[Gllug] CentOS for Production (CentOS 6.0 Vs 6.1 Vs 6.2)

Tethys sta296 at astradyne.co.uk
Sun Feb 26 11:10:41 UTC 2012

"Martin A. Brooks" writes:

>I personally despair of the use of CentOS in production.  It's all of
>Redhat's ancient versions of software, and not much of it, with none of
>the support.

Presumably you feel exactly the same way about Debian Stable and
Ubuntu LTS? They all exist because for many people, recent releases
are less important than having something that Just Works and can be
left running in production without the need for forced upgrades.

You can't exactly claim is has none of the support, either. True, you
don't get support in the sense that Red Hat won't look into individual
problems for you like they do for RHEL customers. But you know that your
packages are going to receive general bug fixes and security updates
for the next 7 years or more. That seems pretty reasonable to me, and
certainly better than using the latest Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/whatever.
Different people have different requirements, and it won't be right
for everyone. But I'd say CentOS makes a better server OS for most
than the alternatives.

>Invariably people head off to lolrpms.cx to download the latest version of

I've never met anyone that's needed to do that. Sometimes EPEL can
provide missing packages, but to be honest, I haven't found a need
to resort to that for more than a very small percentage of the CentOS
servers I've managed.

Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list