On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/20/2011 05:02 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with RH for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable binaries for free.
Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it is better to pay for real RH instead of oracle linux..
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched their binaries... Personally, I think everyone would be better off today if they had turned their back on anything RH-related the day they stopped permitting redistribution of their binaries among the community that created them and made them usable in the first place. I was too lazy to change and Centos made it look reasonable to leave things approximately the same. But, now that RH is putting the screws on anyone who doesn't pay up it is probably time for anyone who cares about free software to rethink things.
exactly. Nothing against Centos but I've deployed my last RH based box. It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
I don't get it, why so radical?
Why not go SL and maintain the same methodology?
Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like RHEL.
So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL might be more similar in tool set then Ubuntu.
- aurf