I've been reading back through the archives, really detailed, especially a select few people. And I promise, this is the last time I'm going to say this.
I think CentOS stands great on itself, and you don't need to define many things is dislike of other distro. I know many of us (at least us Americans) like to put things in terms of "versus" as much as we can. And I am too verbose, too "I see good in everything" and support so many different flavors that there's always something to dislike about what I say.
The sad this is that whenever someone comes in, and I try to explain where Fedora Core fits in, other people come back in and assert things on Fedora Core. I have shown how Fedora Core is built, just like Red Hat Linux before it. I have painstakenly _not_ put things in terms of "black'n white," but very detailed, very verbose statements. I don't do this because I'm defending any distro, but so people know what issues they will run into -- because it's not about choice of brand names (we already had that in the Windows world) -- but choice of the best technology how we can get it.
It might be "animal farmish" but we're all standing on the shoulders of others, and I don't dare say who's better than another. In fact, because of my neutrality and wiliness to see things from different perspectives.
IN A NUTSHELL ...
If you re-read through my posts, all I'm doing is stating _positives_ of solutions. I'm giving _options_ for people and letting _them_ choose. Many people can see that, and they don't mind that. I think those people who remind me of this.
But there are people who regularly see any positive statement I make as a negative to their agendas, for whatever reasons. There continues to be a revisionist history that people want to infer about one company, and my only mistake is to remind people of what I've said time and time again. And no, I'm not being "black'n white" -- I'm being positive from _all_ points. I'm not the one taking things so negatively, but showing the vantage points of the approach and technology, because they _do_ overlap.
One thing you will never see me do is take something and not understand why. I strive to understand why, what it affects and how that affects things. Again, I have explained many things, Fedora Core, enough times now that I know the regulars are sick.
But understand I am _not_ the only one in these threads, and some people seem to wait to point _until_ they come up -- and not bother to help people with other questions. They can't complain about me without being hypocrites in return.
Now I experimented with only helping people off-list at the end of last week and over the weekend. I think I'll go back to that for the sanity of everyone on the list. But really, I hope people do go back and read what I've posted -- and the fact that I'm _always_ naming _positives_ of solutions, and _giving_choice_.
I don't do this because I think I'm "better," I do it because I believe it's important to understand not only why, but how that affects everything else.
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 19:33 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote: <snip>
I think CentOS stands great on itself, and you don't need to define many things is dislike of other distro. I know many of us (at least us Americans) like to put things in terms of "versus" as much as we can. And I am too verbose, too "I see good in everything" and support so many different flavors that there's always something to dislike about what I say.
<snip>
It might be "animal farmish" but we're all standing on the shoulders of others, and I don't dare say who's better than another. In fact, because of my neutrality and wiliness to see things from different perspectives.
One distro is not BETTER than another ... they are just for different situations.
RHEL (as a distro) is more stable and longer lived than Fedora ... and it is based off of Fedora (or they are both based from Rawhide if you prefer). This is due mostly to the release cycle and the testing that happens on Fedora. Some people see Fedora as a test platform for RHEL ... and it is that. Red Hat would not assign resources to Fedora IF they we not going to roll that stuff into RHEL and make money. That doesn't make Fedora any less valuable as a distro, or make Red Hat bad.
Fedora is a very good distro when compared to other non-enterprise distros like SuSE Pro, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc. The only issue with these distros (Fedora included) is the support cycle / release schedule.
RedHat is (in my opinion) the best of the Enterprise Release Linux companies (Novell, RedHat, Mandriva) at making their enterprise Source available. Without RedHat's dedication to open source software, CentOS would not exist.
Where are the SuSE SLES or Mandriva Enterprise rebuilds? They don't exist .. because the SRPMS are not readily available for updates, etc.
BUT ... RHEL costs money (at least the SLA does).
So, CentOS has some advantages of Fedora (Community developed, Free) and RHEL (Long lifetime, stable code base, most 3rd party apps work). CentOS also has one major disadvantage ... no support.
Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
(Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
(Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
Great post. I agree 100%. Want to bash someone, bash Apple and how they like to sue anyone who even talks about their software, much less modifies it. Red Hat is a great company providing a great service. And, I might add, I think they benefit from it as well. Yeah, I don't pay for RHEL on my home computer, but prior to using CentOS I used SuSE. Now I use CentOS and guess what my recommendation is going to be the next time I'm consulting on a project that wants to buy a Linux distro? You guessed it probably. RHEL.
Preston
Preston Crawford wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
(Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
Great post. I agree 100%. Want to bash someone, bash Apple and how they like to sue anyone who even talks about their software, much less modifies it. Red Hat is a great company providing a great service. And, I might add, I think they benefit from it as well. Yeah, I don't pay for RHEL on my home computer, but prior to using CentOS I used SuSE. Now I use CentOS and guess what my recommendation is going to be the next time I'm consulting on a project that wants to buy a Linux distro? You guessed it probably. RHEL.
Given the current propensity for SCO to sue Linux vendors, it's somewhat amusing to me that I'm using FC2 to develop programs eventually targeted for SCO.
Has everyone read the white paper Oh, dear, I've lost the URL! I have a copy. Anyway, some fellow predicted that if Solaris, SCO et. al. didn't stop sueing each other and get together with some open source, then everyone would be moving to Linux.
Mike
Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Given the current propensity for SCO to sue Linux vendors, it's somewhat amusing to me that I'm using FC2 to develop programs eventually targeted for SCO.
As someone who dispises SCO for their Linux IP claims, I am also hopeful that SCO wins against IBM on several counts. It will make IBM think twice before hurting a good Linux company in the future. There are several more already in their crosshairs.
Has everyone read the white paper Oh, dear, I've lost the URL! I have a copy. Anyway, some fellow predicted that if Solaris, SCO et. al. didn't stop sueing each other and get together with some open source, then everyone would be moving to Linux.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the "powers that be" are still trying to leverage their UNIX products in a Linux world, and some of our so-called "best allies" are people we must watch.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
As someone who dispises SCO for their Linux IP claims, I am also hopeful that SCO wins against IBM on several counts. It will make IBM think twice before hurting a good Linux company in the future. There are several more already in their crosshairs.
Double-U Tee Eff?
If you were up on your groklaw, then you would know that SCO has very few "counts" in their case--the ones that don't keep changing. Further, I don't see any of their case currently presented as meritous. I suggest you take a closer look.
In fact, alot of their case is darned freaky and scary. GPL unconstitutional babble, crazy concept of derivative code, slander, libel, and more. If you have seen something I missed, then please let me know. I just don't see any portion of their case as worthy of "hoping they win on several counts".
Preston Crawford wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
(Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
Great post. I agree 100%. Want to bash someone, bash Apple and how they like to sue anyone who even talks about their software, much less modifies it. Red Hat is a great company providing a great service. And, I might add, I think they benefit from it as well. Yeah, I don't pay for RHEL on my home computer, but prior to using CentOS I used SuSE. Now I use CentOS and guess what my recommendation is going to be the next time I'm consulting on a project that wants to buy a Linux distro? You guessed it probably. RHEL.
When I am involved in a project, I've started recommending CentOS in every case where the target company has their own support mechanisms in place or is willing to live with "community support." For those that have more stringent requirements, I suggest RHEL4. For those that need to stick "carrier approved" boxes in CO's, I'll sometimes even recommend (shhhhhh) Slowlaris on a sparc box. It really depends on the application and environment. But in general, I agree. CentOS is perfectly suitable for many applications and environments. Redhat provides a rock solid base and the CentOS crew builds on that to make things painless to install and maintain. My hat's off to 'em!
Cheers,
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 05:55 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 19:33 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
<snip>
I think CentOS stands great on itself, and you don't need to define many things is dislike of other distro. I know many of us (at least us Americans) like to put things in terms of "versus" as much as we can. And I am too verbose, too "I see good in everything" and support so many different flavors that there's always something to dislike about what I say.
<snip> > > It might be "animal farmish" but we're all standing on the shoulders of > others, and I don't dare say who's better than another. In fact, > because of my neutrality and wiliness to see things from different > perspectives.
One distro is not BETTER than another ... they are just for different situations.
RHEL (as a distro) is more stable and longer lived than Fedora ... and it is based off of Fedora (or they are both based from Rawhide if you prefer). This is due mostly to the release cycle and the testing that happens on Fedora. Some people see Fedora as a test platform for RHEL ... and it is that. Red Hat would not assign resources to Fedora IF they we not going to roll that stuff into RHEL and make money. That doesn't make Fedora any less valuable as a distro, or make Red Hat bad.
Fedora is a very good distro when compared to other non-enterprise distros like SuSE Pro, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc. The only issue with these distros (Fedora included) is the support cycle / release schedule.
RedHat is (in my opinion) the best of the Enterprise Release Linux companies (Novell, RedHat, Mandriva) at making their enterprise Source available. Without RedHat's dedication to open source software, CentOS would not exist.
Where are the SuSE SLES or Mandriva Enterprise rebuilds? They don't exist .. because the SRPMS are not readily available for updates, etc.
BUT ... RHEL costs money (at least the SLA does).
So, CentOS has some advantages of Fedora (Community developed, Free) and RHEL (Long lifetime, stable code base, most 3rd party apps work). CentOS also has one major disadvantage ... no support.
Red Hat bashing is not good though. As I said before, without their outstanding commitment to open source the community would be in the same boat as we are with Mandriva and Novell.
(Not that either of those companies are BAD either ... they also provide code back into the chain and they do support open source as well. They just don't make it easy to clone their Enterprise Software)
Both of you guys!!! very well put! I think this msg says it all on this subject. I do feel the want to stress the fact that if you feel as I do that Centos serves us well and plays a huge part of what we do...knowing where the bulk of Centos comes from, then it would be really foolish and wrong (especially on the Centos list to be cutting on redhat or fedora for sure! If one would feel so strongly against them then he has no business here either, It's just wrong!
More constructively, well, I think Johnny does all he can to serve us all well, I have never used anything he has done here to my knowledge but he seems to always be here for us. But, I do think instead of trying to find fault w/what we got I do believe better just to make work that doesn't or improve on it. Just seems a better way to expend the energy.
Lastly, If I, in any of this seem aprehendsive I did not mean so and my apologies. I made my choice as most others here have. Centos! and I think most all will agree, the best choice, if we gonna live by it, then there is no place here to cut on any of the redhat fedora family. It just seems to make sense...to me anyway.
John Rose
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, rado wrote:
Lastly, If I, in any of this seem aprehendsive I did not mean so and my apologies. I made my choice as most others here have. Centos! and I think most all will agree, the best choice, if we gonna live by it, then there is no place here to cut on any of the redhat fedora family. It just seems to make sense...to me anyway.
John Rose
I agree. In the end, though, people have to remember the human factor. i.e. When someone comes on here distro-shopping and says "Fedora sucks", it's not very productive to get into philosophical debates about Fedora and where it fits into the pipeline that eventually lands up with us getting this wonderful free Operating System. It just ends up in arguments, as we've seen. I guess I try to put philosophy and politics aside and empathize with the fact that the user may be (in a somewhat unsophisticated manner) simply approaching the distro choice from the standpoint of a user. Nothing more. And from their perspective Fedora was bad and CentOS was good. Regardless of whether Red Hat deserves credit for their work, that's their user experience. So it's best to just point them in the right direction and avoid the philosophical discussions.
In the end, those of us who are here and using CentOS and really appreciate it obviously appreciate the work Red Hat has done to even make this possible. And I'd like to think (as stated earlier) that Red Hat gets something in return. They get one more systems developer/integrator familiar with their product (roughly) and very pleased with it and likely to recommend it to people in the future.
Preston
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Regardless of whether Red Hat deserves credit for their work, that's their user experience.
If you go all the way back to even the "vote for CentOS" thread, I have _never_ even suggested such. In fact, I differed with those who did.
100% of the reason why I even bring up the development history is the same reason I bring up anything else, to help someone avoid the assumptions and run into the same issues. Now I've done it enough times now, and I will avoid doing it again.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Regardless of whether Red Hat deserves credit for their work, that's their user experience.
If you go all the way back to even the "vote for CentOS" thread, I have _never_ even suggested such. In fact, I differed with those who did.
100% of the reason why I even bring up the development history is the same reason I bring up anything else, to help someone avoid the assumptions and run into the same issues. Now I've done it enough times now, and I will avoid doing it again.
I think it's helpful. Someone should write a "where do babies come from?"-style FAQ that deals with CentOS/RHEL/Fedora/Red Hat, etc. so people understand the virtuous cycle that is the constellation of Red Hat and RHEL-derived products.
Preston
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
I think it's helpful. Someone should write a "where do babies come from?"-style FAQ that deals with CentOS/RHEL/Fedora/Red Hat, etc. so people understand the virtuous cycle that is the constellation of Red Hat and RHEL-derived products.
I did that at the end of last year, although it was never completed. It also needs to be updated with more information as well as changes. Here is the link again to Section 3 ... http://www.geocities.com/thebs413/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html
As far as newer developments, wait for the book (although that could be awhile ;-).
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Chris Mauritz -
eli＠streetlampsoftware.com -
Johnny Hughes -
Mike McCarty -
Preston Crawford -
rado