On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 19:33 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I think CentOS stands great on itself, and you don't need to define many
> > things is dislike of other distro. I know many of us (at least us
> > Americans) like to put things in terms of "versus" as much as we can.
> > And I am too verbose, too "I see good in everything" and support so many
> > different flavors that there's always something to dislike about what I
> > say.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > It might be "animal farmish" but we're all standing on the shoulders of
> > others, and I don't dare say who's better than another. In fact,
> > because of my neutrality and wiliness to see things from different
> > perspectives.
>
> One distro is not BETTER than another ... they are just for different
> situations.
>
> RHEL (as a distro) is more stable and longer lived than Fedora ... and
> it is based off of Fedora (or they are both based from Rawhide if you
> prefer). This is due mostly to the release cycle and the testing that
> happens on Fedora. Some people see Fedora as a test platform for
> RHEL ... and it is that. Red Hat would not assign resources to Fedora
> IF they we not going to roll that stuff into RHEL and make money. That
> doesn't make Fedora any less valuable as a distro, or make Red Hat bad.
>
> Fedora is a very good distro when compared to other non-enterprise
> distros like SuSE Pro, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc. The only issue with these
> distros (Fedora included) is the support cycle / release schedule.
>
> RedHat is (in my opinion) the best of the Enterprise Release Linux
> companies (Novell, RedHat, Mandriva) at making their enterprise Source
> available. Without RedHat's dedication to open source software, CentOS
> would not exist.
>
> Where are the SuSE SLES or Mandriva Enterprise rebuilds? They don't
> exist .. because the SRPMS are not readily available for updates, etc.
>
> BUT ... RHEL costs money (at least the SLA does).
>
> So, CentOS has some advantages of Fedora (Community developed, Free) and
> RHEL (Long lifetime, stable code base, most 3rd party apps work).
> CentOS also has one major disadvantage ... no support.
>
> Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their
> outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same
> boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
>
> (Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide
> code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They
> just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
Both of you guys!!! very well put!
I think this msg says it all on this subject.
I do feel the want to stress the fact that if you feel as I do that
Centos serves us well and plays a huge part of what we do...knowing
where the bulk of Centos comes from, then it would be really foolish and
wrong (especially on the Centos list to be cutting on redhat or fedora
for sure! If one would feel so strongly against them then he has no
business here either, It's just wrong!
More constructively, well, I think Johnny does all he can to serve us
all well, I have never used anything he has done here to my knowledge
but he seems to always be here for us. But, I do think instead of trying
to find fault w/what we got I do believe better just to make work that
doesn't or improve on it. Just seems a better way to expend the energy.
Lastly, If I, in any of this seem aprehendsive I did not mean so and my
apologies. I made my choice as most others here have. Centos! and I
think most all will agree, the best choice, if we gonna live by it, then
there is no place here to cut on any of the redhat fedora family. It
just seems to make sense...to me anyway.
John Rose
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
