On 01/28/2013 04:18 AM, John Hinton wrote:
On 1/26/2013 4:21 PM, James Freer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Reindl Harald<h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 26.01.2013 22:07, schrieb James Freer:
From what i have seen of fedora and centos in the rpm world the repos
are very much better in the debian world. To me the stability comes
from the distro and it's repos. Not being able to install Abiword or
yumex, having to spend time selecting options for repos to me simply
isn't worth it.
I've just installed a Slackware distro today and it's the best i've
ever tried in 6 years of using linux. It's speed, ease of installation
put's it in a league of its own. Or as their 'chilling warning goes'
Once you go Slack... you never go back!
have fun with a package management without dependency tracking
well, without the probles above are hidden, but not solved
a funny thing to play with - but laughable for production environments
which you maintain over many years without reinstall them ever
Like debian is improved on with derivative distros, when i said slack
i was referring to a derivative Salix... with package management
Gslapt which is very similar to synaptic. Hate to say it but imo very
much better than yum.
You've been a nice friendly crowd but centos isn't for me.
james
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
If I were doing a desktop setup, I would very likely not use CentOS
"EL". Remember E stands for Enterprise. What is an enterprise? What
expectations does an enterprise have? Our 'enterprise' is web facing
servers doing hosting and email mostly. In the hosting world, the users
get to put up their content. Most of the time this 'enterprise' solution
is great. I don't have to worry about upgrades that break things. I
would not know for instance if a PHP upgrade broke a website until the
client let us know. This might be the day it happened or it might be
months after it occurred. Yes, some folks don't actually look at their
website or maybe just one portion of their website for months. For
instance, maybe a photo album script. The enterprise life pretty much
avoids any of these issues. I can update something like Postfix without
worrying about it being a new version with a new config file. The
benefits to the 'enterprise' world are huge. Stuff very rarely breaks.
If I am developing for CentOS 'EL', I would likely use CentOS as my
desktop version. If my goal is watching movies, viewing images, doing
graphics work... I think I would at least look at the other distros for
something that stays current.
I use CentOS 6.x for my desktops for these enterprise long life
stability reasons.
I do want to see movies, work with image files etc, but I also need it
to work everyday,
just like it did the previous day. It is my workstation, it needs to do
all the basics reliably
year after year. So for me the upgrade path is use CentOS 5.x until 6.1
was released - at that time
the various repos usually have all the tools I need for a desktop
workstation.
I will use 6.x until 7.1 comes out and at that time upgrade my various
workstations - say every 4 years or so.
I guess the decision varies around the user either wanting to play with
the OS and related software
OR
use it to perform work reliably day after day.
CentOS is not bleeding edge. I rarely ever suffer a cut. Instead,
stability and reliability. If we do something to break email or web
services, our phones start ringing within 5 minutes. Those are not happy
customers.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
