[Centos] OT -- Inexpensive CentOS dedicated servers?
Troy Engel
tengel at fluid.com
Mon Jan 10 20:04:38 UTC 2005
Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>
> I would say the deciding factor should be whether or not you need support.
> If you do, use RHEL ... if you don't, use CentOS. RedHat doesn't charge
> for the OS, only for support. If you aren't going to use the support, it
> would be silly to pay for it.
You can't overlook this fact, though, even if you don't need the
support. Back In The Day(tm), people would choose
Sun/Oracle/BEA/NSEnt-httpd combo because it looked good to venture
capitalists, so in turn got them more funding. As a client services
based company, we saw this a lot - corporate decision are not always
based on technical merit.
When dealing with a corporate client, there's a sense of security and
warm fuzziness that is received when they choose/use/approve RHES for
their project. That itself can sell them on using Linux over Windows in
a major way, which is really what we're after at the end of the day - we
technically could use Debian (sic), it's all linux.
We definitely get our clients into RHES as the platform, but internally
we use CentOS here and there - there's no problem using both, you just
have to fit the need. By choosing RHES, our clients funnel money
upstream to RedHat which helps CentOS indirectly stay alive, by having
those SRPMS so readily released/available. Which in turn helps us stay
alive, in a small way. :)
-te
--
Troy Engel | Systems Engineer
Fluid, Inc | http://www.fluid.com
More information about the CentOS
mailing list