[CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

Thu Nov 10 14:18:43 UTC 2011
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

Bob Hoffman wrote:
> This is  a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
> thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model.
> Forgive the length, but I had to share.
Thank you, very much, for the details (not that I was planning on going to

Two things:
> 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not
> and will not use a basic vid driver install
> which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is
> really fun.

What's wrong with text mode? I certainly prefer it. Oh, and those menus
came along 2-3 years later.... <g>
> 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND
> still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it
> yet. This makes chkconfig and things like
> that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run,
> etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and
> read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.

Yes. Just like the grub ubuntu uses, that is a bloody script, and a .d
directory *full* of files, rather than the clean, simple menu with

I don't want to have to read scripts to find out how to configure
something, or make it do something. A README, at the very least, should
have that (not "here's the license, go figure out everything else).

>From what I've been reading on /., along with gnome 3 and "unity", that
wing of the F/OSS movement, presumably in an effort to go head-to-head
with M$ and Apple, are going the same way they are: here's how you do it,
don't try to do it any other way, and we'll make it *REALLY* hard to do it
any other way.