I find that in places where I don¹t have latest and greatest hardware,
CEntOS makes a much better Desktop OS than Ubuntu. If all I am doing is
running a web browser for the most part, I use CEntOS.
-- cwebber
On 1/19/11 7:13 AM, "John Hodrien" <J.H.Hodrien@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> CentOS would likely only be used as a desktop OS by people who also run
>> servers and like everything to be the same. They all assemble
>>approximately
>> the same set of upstream packages, though, so it is possible to make
>>them
>> all do the same things with varying amounts of work in finding current
>> packages that might be missing in the base distribution.
>
>I do think CentOS gets unreasonably knocked as a desktop OS. I definitely
>don't use it on desktops *because* I run it on servers.
>
>All the advantages of long release cycles apply to desktops. Despite
>often
>thinking otherwise, many users require relatively few packages to be the
>latest shiniest, so running a bleeding edge distro isn't really needed.
>Even
>then, a reasonably amount of software can end up being commercial, where
>EL5
>is currently better supported than any other linux release. Where users
>do
>have requirements that diverge from the base OS, it's probably a good
>idea for
>that to be satisfied out of the main OS tree anyway, as that lets you
>satisfy
>local requirements while keeping the core identical across the board.
>
>jh
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
