[KLUG Members] CentOS and CAOS anyone?

[Adam Tauno Williams]

> Has anybody tried the Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone, CentOS, for a server?

I've only read some very superficial reviews of it.

The purpose of RHEL is that it is "suported", CentOS is not, so I just
don't see the point.

You buy RHEL or SLES so you can contact someone if there is a problem;
and that someone has (a) IQ > 100 (b) answers the phone and (c) doesn't
suggest rebooting.  Thats how come they cost $$$, because wet-ware is
always way more expensive to program, maintain, and administor than any
combination of hardware and software.

Don't confuse "maintained" and "supported".  They are not the same
thing.

> >From what I have read, it sounds like a reasonable alternative for small
> businesses that can't afford RHEL, but want a well maintained distro.

I use SuSe LINUX, the regular version, on servers (real servers, the
rack mount kind that are black and say IBM on the front) which spawn
thousands of worker processes.  It works, and I accept that I am the
first and last line against catastrophe.  Something like CentOS doesn't
move that line - although it may be a great product, I just don't agree
that it is a replacement for the likes of RHEL or SLES.