[Centos] OT -- Inexpensive CentOS dedicated servers?

Mon Jan 10 20:04:38 UTC 2005
Troy Engel <tengel at fluid.com>

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. :)


Troy Engel | Systems Engineer
Fluid, Inc | http://www.fluid.com