There's the rub isn't it. CentOS was the cheap alternative to RHEL, and RHEL was basically the "Enterprise" GNU/Linux you could sell to your boss as a well supported operating system. But neither are actually that good. They have poorer hardware support than Ubuntu, limited repositories even with EPEL, and aren't updated very often. They use standards that only RedHat has shown any interest in, and quite honestly even the latest CentOS has a "feel" like you're using something from ten years ago - only systemd gives the game away that it's supposed to be a modern distribution with modern software.
CentOS is everyone's go-to for a LAMP stack, but half of the standard, everyone uses them, PHP packages (ew, PHP, I know) aren't in any of the CentOS or EPEL repos. You're expected to use third party repos for everything serious, which undermines the entire point of the
At what point does the average sysadmin say "No, I'm using something that has practically universal support" instead? Canonical is not some fly by night company making a "friendly" GNU/Linux any more. And there are respected alternatives to Canonical too...
Red hat has poorer support than Ubuntu? Do you mean for laptops and random PC? For enterprise gear manufacturers make drivers for RedHat, some won't even run on the Debian derived distros. A business can buy a server and devices certified for Red Hat, and they'll work.
Would upvote this 100x if I could. Not that Ubuntu/Debian isn't used in enterprises but acting as if RHEL/CentOS aren't supported is foolish as can be.
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth."
-- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments
"People who liked CentOS" (Score:3)
There's the rub isn't it. CentOS was the cheap alternative to RHEL, and RHEL was basically the "Enterprise" GNU/Linux you could sell to your boss as a well supported operating system. But neither are actually that good. They have poorer hardware support than Ubuntu, limited repositories even with EPEL, and aren't updated very often. They use standards that only RedHat has shown any interest in, and quite honestly even the latest CentOS has a "feel" like you're using something from ten years ago - only systemd gives the game away that it's supposed to be a modern distribution with modern software.
CentOS is everyone's go-to for a LAMP stack, but half of the standard, everyone uses them, PHP packages (ew, PHP, I know) aren't in any of the CentOS or EPEL repos. You're expected to use third party repos for everything serious, which undermines the entire point of the
At what point does the average sysadmin say "No, I'm using something that has practically universal support" instead? Canonical is not some fly by night company making a "friendly" GNU/Linux any more. And there are respected alternatives to Canonical too...
Re: (Score:2)
Red hat has poorer support than Ubuntu? Do you mean for laptops and random PC? For enterprise gear manufacturers make drivers for RedHat, some won't even run on the Debian derived distros. A business can buy a server and devices certified for Red Hat, and they'll work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)