On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> >> In my case, I have essentially three choices: >> 1.) Use SL 6; >> 2.) Wait on C6; >> 3.) Buy RHEL6. >> >> All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary >> costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor >> CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3. >> >> There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to >> remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, >> since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I >> fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm >> going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE. > > Individual/personal support is one thing, timely distro updates is > something else. With limited experience, I'm beginning to think ubuntu > LTS would be a player in the latter space. I've always been a fan of the > coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking > in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs > painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. Admittedly, not as many > locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed > to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade. >
Yes, Ubuntu has been quite good on that side of things, 8.04->8.10->9.04->10.4 but having a good dist upgrade process does not cover enough of the other problems you get with Ubuntu 'LTS'. I, for one, will jumping ship at the first opportunity. Running 1 Hardy server and desktop and 1 Lucid desktop over here. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos