| Thank you Nico, i think at this point Centos will be my next testing platform. Sounds good so far. >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> 12/14/10 7:36 PM >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Brunner, Brian T. <BBrunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > CentOS == RedHat. > CentOS has every bug that RedHat has. > CentOS has every bug fix that RedHat has. > When RedHat rolls out a new version (e.g. RHEL6.0) there is a lag of a few > months rolling out the CentOS release of the same version; for bug fixes the > lag is a few days. No. It's not. CentOS lacks a number of the clustering features available to RHEL, which are burdened by non-open-source licenses or patents. RHEL is also investing considerable money in development, which is helpful to support, especially if you need bleeding edge drivers (as someone just needed here for a new SAS controller), and for which you'd have to hope Google has an answer or you find someone like, well, *me* to bundle you a new version nad fix it for you. CentOS is also much, much faster to update once the updates are published, and to use OS image building tools like "mock", because of the distributed source repository rather than the burdensome DRM involved in the RHN registration tools. CentOS also publishes kernels with NTFS and similar support that RHEL has been leery of. > So, the price of RedHat is money, the price for CentOS is patience. > The product sold by RedHat is support, the product 'sold by' CentOS is > self-support. > The relative value of the two arises from your ability to support your > systems. And to cover your ass. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos |
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
