On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> In my case, I have essentially three choices:
>> 1.) Use SL 6;
>> 2.) Wait on C6;
>> 3.) Buy RHEL6.
>>
>> All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3.
>>
>> There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE.
>
> Individual/personal support is one thing, timely distro updates is
> something else. With limited experience, I'm beginning to think ubuntu
> LTS would be a player in the latter space. I've always been a fan of the
> coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
> in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
> painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. Admittedly, not as many
> locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed
> to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade.
>
Yes, Ubuntu has been quite good on that side of things,
8.04->8.10->9.04->10.4 but having a good dist upgrade process does not
cover enough of the other problems you get with Ubuntu 'LTS'. I, for
one, will jumping ship at the first opportunity.
Running 1 Hardy server and desktop and 1 Lucid desktop over here.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
