Will Langford wrote:






installed it. I've worked with 4.x and 5.0... have yet to experience 5.1.


If you're current with updates, you're on 5.2,



So far I've been very very happy with CentOS in general. My 4.x box got
violated a couple times, even rooted heh . The 5.0 installation seems to
be doing much better. I've had some issues with getting up to date ant/java
stuff for WowzaMediaServer/Red5, but all in all, I'd say I'm really happy
with 5.0.

Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the
field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to


You can rely on this: it's broken. If security is unimportant, fine.
Otherwise, look at the nearest CentOS.


Just look at the number of updates that come out for any CentOS release,
especially those that hit several releases, for a rough guide on what
volume of updatea you might be missing.



hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be
CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been
rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).




--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

If you're current with updates, you're on 5.2,

Heh! *I'll throw yum at it, thanks!


Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the

field (not broke, dont fix it). *If we ever need to do a major update due to




You can rely on this: it's broken. If security is unimportant, fine. Otherwise, look at the nearest CentOS.

They're on closed networks with no direct internet connection. *I believe they also only expose ssh and a couple house-written daemons. *I do keep ssh manually patched from tar balls on the servers.

Undoubtedly, there's probably logged-in-user-rights-elevation problems, but if they get a login, the important bits of the system are already accessible so... meh.
-Will



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the
field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update
due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense,
it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)...
it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box
heh).

I suppose you are still running Windows 95 on desktops?


--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the field (not broke, dont fix it). *If we ever need to do a major update due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).



I suppose you are still running Windows 95 on desktops?


ROFL. *No . *95 *is* broken . *We have a mix of Win98 (two systems, for some stubborn legacy software), Slackware 12, Win2K Pro, 2K Server, 2K Advanced Server, 2003 Server Enterprise, and XP Pro. *I don't believe we have a Vista system anywhere yet.

99% of our workstation/desktops need Windows for either development or artsy tools. *We have a couple odd Windows based servers for some Windows software we have to communicate with in the field (gotta have local testing!). *Anything that handles a 'server' aspect in house is Slack. *3 or 4 years ago, I used to Slack + vmware... but... that was*clumsy*at best.

For the next distro on remote servers, CentOS will definitely be my choice (being most similar to existing layout). *Here in house, I might switch over to it as well during next upgrade bunch... just so that there's a cohesive layout between field and in house systems. *I've just been a die hard Slack fan for about 12 years, and it's hard to let go hehehe . *I've had some flexibility in that I'm the only linux-admin in house... but... that needs to change soon, I've got too many responsibilities. *CentOS seems like a perfect and natural progression. *It's been a breeze to administer remotely in a non-work environment, and breeds familiarity with the RH9 servers.

-Will

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Marco Aurelio wrote:

Sorry, I have no way of testing the centos install on my geode,
because it is an embedded board without disk I/O ports.


Thanks for looking though.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Will Langford wrote:

No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL
alternative, is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support
such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density
benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as
fitting with the nature of CentOS.


The not-so-simple answer is - because we can. Because there are no
support contracts signed with anyone. Because the benefits of a stable
platform like CentOS/EL can easily be applied to areas not supported by
upstream. Because there are people who want to run CentOS on their hardware.


So there is a lot of value add that happens within the CentOS setup that
a lot of people in diverse areas benefit from. And all of this happens
without the core distro being changed. eg. its possible to install
CentOS-4 on i586 hardware and run it there, even though upstream dont
support that. And there really *are* a lot of people using it on i586
hardware.


For a more specific example: a teacher in Scotland[1] was told they
could use any OS that the local authority's management software ran on.
The school has just recieved a few dozen eeepc's preloaded with windows
and rather than have them face issues with [spy,mal,bot,viri]ware he
wants to get Linux onto them instead. However, this $ManagementSoftware
that he needs to run either runs on Windows of RHEL.... Given that the
whole reason for him to look at Linux comes from that fact that they
cant afford the added cost of security tools on Windows, I doubt he can
afford to pay for RHEL either. CentOS, to me, looks like a perfect fit.
So why not ?


And there are many many more such examples, where people are using
CentOS in diverse areas, places that would not be supported by upstream
policy / code / contracts. Its one of the fantastic things about open
source, and the open mentality of Red Hat. Its one of the areas that I
dont think they get enough recognition for.


[1]: I have emailed him asking for his permission to quote his name,
establishment and $ManagementSoftware. Not had a reply back as yet.


--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel