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

Mon Aug 22 13:37:54 UTC 2005
John Hinton <webmaster at ew3d.com>

Dave Gutteridge 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 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.
>
> 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?
>
Dave,

Sounds like you're just experiencing the difficulties with Linux in 
general. Complain to your 'hardware and software vendors' for not 
supporting Linux.

Where to start.....

CentOS's main purpose is to be a (as close as possible) clone of a 
'major enterprise linux' distro. Information about what CentOS is 
designed to do or not do would be better researched at redhat.com, as 
CentOS is really not 'designed' by the CentOS team beyond the above 
statement.

Linux has come a LONG ways towards more main stream coverage of various 
hardware with software and drivers to do things like enable printers or 
dvd/cd recorders. But, that coverage is still extremely sparse in 
comparison to Windows. Almost 100% of computer devices have support 
written for Windows... again... complain to the manufacturers as they 
are the ones who need to hear "I didn't buy your product because it has 
no available driver for a Linux OS, but instead bought 'other product' 
because support was available". The bucks talk, but with the competitive 
market in computer hardware, there is not a lot of money for writing 
drivers, so it will take a LOT of people complaining.

I actually think we Linux folks, are viewed as a bit of a fringe group 
by most of the manufacturers. :)

As for this OS being server only.... well, the server side of things is 
extremely strong, due to the fact that it is a far superior OS in 
general, and need drives availability. Many many many people out there 
join projects to make one or more things great and then keep it great 
for the Linux OS. Server packages are often times the best in the world, 
as the critical need is obvious.. therefore the application is 
written/maintained.

"Enterprise OS" is also system critical and many businesses have adopted 
the use of Linux as it is a world class OS. Businesses however rarely 
are bothered with getting music to play, having the latest greatest 
video driver, having a DVD player/recorder... et. al. But instead, will 
choose a printer with 'known support' in Linux... not fight to get what 
they have working.... and in trade off for the limitations, they get a 
stable OS. Stability over all else. Many Linux machines will function 
for years without a reboot... I remember a few years ago, I think it was 
W2K server.. not sure... had a bug in it that forced a reboot at around 
180 days. M$ 'patched' it, but was unable to determine if the patch 
actually fixed the problem because they couldn't keep a machine up long 
enough to test it.

If you want to go Linux, you will be limited on one hand, but wide open 
on the other. Stability is suberb, hardware support limited. If going 
Linux, one should consider each device purchased, perhaps hit a mailing 
list to check if others are using this or that. Choose things that work. 
Yes, that is limiting. Digital cameras, printers, scanners.... so many 
peripherals... need to be researched before purchase.

Many of the drivers available are because someone out there was bent on 
using 'this device under Linux'. And was good enough and devoted to the 
device, so wrote a driver for it. Some of these are great, some not so 
great, some get you by and some very closely emulate those provided by 
the manufacture for the Windows environment. Unless one wants to be 
writing drivers, they should reseach the availability of drivers for a 
product before purchase.

Me? I have applications, some extremely expensive, that only run under 
Windows. I'm creating this email from a Winders box. But 'all' of my 
system critical machines are Linux boxes. I find I can share or 
integrate Linux into other environments readily. And not to start a 
flame war here (please), I have this underlying feeling that I would 
just as soon that Windows stay the mainstream OS, as whoever is on top 
gets picked on the most.. folks looking for security issues... ways 
in... etc. Linux is however 'tested' right from the source literally, as 
anyone can take a look at the source code to try to break in.. We might 
all be scared to death if Windows source was made publicly available. By 
nature, quality open source products are subjected to more scrutiny, 
which in theory leads to higher standards.

We are not mind readers.. please just ask the questions. We wouldn't 
know to tell you Linux is strong in server areas as a for instance. 
Don't assume.. just ask beforehand. And yes, frustrations occur, but 
with persistence, one learns to work within the system and comes out on 
the other side with a system that is far superior to a Windows machine, 
if the 'end goal' for a system can fall within those limits.

Aside from stability, a big bonus, is (mostly) free software (yes, some, 
such as Oracle would need to be licensed). Depending on your system and 
needs, you could realize savings of hundreds to tens of thousands of 
dollars per machine and in many cases have the very best available 
software designed specifically for this OS.

And support..... try to get answers to these types of questions in the 
Windows environment. Whew!!!!! Some of the best of the Linux community 
are right here on this list. Hold your head up.... look at your end 
goal... ask if they can be obtained... and decide if it can be done 
using Linux. One flavor vs. another rarely has great advantages as far 
as device support is concerned, but I can say that CentOS does follow 
almost identically an Enterprise Class OS which has in the past been 
extremely stable, yet conservative (yes, conservative sometimes to the 
point of frustration)... but an OS one can absolutely rely upon.

Best,
John Hinton