[Gllug] Cost of RedHat vs Ubuntu desktop support

[John Edwards]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:27:12PM +0100, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2009, at 12:19, Hari Sekhon wrote:
>> IMHO, CentOS and Redhat can be used interchangeably and I do.
> 
> What's the benefit in running CentOS? Presumably one would only select  
> a RHEL-type distro with a very limited set of available packages if  
> one needed to deploy commercial applications which were only certified  
> on it? Surely Oracle and so on don't certify on CentOS too?

After a few seconds of thinking I came up with:

1) Learning RedHat.

2) Development systems.

3) Running non-free software built specifically for RedHat.

There may be other cases as well, such as organisations that had
existing know-how or software running on the old Redhat Linux and
did not want to move to the short life Fedora or a different disto.


> Is there another use case which I'm missing, where your sysadmins  
> don't spend all day building RPMs from source because you use a cut- 
> down backport-based distro with a tiny number of packages available,  
> and where using an OS whose only rationale is its support contract  
> without a support contract isn't batshit insane?

CentOS supply binary RPMs through yum in a similar way to Fedora,
so no need to spend any time compiling source.


-- 
#---------------------------------------------------------#
|    John Edwards   Email: john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk    |
#---------------------------------------------------------#
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20090707/224771e5/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug