hello to all,
i am a newbie to CentOS. for my project work i need to have RHEL. so i searched Google for Open alternatives and found CentOS to be most popular.
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for developing softwares and also for watching Bruce Lee's movies ;-)
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
arnuld wrote:> > of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether> CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS> You simply cannot judge CentOS based on what you get with Fedora.Fedora is an open testbed for Upstream Vendor. They incorporate new technologies or new software versions. This doesn't stop people from using Fedora, you can make it stable if you want (depending on what you want to do with it).In my case, i own a consulting business and i'm not afraid of using CentOS. I have many servers in production and they do just fine. Sure, no OS is perfect and you have to know about the one(s) you support.Regards,Guy BoisvertIngTegration inc.
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for
IMHO if Fedora is base of RHEL then Ubuntu is base of Debian
i think Fedora is test bed for technologies which you will see in RHEL when they grow .. test bed isn not mean to be stable ...
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:17:00PM +0530, arnuld wrote:
hello to all,
i am a newbie to CentOS. for my project work i need to have RHEL. so i searched Google for Open alternatives and found CentOS to be most popular.
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for developing softwares and also for watching Bruce Lee's movies ;-)
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
Fedora is more "bleeding edge". RH takes development from Fedora and it eventually ends up in RHEL.
CentOS is basically RHEL build from the SRPM's made available by RH. The two should be functionally identical (stability wise as well).
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Ray
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means that if you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to upgrade the machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer. Depends on how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you want/need.
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me the latest and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle exists on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine once a year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop than a production server.
Regards,
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means that if you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to upgrade the machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
Automated deployment.
IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer. Depends on how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you want/need.
Depends on the requirements.
The OS is basically a commodity item nowadays. Whatever that is stable and performs can be dropped in especially if the software stack is small.
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me the latest and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle exists on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine once a year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop than a production server.
Whether a production server is easier to rebuild than a desktop really depends on how you go about doing it.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means that if you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to upgrade the machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
Automated deployment.
That still means you have to take it out of production to upgrade it.
IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer. Depends on how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you want/need.
Depends on the requirements.
The OS is basically a commodity item nowadays. Whatever that is stable and performs can be dropped in especially if the software stack is small.
The OS is the easy part to get setup. Kickstart is a wonderful thing. It is the software stack that invariably takes the most time. Especially when you consider that upgrading from one os version to the next will mean upgrading things like apache/PHP. Try going from PHP 4 to PHP 5 without changing any of your php code. It can be simple or hard depending on how complex your web sites are. Even more inportant try getting your customers to update their websites every 9-13 months. I would loose more customers than that could possibly be worth. I could go on and on with this type of thing. It just depends on our situation. If Fedora works for your servers have a good time but I am not in a situation where Fedora makes sense.
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me the latest and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle exists on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine once a year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop than a production server.
Whether a production server is easier to rebuild than a desktop really depends on how you go about doing it.
The real difference for me is my desktop serves 1 user, me. I can easially deal with things changing and maybe not working the exact way I want them to, until I get things sorted out. That is not reasonable for my customers. If things change I loose sleep and money.
Regards,
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means that if you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to upgrade the machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
Automated deployment.
That still means you have to take it out of production to upgrade it.
SPOF server need not apply. Wait...you said servers. I say SO? Done properly, the downtime for the upgrade would be minimal. Just a reboot. Just the same amount of downtime you get when the thing crashes not if not less considering that you first have to discover that it is down.
IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer. Depends on how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you want/need.
Depends on the requirements.
The OS is basically a commodity item nowadays. Whatever that is stable and performs can be dropped in especially if the software stack is small.
The OS is the easy part to get setup. Kickstart is a wonderful thing. It is the software stack that invariably takes the most time. Especially when you consider that upgrading from one os version to the next will mean upgrading things like apache/PHP. Try going from PHP 4 to PHP 5 without changing any of your php code. It can be simple or hard depending on how complex your web sites are. Even more inportant try getting your customers to update their websites every 9-13 months. I would loose more customers than that could possibly be worth. I could go on and on with this type of thing. It just depends on our situation. If Fedora works for your servers have a good time but I am not in a situation where Fedora makes sense.
Ah, the wonderful perl/php dependency problem. Like I said, depends on the requirements. There was a time when my mail servers which had no perl/php dependency would be running the latest Fedora Core while systems belonging to others would be running RH7.3...long after security updates for RH7.3 were stopped.
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me the latest and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle exists on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine once a year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop than a production server.
Whether a production server is easier to rebuild than a desktop really depends on how you go about doing it.
The real difference for me is my desktop serves 1 user, me. I can easially deal with things changing and maybe not working the exact way I want them to, until I get things sorted out. That is not reasonable for my customers. If things change I loose sleep and money.
Like I said, it depends on how you go about doing it.
Warren Young wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
Automated deployment.
Just because the OS upgrade installs correctly doesn't mean the system still works! If you've never broken a system by upgrading the OS, you haven't been computing long enough to be offering advice.
If you understand 'automated deployment' to mean just merely clobbering an installation with another Linux distro then I cannot help you. You can keep your barbed comment to yourself.
When one builds the tools and the infrastructure necessary for automated deployment, one does not leave out staging the deployment to a staging box/farm and testing for expected behaviour and nor does one not have a monitoring system to keep a tab on things.
Feizhou wrote:
If you understand 'automated deployment' to mean just merely clobbering an installation with another Linux distro then I cannot help you.
You're right, we are not using the same terms. I understand "automated deployment" to include things like yum.
one does not leave out staging the deployment to a staging box/farm
You're restricting yourself to a subset of the real world here.
Staging systems do not make sense everywhere. I cannot justify creating a staging system for my tax accountant client, where I installed a file server. There's only the one server. For your idea to work, before doing an OS upgrade, I'd have to have an identical spare machine just sitting around idle for me to test on. Tax accountants are CHEAP. I had a hard time talking the accountant into RAID. A duplicate testing box, too? Please....
Warren Young wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
If you understand 'automated deployment' to mean just merely clobbering an installation with another Linux distro then I cannot help you.
You're right, we are not using the same terms. I understand "automated deployment" to include things like yum.
yum upgrade or apt distupgrade? ;)
one does not leave out staging the deployment to a staging box/farm
You're restricting yourself to a subset of the real world here.
Of course. Tom said 'servers'. Of course, that does not necessarily mean a farm of servers but hey, if you have enough of them, you don't want to have to fight fires due to human error.
Staging systems do not make sense everywhere. I cannot justify creating a staging system for my tax accountant client, where I installed a file server. There's only the one server. For your idea to work, before doing an OS upgrade, I'd have to have an identical spare machine just sitting around idle for me to test on. Tax accountants are CHEAP. I had a hard time talking the accountant into RAID. A duplicate testing box, too? Please....
Single point of failure boxes need not apply. In this case, I don't even think you worry about security updates so whether it runs Centos or Fedora is not even an issue unless one of them proves to be unstable. Unless you like to have your accounts available on the Net...
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Experiences vary obviously. I get none of this on my two laptops running FC6. Haven't had a single problem since February, and I 'yum update' every day :/ And my laptops (each with 1.5 - 2 GB ram) are not running a cutdown selection of services either. They are running everything.. apache, mysql, postgresql, eclipse, zend platform, nfs, vnc, cups, etc. You name it, I'm running it.
DamianS wrote:
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Experiences vary obviously.
Yeah...but it leaves a rather lasting impression when it happens in the Linux class you are teaching and the only recourse was to reboot the stupid box and you have a completely identical boxes that do not share the same phenomenon.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
DamianS wrote:
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
Experiences vary obviously.
Yeah...but it leaves a rather lasting impression when it happens in the Linux class you are teaching and the only recourse was to reboot the stupid box and you have a completely identical boxes that do not share the same phenomenon.
Welcome to the world of computers!
Do you really think this type of problem is limited to Fedora? I have seen this type of behavior on various operating systems, including windoze. Fortunately my experience has been that Fedora specifically and *nix in general is less prone to this type of thing than say windoze.
As was said above Experiences vary! :-)
Regards,
On 6/12/07, Tom Diehl tdiehl@rogueind.com wrote:
Welcome to the world of computers!
Do you really think this type of problem is limited to Fedora?
NO, i have seen this problems in 2 distros: Fedora and Arch...
and both are bleeding edge.
I have seen this type of behavior on various operating systems, including windoze. Fortunately
my experience has been that Fedora specifically and *nix in general is less prone to this type of thing than say windoze.
you can not compare Windows with UNIX.. the DragonFlyBSD i used, never froze/hung for even single time... no bugs.. and even my 7 day friendship with OpenBSD was excellent.
On 6/12/07, Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
Yeah...but it leaves a rather lasting impression when it happens in the Linux class you are teaching and the only recourse was to reboot the stupid box and you have a completely identical boxes that do not share the same phenomenon.
DITTO
On 6/12/07, Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
YES..YES.. i had those problems too but they were what i say minor problems. i have posted the major problems in some other reply.
arnuld wrote:
On 6/12/07, Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input would not work all of a sudden...
YES..YES.. i had those problems too but they were what i say minor problems. i have posted the major problems in some other reply.
Well, desktop related problems aside, Fedora can be very useful in a server environment. Weird that others find Fedora great on the desktop but would never touch it with a ten foot pole for a server :P.
Around 09:21am on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 (UK time), Feizhou scrawled:
Well, desktop related problems aside, Fedora can be very useful in a server environment. Weird that others find Fedora great on the desktop but would never touch it with a ten foot pole for a server :P.
Although I find Fedora stable enough to use as a server, the frequency of having to upgrade to a new version means I find Centos a better choice. As others have said, upgrading every 4 years or so is much better than upgrading every year.
I use Fedora on all my workstations, however.
Steve
Steve Searle wrote:
Around 09:21am on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 (UK time), Feizhou scrawled:
Well, desktop related problems aside, Fedora can be very useful in a server environment. Weird that others find Fedora great on the desktop but would never touch it with a ten foot pole for a server :P.
Although I find Fedora stable enough to use as a server, the frequency of having to upgrade to a new version means I find Centos a better choice. As others have said, upgrading every 4 years or so is much better than upgrading every year.
It is certainly less of a headache. No need to build a system just to handle deployment (not that this is a bad thing...) once a year along with whatever you need if you do not have that many servers and therefore such a system would be overkill.
Around 12:47pm on Monday, June 11, 2007 (UK time), arnuld scrawled:
hello to all,
Hello
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
If you don't want people to take your email as offensive, then don't write offensive emails.
Steve
On 6/12/07, Miguel Medalha miguelmedalha@sapo.pt wrote:
You shoudn't have misplaced expectations about something and then say that it "sucks"...
(By the way, that expression "sucks"!)
OK..... i apologize if my sentence had hurt your feelings.from next time i will say "but i found Fedora unstable as compared to distros i have used"
will that be better?
arnuld wrote:
Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen.
I doubt that Fedora is any more "buggy" than any other Linux distro, since they all share so much code. That makes me wonder what your real complaint is. Some guesses:
1. You just don't like the Red Hat way of system administration. (yum, chkconfig, etc.) In that case, you won't like CentOS.
2. Your "bugs" are due to how often things on Fedora change, breaking other things. In that case, you'll probably love CentOS.
Each major release of CentOS lives for many years, overlapped with the previous release. So right now, with CentOS 5.0 just out, we're halfway through CentOS 4.x's lifetime. Each point release of CentOS 4.x only gathers patches to packages that shipped with CentOS 4.0. No new packages will make it into 4.x, and patches to existing versions are always preferred to wholly new versions. The only reason there are even formal releases is so people can deploy new machines without having to download everything that's changed since 4.0. When you have a system that's happily running CentOS 4.x, it's likely to keep running happily forever as long as you stay within the 4.x line.
The only time you have a problem will be when 4.9 is eventually released, which will be about the same time as CentOS 6.0. At that point, the Upstream Vendor will stop providing patches to 4.x, so you have to decide whether to stick with 4.9, move to 5.x, or move to 6.0. If it needs to keep running as-is, with minimal meddling, stick with 4.9 and manage any needed patches yourself. If you need some new technology but can't afford much risk, go with 5.x. And if you're prepared to completely rebuild the system if necessary in order to have maximum upside, go with 6.0. When risk can be high, it is very satisfying to have a set of choices like this.
ROFL. You admit to being a noob and then trying to tell us Fedora is a buggy distro? Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong - Fedora does NOT suck.
FC is generally a bleeding-edge distro, so some updates will break things. FWIW, since FC6 is nearing the end of line, it is very stable, whereas Fedora7 is experimental. Even though I use Centos on my desktops and servers, I use FC6 on my laptops. I do a yum update every day or two, and nothing has broken for the past few months at least. Even on Centos, some updates can break things. I remember evolution getting broken in centos (and RH) several months ago.
The difference between a stable system and an unstable one is quite often the person sitting in front of the keyboard and monitor. Please dont embarrass yourself in future by making public announcements like this until you have some reasonable experience under your belt.
On 6/12/07, DamianS dsteward@internode.on.net wrote:
ROFL. You admit to being a noob and then trying to tell us Fedora is a buggy distro? Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong - Fedora does NOT suck.
i used Fedora 2,3,4, & 6. it is OT so i will keep it short:
FC-2 - year 2005, my 1st *NIX distro for a long time Windows user. it ran fine, except i was too much buried into details of "can not find shared library" "XMMS" etc BUT that is not Fedora-bug, that is my newbish-ness :-)
FC-3: could not install it on my friends PC. installation broke in the middle. i put FC-2 on the same PC and it ran fine FC-4: i tried it on 4 PCs and it only installed on my PC and not on other 3 PCs, same like FC-3 installation broke in the middle or just after formatting the filesystem..
FC-6: i could install it but X does not display. i tried to change to another terminal using C-M-F3 (or F4,5 6 etc). but i could not change because Fedora FREEZES on using C-M-F(x). then i changed "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" as per my hardware but problem was not solved. then i tried FC-6 on my friend's PC and it installed only 2 CDs, it simply refused to install other CDs even though i have 2 backup CDs ready and those same CDs installed on my system.
on 2nd install, it installed 6 CDs but then it did not start any X, like my problem. on 3rd install, it installed 3 CDs only and refused others automatically.
i tried FC-6 on my 2nd friend's computer and it said something like this: "not enough RAM, this system has not at least 256 MB of RAM and hence will only do text-based install" and what the heck, that computer had 256 MB DDR RAM.
I do a yum update every day or two, and nothing has broken for the past few months at least.
i used Fedora because it had 6 CDs and all those compilers, GIMP and other stuff built-in. i needed that as i and my friends, being poor, did not have any internet connection. i got a new connection now from my Father's salary :-(, i am still jobless. 1 friend refused and said WindowsXP installs better because it does not refuse to install. other has got a job as "C lecturer" :-).
since we never had any internet so we never used Yum or update our system.
The difference between a stable system and an unstable one is quite often the person sitting in front of the keyboard and monitor. Please dont embarrass yourself in future by making public announcements like this until you have some reasonable experience under your belt.
i think that has do to do something with the "hidden secrets". on GUI based GNU distros "/etc/network/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0" and "ifconfig" are the "hidden-secrets". you try to make your system as easy as possible and hide system configuration behind GUIs and that leads to poor-managed system, my opinion only. i am Gentoo user now and find it is quite good as it does not try to hide anything behind GUIs like Sysconfig/WindowsXP and hence i do not have any major problems. some minor bugs are there but that is software, nothing is perfect.
i am not talking of Desktops, i still use Window Manager for my work. i am talking of system-configuration. when something breaks on Fedora then Fedora *promotes* using sysconfig "point and click" and gives you text-file as a choice. on Gentoo/Arch/CRUX you have text-files as only choices and it is much simpler to understand the system and reason of any breakage/problem with text-files.
i am the only one GNU user in my town. *no* one in my town used *NIX. i am the only one. whatever my friends or other people say about UNIX/Linux/GNU, GNU distro is the best thing that ever happened to me. well, i am no longer a newbie, using Linux from last 1.5 years and at least know what is "the UNIX effect" -> http://arnuld.blogspot.com/2007/02/sf-experience.html
arnuld wrote:
hello to all,
i am a newbie to CentOS. for my project work i need to have RHEL. so i searched Google for Open alternatives and found CentOS to be most popular.
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for developing softwares and also for watching Bruce Lee's movies ;-)
So RHEL is your fixed platform/environment?
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
Depends on what parts of it you are using imho.
On 6/12/07, Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
arnuld wrote:
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for developing softwares and also for watching Bruce Lee's movies ;-)
So RHEL is your fixed platform/environment?
to be *exact*, i want to have a job as "C++ and OOAD expert" specialized on UNIX or Linux platform and i was told in my posts on Linuxqestions.org and justlinuxforums.org that RHEL will look good on my resume rather than other distros because Red Hat is the biggest commercial vendor of Linux and most companies use it.i looked for RHEL alternative and found 2 to be better than others: CetnOS and Scientifc Linux. hence both will be an edge for me on my Resume as compared to, say, Gentoo/Arch or Debian.
the primary reason of using CentOS is only to get a better Resume as it i will say:
"I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS as my primary development platform"
i was also suggested Suse but you know the M$-Novell deal, can not use that.
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
Depends on what parts of it you are using imho.
that says you are an experienced man and that reply swept above my head :-(
arnuld wrote:
On 6/12/07, Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
arnuld wrote:
i have used Fedora, the base of RHEL and CentOS. Fedora is the one of the most buggy *NIX distro i have ever seen. since Fedora is the base of RHEL which is the base of CentOS, i just want to know whether CentOS is stable and reliable enough to work with. i will use CentOS primarily for developing softwares and also for watching Bruce Lee's movies ;-)
So RHEL is your fixed platform/environment?
to be *exact*, i want to have a job as "C++ and OOAD expert" specialized on UNIX or Linux platform and i was told in my posts on Linuxqestions.org and justlinuxforums.org that RHEL will look good on my resume rather than other distros because Red Hat is the biggest commercial vendor of Linux and most companies use it.i looked for RHEL alternative and found 2 to be better than others: CetnOS and Scientifc Linux. hence both will be an edge for me on my Resume as compared to, say, Gentoo/Arch or Debian.
C++ eh? Did you know that g++ has ABI issues even within minor versions?
If you want to specialize on a UNIX platform, I suggest that you look elsewhere such as OpenSolaris. NOTHING in Linux space will meet UNIX because we use GNU tools and GNU = GNU is NOT UNIX. Solaris will be much more similar to other UNIX OS like AIX, HP-Unix, Irix...
If you want to specialize on Linux...whichever distro you use would be very much the same for development except for perhaps packaging and system administration and the latter is not really that important now for developers...
the primary reason of using CentOS is only to get a better Resume as it i will say:
"I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS as my primary development platform"
Hmm...I do not know...I personally do not see how this is a particular benefit. I hold a RHCE certificate. Would you say that this would make my resume better?
NOTE: please do not take my email is as offense, to be true to you, Fedora just sucks :-(
Depends on what parts of it you are using imho.
that says you are an experienced man and that reply swept above my head :-(
That is just to say you cannot make a blanket statement about Fedora or any other Linux distro.
-
"Petr \"Qaxi\" Klíma" -
arnuld -
boisvert.guy＠videotron.ca -
DamianS -
Feizhou -
Miguel Medalha -
Ray Van Dolson -
Robert Becker Cope -
Steve Searle -
Tom Diehl -
Warren Young