[CentOS] Getting ready for CentOS 5.4

Mon Mar 30 04:16:57 UTC 2009
Ray Van Dolson <rayvd at bludgeon.org>

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:56:56PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:25:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> Neil Aggarwal wrote:
> >>> Les:
> >>>
> >>> Honest question, not intended to be smart assed in any
> >>> way:
> >>>
> >>> Why have you not moved to SL since they have released the
> >>> update before CentOS?
> >> If I liked changing things on a whim, I wouldn't be using enterprise 
> >> type distributions in the first place.  And since this '5.4' discussion 
> >> is about the future - it's sad but I don't any more faith in the future 
> >> of research funding than in volunteer efforts.
> >>
> >> But philosophically, it just seems wrong that the rebranding work has to 
> >> be done at all, much less multiple times.
> > 
> > Maybe so.  But a much more difficult problem to overcome, and not one
> > that's likely to change.
> > 
> > RH has $$, and $$ are a target for lawsuits.  RH needs to be able to
> > make it clear they are *not* CentOS.
> > 
> > Just the world we live in.  Honestly, RH doesn't even have to make it
> > as easy as they do (see SLES).
> So what would be the down side to just walking away from everything 
> RH-related now that Ubuntu has a free alternative with long term 
> support?   I thought perhaps when I mentioned it earlier there would be 
> a flurry of responses pointing out functional deficiencies but so far 
> there have been none.   I would never have started using RH in the early 
> days if it had not been freely redistributable.  Now the clones are 
> better than nothing, but it still seems wrong.

If it makes sense for your situation, by all means do what's best for

I've layed out my reasons for sticking with RH (and Fedora, CentOS):

- RH is *the* corporate standard.  We don't interview people looking
  for Ubuntu skills -- it's always RH.  I don't see that changing
  anytime soon either.
- Related to the above: RH employs many of the top Linux development
  people.  If my business needs something fixed, I have confidence (and
  they past experience) that they will be able to help me.  As more of
  a "feeder" Distro, I don't have this same confidence with Ubuntu
  although I'm sure they have many talented folk.  They rely a lot more
  on Fedora/Debian to do their development heavy lifting.

So, for me, the RH way is the way that pays the bills.  And, while
philosophically you may not like their redistribution restrictions, but
I certainly like their philosophical approach to contributing back to
the community.  A huge effort is made by RH to get code upstream so it
benefits Fedora, RH, SLES, Ubuntu -- everyone.  Not something Ubuntu is
known for.

So if you need a more philosophical reason, there's a pretty good one.

Just my $0.02.  I've always been a proponent of use the best tool for
the job however; so if Ubuntu fits your needs better?  By all means use