|
|
|
| which redhat distro is better? fedora? ou centos?
gdm
| |
| Stephen King 2005-04-23, 5:46 pm |
| gdm wrote:
> which redhat distro is better? fedora? ou centos?
>
> gdm
>
Fedora is cutting edge and is used as the testing ground for RHEL.
Centos, on the other hand is a freely distributed version of RHEL 3 (4
should be out soon).
I use Centos for my business server and Fedora Core 3 for testing.
SKing
| |
|
| Stephen King wrote:
> gdm wrote:
>
> Fedora is cutting edge and is used as the testing ground for RHEL.
> Centos, on the other hand is a freely distributed version of RHEL 3 (4
> should be out soon).
>
> I use Centos for my business server and Fedora Core 3 for testing.
>
> SKing
I've never used Centos before but I'm curious. Where does one go about
getting updates for centos?
Me.
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2005-04-23, 5:46 pm |
| On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:52:48 -0400, me wrote:
> Stephen King wrote:
>
>
> I've never used Centos before but I'm curious. Where does one go about
> getting updates for centos?
>
> Me.
For Whitebox there are update servers, I'm sure CentOS has update servers
also. They use yum just like Fedora Core.
The choice of FC versus RHEL/Whitebox/Centos really comes down to how
often you want to upgrade your OS. Even though FC is described as a test
platform it's very solid, you aren't likely to ever experience a crash. FC
gives you the latest of everything but at the expense of being a very
short life cycle product. FC is replaced a couple of times a year and any
particular release is only supported for a year. If you use FC you are
committing to doing an upgrade at least once a year. If you want to run
the same OS for five years then you should pick RHEL/Whitebox/Centos. RHEL
has a five year support cycle so you can install it and be assured that
there will be bug fixes and security patches for a very long time. If you
are using any commercial software it has the advantage that all of the
commercial vendors will guarantee that their product works on RHEL. With
FC you are on your own. Chances are you can make anything that runs on
RHEL run on FC but you might have to hunt down a bunch of libraries to
make it work.
| |
|
| General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:52:48 -0400, me wrote:
>
>
>
>
> For Whitebox there are update servers, I'm sure CentOS has update servers
> also. They use yum just like Fedora Core.
>
> The choice of FC versus RHEL/Whitebox/Centos really comes down to how
> often you want to upgrade your OS. Even though FC is described as a test
> platform it's very solid, you aren't likely to ever experience a crash. FC
> gives you the latest of everything but at the expense of being a very
> short life cycle product. FC is replaced a couple of times a year and any
> particular release is only supported for a year. If you use FC you are
> committing to doing an upgrade at least once a year. If you want to run
> the same OS for five years then you should pick RHEL/Whitebox/Centos. RHEL
> has a five year support cycle so you can install it and be assured that
> there will be bug fixes and security patches for a very long time. If you
> are using any commercial software it has the advantage that all of the
> commercial vendors will guarantee that their product works on RHEL. With
> FC you are on your own. Chances are you can make anything that runs on
> RHEL run on FC but you might have to hunt down a bunch of libraries to
> make it work.
I've been using Fedora for a variety of projects ever since FC1 so the
usual upgrade cycle doesn't bother me much.
The reason I ask is that I'd like to try CentOS but I'm worried the
updates might be released significantly slower than for FC or RHEL. Do
you find the updates to be pretty much on time or is there a delay
before things hit the CentOS servers?
Me.
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2005-04-24, 2:51 pm |
| On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:51:04 -0400, me wrote:
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>
> I've been using Fedora for a variety of projects ever since FC1 so the
> usual upgrade cycle doesn't bother me much.
>
> The reason I ask is that I'd like to try CentOS but I'm worried the
> updates might be released significantly slower than for FC or RHEL. Do
> you find the updates to be pretty much on time or is there a delay
> before things hit the CentOS servers?
>
> Me.
I don't use either of these on a regular basis so I can't comment on the
speed of patch release. I have one Whitebox installation which I used to
install the Xilinx tools which won't install on FC3 although they run fine
there once you've gotten them installed. There were updates available for
Whitebox which is how I know that they have them and what the mechanism
they use is. CentOS got out the RHEL 4 release considerably faster then
Whitebox did so that would be an indicator that they are pretty
responsive. However with either there has to be a lag of some sort because
they have to wait for Redhat to release the sources for the patches before
they can build them. If you want to run RHEL and you need the patches ASAP
then you should run a licensed copy of RHEL. The cost of running a clone
is the lag time before patches are available.
|
|
|
|