Nothing's perfect, but if you're looking for a happy medium, Oracle Enterprise Linux isn't bad. It's similar to CentOS - using RHEL as a base - but with an added layer of patches for issues that Oracle and its customers wanted fixed. Plus, it's dirt cheap compared to RHEL, and you don't have to haggle over advanced server vs. regular server vs. please I just want to run something cheap server. The OS is actually free to use and run, all you pay for is support, meaning you get the whole shebang up front and then can support what you want. Also, while Oracle's support isn't always great, Red Hat's isn't either (*cough*), so in cases like that cheaper's better. ;) If you're like us and wanted to run an "Enterprise" distro but didn't want to pay Red Hat's rather exorbitant prices, it's a nice option.
(I know this didn't answer your question directly, but hopefully it answered it indirectly.) Nicholas On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Neil Neely <[email protected]> wrote: > Has anyone on the list done a cost benefit analysis of Red Hat vs Cent OS? > > $WORK is a very cost conscious environment so I didn't ever do any serious > evaluation of Red Hat, but found I have really liked Cent OS. I'd love to > hear from anyone who has operated both and any insight you can share on this > topic. > > My desire to know more about this topic pre-dates the Drama over at > http://centos.org, however that drama has added motivation to ask the > question sooner rather than later. > > Thank you for your time, > > -- > Neil Neely > http://neil-neely.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
