[CentOS] Why shouldn't I expect more of CentOS/Linux?

Mon Aug 22 12:26:11 UTC 2005
Leonard Isham <leonard.isham at gmail.com>

On 8/22/05, Dave Gutteridge <dave at tokyocomedy.com> wrote:
> (Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?")
> 
> >Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows
> >2003 server.
> >
> >
> Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm
> speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with
> current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I
> don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes.
> 
> I'm not talking about diffeences in release times. I'm not surprised,
> nor bothered, that perhaps some software written for Linux kernel 2.4
> doesn't work on 2.6.
> 
> But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel, then why
> shouldn't they both be capable of running the same software?

The kernel is only the base that the distro is built on.

> I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little
> annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards
> was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where
> stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site
> carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was
> a reasonable candidate for consumer use.
> 
> But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one
> said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing
> was said along those lines.

 MUch more stable, btu that also means not quite as uptodate with the
latest that is out there.

> Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm
> Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors,
> *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh,
> well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of
> purposes". Where was this advice before?
> 
> In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals"
> section it says, among other things:
> *  easy maintenance
> * friendly environment for users and package maintainers
> Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not
> really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to
> come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class
> OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able
> to accomodate?
> 
> So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point, but if I have
> to change to another distro and again go through all the growing pains
> of learning how to use it as well I think I might run back to Windows
> world. I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of reasons, but
> I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux for that, that Linux for
> this" confusion that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out.
> 

I'm not an expert on dvd::rip, and it may not be that difficult to get
working. So don't take this as you can't do it.


-- 
Leonard Isham, CISSP 
Ostendo non ostento.