servers
(not just personal boxen), CentOS is my distro choice. RedHat is not likely
to be going anywhere anytime soon (they're making money after all), and I've
had some not-so-pleasant experiences with SuSE (desktop and server).

We also use RedHat at work as our primary server platform, so to keep
current, I run the free edition at home.

When I was in school (and working for them pt), we had several RHEL boxes,
and other than pebcak config issues, they just worked. The one Ubuntu server
we had (on the 6.06 LTS) seemed to require a lot more tweaking, and since it
was different from the RHEL boxes, when working on the production boxes, and
you needed to ssh into the dev box (Ubuntu), you needed to instantly switch
gears on how stuff worked.

I'm more-or-less comfortable running all the major distros (even the ones
I'm not much of a fan of), but when it comes to servers, CentOS/RHEL I think
wins hands down.

WMM

On 4/13/07, Jeff Lightner <jlightner at water.com> wrote:
>
> Probably not much benefit for the non-commercial user on that score.
> However if you intend someday to work where Linux IS used as an OS of
> choice by your employer chances are you should be knowledgeable of
> RedHat or Suse.  Since RH is the larger of the two then knowing CentOS
> or Fedora Core would be of some benefit.
>
> Of course that argument gets rid of the length of support benefit
> mentioned.  If you know CentOS 1 or FC 2 but your potential employer is
> using RHEL 5 they may not consider you "up to speed".
>
> As for me I'm curious as to whether there are any benefits of CentOS
> over FC other than the length of support.  FC is the one that serves as
> beta for what goes into RHEL.   I've been doing a lot with FC/RHEL so
> I'm wondering what CentOS would give me over FC.
>
> As to Ubuntu or other Debian distros being "better" that's just plain
> silly.  There are folks that like the apt style of package management.
> Me I prefer rpm and yum (and up2date).   It's all about opinions and
> though everyone will give you reasons why they believe their opinion is
> correct it still boils down to preferences.   That's why there are so
> many distros already.   A lot of the purists are still mad at RH for
> taking that name back to commercial only (and making FC the
> non-commercial distro).  Some of their thinking about RH has more to do
> with that perceived insult to OSS than to anything else.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Fowler
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:10 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] CentOS 5.0 released!!
>
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 08:05 -0400, Courtney Thomas wrote:
> > Please pardon my ignorance, but of what value is that for a non-
> > commercial
> > or average user  ?
>
> For a desktop OS I do not think much.  For a server os the values lies
> in the fact that it is supported much longer than Fedora Core or other
> distis.  With the long life you can keep it updated longer.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>



-- 
http://warrenmyers.com
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on
with the prime numbers." --Paul Erd?s
"It's not possible. We are the type of people who have everything in our
favor going against us." --Ben Jarhvi, Short Circuit 2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...