Re:Centos 6 released
by rdtsc on Sunday July 10, 2011 @10:30PM
(#2749230)
But now that you know about it do you care really what it is called, if it is just a binary compatible RHEL distro. If CentOS disappeared tomorrow you could just run your software on SL, or buy a RHEL license. I certainly do not want to trivialize the work that CentOS and SL do (and it is a lot of work to maintain these distros) but when the main point of the distro is to be a binary clone of another distro, brand names become meaningless. We could switch from SL to CentOS and then go back. It wouldn't be that hard. If another clone appeared tomorrow we could switch to that. The only criteria is reliability of release and promptness.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Centos 6 released
by ghshephard on Monday July 11, 2011 @03:27AM
(#2749816)
The "Brand" CentOS says to me "This distribution is binary identical to RHEL - you can do all your development on it, and deploy hundreds of servers running it - and be able to run all of the software qualified for RHEL. You can also write, and test, software on this platform, and have your _customers_ then run that software on their instances of RHEL"
I don't have that level of faith in SL's distro, it will probably take a year or so of observation before I would consider it a potential replacement for CentOS.
Even convincing engineers, and developers, that they could develop on CentOS and have some assurance that their code would run fine on RHEL without extensive regression testing was a challenge.
And even with all this - Oracle won't provide you support if you run their RHEL qualified Database Server on CentOS.
I guess this is just a long way of saying, I _don't_ know that SL is a binary compatible RHEL distro, but I do know that about CentOS. That's what the brand name does for me.
Re:Centos 6 released
by justincormack on Monday July 11, 2011 @04:41AM
(#2749950)
Hardly anyone will provide you with support for commercial products under Centos. You just have a reasonable confidence.