[CentOS] Recommendation for a Linux alternative to Centos - ATH9K disaster

Tue Jan 25 22:24:32 UTC 2011
Max Hetrick <maxhetrick at verizon.net>

On 01/25/2011 03:49 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:

> So what happens when one does the monthly tuesday patches for windoze
> and your security door controller running on SQLserver (micro$oft)
> fails. Back out all the patches - inform micro$oft - wait - wait some
> more - never get a response - call the security software vendor - aware
> of patch problem - no fix planned - buy the newest version. All this on
> a stable windoze XP prof. Dell box. $$$$ that's all that matters.

Windows aside, my point was that I see it far to often from people that 
just because something is "pretty" or has the "windozie" feel, they 
automatically dismiss it as a non-stable product.

Take Ubuntu for example, it has the prettiness and all the GUI tools, 
which is what attracts desktop users, but then you have those that say 
it's not stable and is too cutting edge because of that reason. I 
personally don't find it to be the case, but that's my experience with 
working with it. Every OS has an application, it depends on what you're 
trying to accomplish.

Running CentOS for normal user desktops didn't yield good results for 
me, where Ubuntu did and fit that purpose. Or running Windows XP as a 
server, where a Windows Server 2003/2008 instance should be. A lot of it 
is decision making for what is trying to be done. Too many are narrow 
minded about this kind of stuff, because they don't want to work with 
something different, or with what is out of their comfort zone.

My point was to not fall into that mind frame of "GUI" is bad or 
bleeding edge and doesn't work, and therefor is automatic crap. That is 
certainly not the case. I've seen GUI tools be refused to be used simply 
because they are GUI tools, and to me that's not 2011 type thinking.

Personally, I run CentOS on my laptop. I also like all the guifications, 
so I spend lots of time setting that GUI pretty feel up for myself. 
Since my employer runs a lot of RHEL/CentOS on servers, I want and like 
to have a system similar to use, but I also like my desktop eye candy too.

But I also run Ubuntu, SuSE, and Windows. If systems are properly 
applied to the appropriate applications, and set up and managed 
correctly, then I don't have problems running many kinds of operating 
systems. I don't fall victim to the religion of one operating system, I 
use many kinds to get my job done that I'm paid to do.

Again, just my 0.02 cents as I was backing Brian's comments about the 
divide between thinking "nice user interface" can't be said in the same 
sentence as a "stable" platform to use.