Tom Diehl on 12 Aug 2004 03:07:03 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[PLUG] Re: RH Advanced Server


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Kevin McAllister wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> > Sounds good.  I'm not the original poster, but, what are the critical 
> > benefits of choosing CentOS over Fedora or Whitebox?
> 
> CentOS or Whitebox is a tossup, they are both supposed to be the same 
> thing, download the SRPMS of RHEL remove the commercial stuff and 
> compile it up.  You would have to pick between them based on how you 
> liked the people running the projects.

There is also Tao and I think Fermi Labs also has something available.
If you have a little money to spend you can get the real thing minus the
support and a few server packages for under $100.00 from Staples, Best Buy,
etc. That also gets you a year of updates. It all depends on whether you
really need the real thing or not.

> Any RHEL distro vs. Fedora there will be a significant difference.  The 
> RHEL will be tested and deemed stable versions of software by RedHat 
> themselves.  Where Fedora is supposed to be more of a community effort, 
> you will run into more cutting edge stuff, where RHEL2.1 is based on 
> redhat 7.2 or 7.3 and I believe RHEL3.0 is based on the 8.0 version. 

Actually RHEL 3 is based more on RHL 9 and FC1. A very large portion of the 
packages in RHL 9 will build and run on RHEL 3. Some of them even carry the
same version numbers.

FWIW Fedora core 1 is about at its EOL, FC2 still has time left and has a 2.6
kernel and selinux, although selinux is disabled by default. As was stated
above it is bleeding edge. FC is also a test bed for features that may one
day end up in RHEL. Selinux and the 2.6 kernel are prime examples of this.

> Also the EL  kernels may have some patches that the fedora kernels don't 
> have.  Although if you ever pulled open any of the RedHat/Fedora kernel 
> SRPMS you will know that they all apply a significant number of patches 
> to the kernel.

The FC kernels and RHEL kernels are following the same paths as closely as
possible. At least that is what Dave Jones has said.

Tom
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug