Preston Crawford wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>
>>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)
>>
>>
>
>Great post. I agree 100%. Want to bash someone, bash Apple and how they
>like to sue anyone who even talks about their software, much less
>modifies it. Red Hat is a great company providing a great service. And,
>I might add, I think they benefit from it as well. Yeah, I don't pay for
>RHEL on my home computer, but prior to using CentOS I used SuSE. Now I
>use CentOS and guess what my recommendation is going to be the next time
>I'm consulting on a project that wants to buy a Linux distro? You
>guessed it probably. RHEL.
>
>
When I am involved in a project, I've started recommending CentOS in
every case where the target company has their own support mechanisms in
place or is willing to live with "community support." For those that
have more stringent requirements, I suggest RHEL4. For those that need
to stick "carrier approved" boxes in CO's, I'll sometimes even recommend
(shhhhhh) Slowlaris on a sparc box. It really depends on the
application and environment. But in general, I agree. CentOS is
perfectly suitable for many applications and environments. Redhat
provides a rock solid base and the CentOS crew builds on that to make
things painless to install and maintain. My hat's off to 'em!
Cheers,
