Linux.com

quaid

quaid

  • Linux.com Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Member Since: 05 May 09
  • Last Logged In: 21 Jun 12

Latest Posts

Posted by
Topic
Post Preview
Posted
  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [b]gavin2u wrote:[/b] [quote]I have using CentOS instead of RHEL for 2 years. Free, OR DIE. :P[/quote] Hee hee, never met anyone who was wiling to die for no-cost. ;-P
    Link to this post 04 Jul 09

    gavin2u wrote:

    I have using CentOS instead of RHEL for 2 years.

    Free, OR DIE. :P

    Hee hee, never met anyone who was wiling to die for no-cost. ;-P

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [b]woboyle wrote:[/b] [quote]You can purchase support contracts from Red Hat for CentOS now.[/quote] This is the second time in this thread you have asserted this. Can you provide some supporting information? URL? I'm certain that Red Hat is not selling support subscriptions for CentOS systems. The whole idea of support and services for RHEL is that they are the certified binaries built on Red Hat infrastructure. The CentOS binaries are rebuilt, they are not the same as the Red Hat binaries. [quote]Also, I know a number of major software vendors in the financial trading markets (stock and options exchanges) that run CentOS on their trading/quoting servers that are co-located at the exchanges, such as NYSE, CBOE, etc. Personally, I think the choice is 6 of 1 and a half dozen of the other. So, a lot of the decision is going to be related to executive "comfort level".[/quote] This also you asserted before without supporting information, and [url=http://www.linux.com/community/forums?func=view&catid=9&id=160&limit=6&start=6]I replied there as well[/url]. If those businesses want to move themselves farther downstream from being able to affect the direction of the technology they rely upon, that is up to them. I sure hope they know what they are doing, and I mean much, much beyond, "Can your Linux admins support this system without calling Red Hat?" But it is hardly equivalent (6 of 1, 1/2 dozen). Anyone who recommends what you get from Red Hat and what you get from the CentOS community as equivalent is giving bad advice. I'm positive the CentOS community agrees -- they often tell people who want 24x7 instant support to stop hammering the community and go get a subscription from Red Hat.
    Link to this post 20 Jun 09

    woboyle wrote:

    You can purchase support contracts from Red Hat for CentOS now.

    This is the second time in this thread you have asserted this. Can you provide some supporting information? URL?

    I'm certain that Red Hat is not selling support subscriptions for CentOS systems. The whole idea of support and services for RHEL is that they are the certified binaries built on Red Hat infrastructure. The CentOS binaries are rebuilt, they are not the same as the Red Hat binaries.

    Also, I know a number of major software vendors in the financial trading markets (stock and options exchanges) that run CentOS on their trading/quoting servers that are co-located at the exchanges, such as NYSE, CBOE, etc. Personally, I think the choice is 6 of 1 and a half dozen of the other. So, a lot of the decision is going to be related to executive "comfort level".

    This also you asserted before without supporting information, and I replied there as well.

    If those businesses want to move themselves farther downstream from being able to affect the direction of the technology they rely upon, that is up to them. I sure hope they know what they are doing, and I mean much, much beyond, "Can your Linux admins support this system without calling Red Hat?"

    But it is hardly equivalent (6 of 1, 1/2 dozen). Anyone who recommends what you get from Red Hat and what you get from the CentOS community as equivalent is giving bad advice. I'm positive the CentOS community agrees -- they often tell people who want 24x7 instant support to stop hammering the community and go get a subscription from Red Hat.

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [b]woboyle wrote:[/b] [quote]If you are familiar with the CentOS / Red Hat relationship, you probably wouldn't say so much. It is not just built from the SRPMS.[/quote] Can you clarify what you mean by these statements? [quote]FYI, CentOS is widely used in the financial industry for the servers that run many co-located trading platforms used by the market makers at the NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOE, and other major exchanges world wide.[/quote] Yep, I'm sure it is, as is RHEL itself. I recall when NYSE switched to RHEL: [url]http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1316018,00.html[/url] [quote]These are systems where high reliability is essential since a few seconds of downtime for algorithmic derivatives trading can run up loses of million$. A company I used to work for developing risk analysis software develops, manages, and sells as a service the quoting/trading/hedging software used by most of the market makers and professional options traders at the CBOE. They migrated all their servers to CentOS last year.[/quote] Actually, I'm a bit surprised at this. Considering that the RHEL technologies seem to be at the core of that business, why would they move themselves farther downstream? Perhaps they are embedding their own developers directly in the upstreams that matter to them? Or they don't understand what open source truly is about and why it is better software? My experience is that the financial services companies are interested in supported software, and some of them also understand the open source model intimately. For example, JP Morgan decided to open their code to gain the advantage of an open source collaboration and an open standard ([url]http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/08/amqp-progress[/url]). The resulting open standards working group ([url]http://amqp.org[/url]) was formed by AMQP's originator, John O’Hara, and when he wanted that group and mission to grow, he got Red Hat involved. From the reference implementation ([url]http://qpid.apache.org[/url]) to Red Hat MRG ([url]http://www.redhat.com/mrg/[/url]), Red Hat been involved in making this open source project successful. Could John O'Hara have turned to the CentOS community for that work? Perhaps. Instead, I suspect that community would have told John to talk with Red Hat.
    Link to this post 23 May 09

    woboyle wrote:

    If you are familiar with the CentOS / Red Hat relationship, you probably wouldn't say so much. It is not just built from the SRPMS.

    Can you clarify what you mean by these statements?

    FYI, CentOS is widely used in the financial industry for the servers that run many co-located trading platforms used by the market makers at the NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOE, and other major exchanges world wide.

    Yep, I'm sure it is, as is RHEL itself. I recall when NYSE switched to RHEL:

    http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1316018,00.html

    These are systems where high reliability is essential since a few seconds of downtime for algorithmic derivatives trading can run up loses of million$. A company I used to work for developing risk analysis software develops, manages, and sells as a service the quoting/trading/hedging software used by most of the market makers and professional options traders at the CBOE. They migrated all their servers to CentOS last year.

    Actually, I'm a bit surprised at this. Considering that the RHEL technologies seem to be at the core of that business, why would they move themselves farther downstream?

    Perhaps they are embedding their own developers directly in the upstreams that matter to them? Or they don't understand what open source truly is about and why it is better software?

    My experience is that the financial services companies are interested in supported software, and some of them also understand the open source model intimately. For example, JP Morgan decided to open their code to gain the advantage of an open source collaboration and an open standard (http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/08/amqp-progress). The resulting open standards working group (http://amqp.org) was formed by AMQP's originator, John O’Hara, and when he wanted that group and mission to grow, he got Red Hat involved. From the reference implementation (http://qpid.apache.org) to Red Hat MRG (http://www.redhat.com/mrg/), Red Hat been involved in making this open source project successful.

    Could John O'Hara have turned to the CentOS community for that work? Perhaps. Instead, I suspect that community would have told John to talk with Red Hat.

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL / CentOS
    [b]Other Distributions wrote:[/b] [quote]Indeed. It does seem odd that there is not an extra forum for "Other Distributions." [/quote] Perhaps a new thread on just this topic? I would think the site managers would agree with a nice catch-all forum, but you need to get that to their attention.
    Link to this post 21 May 09

    Other Distributions wrote:

    Indeed. It does seem odd that there is not an extra forum for "Other Distributions."

    Perhaps a new thread on just this topic? I would think the site managers would agree with a nice catch-all forum, but you need to get that to their attention.

  • quaid
    RE: More software for Enterprise Linux - the EPEL repo
    Fortunately, EPEL is by definition non-conflicting.
    Link to this post 19 May 09

    Fortunately, EPEL is by definition non-conflicting.

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [quote]I think the only difference is the paid support.[/quote] Well, it's a bit more than that. [ul] [li]The binary RPMs from Red Hat are the ones that hundreds of hardware and software vendors certify against. That is an important difference when you are troubleshooting.[/li] [li]The control of the RHEL roadmap is in Red Hat's hands. There are only a few ways to influence that roadmap. You can work in Fedora, as many CentOS people do, or in other upstream projects directly, and let that trickle down to the next RHEL release. Or you can be a customer and have your product managers work on it for you.[/li] [li]When it comes to working with upstreams on the behalf of customers, Red Hat has the longest and greatest record in this industry. If you are prepared to work on your own behalf in any upstreams that matter to your business, then you have one way to keep control of your future. Another is to have Red Hat do it for you.[/li] [/ul] Interesting that the question of "RHEL or CentOS?" is often discussed on both sides as a matter of cost. When you look at it further, you find there are legitimate reasons to decide either way, depending on your needs and resources.
    Link to this post 17 May 09

    I think the only difference is the paid support.

    Well, it's a bit more than that.

    [ul]
    [li]The binary RPMs from Red Hat are the ones that hundreds of hardware and software vendors certify against. That is an important difference when you are troubleshooting.[/li]
    [li]The control of the RHEL roadmap is in Red Hat's hands. There are only a few ways to influence that roadmap. You can work in Fedora, as many CentOS people do, or in other upstream projects directly, and let that trickle down to the next RHEL release. Or you can be a customer and have your product managers work on it for you.[/li]
    [li]When it comes to working with upstreams on the behalf of customers, Red Hat has the longest and greatest record in this industry. If you are prepared to work on your own behalf in any upstreams that matter to your business, then you have one way to keep control of your future. Another is to have Red Hat do it for you.[/li]
    [/ul]

    Interesting that the question of "RHEL or CentOS?" is often discussed on both sides as a matter of cost. When you look at it further, you find there are legitimate reasons to decide either way, depending on your needs and resources.

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [quote]I use CentOS for my business. The fact of the matter is that Red Hat will sell support contracts for CentOS now on the same terms they sell support contracts for RHEL. [/quote] That's interesting, do you have a pointer/URL to that information? [quote]Any software company that supports RHEL distributions, should NOT, in my opinion, be allowed to deny support for CentOS users.[/quote] Functionally, the software is the same, when it comes to you and I administering servers. But they are different binary packages. Red Hat has binary packages that are tested against hardware and software (hundreds? of vendors), and that is what is certified. When doing a rebuild of the SRPMS, an Enterprise Linux rebuilt distro team [i]could[/i] make changes when building the binary packages. That introduces doubt in a troubleshooting process. It makes it harder for a third-party vendor and a customer working through an IT issue. It's not the fear of the unknown but rather the comfort with the known that is at the heart of why one cares about the source and process of binary RPMs. It is that added complexity that makes it hard for a vendor to support non-Red Hat binary RPMs. Another way to think of this is, if it were easy and desirable to support Enterprise Linux rebuilds, wouldn't there be multiple companies doing that on a large scale?
    Link to this post 17 May 09

    I use CentOS for my business. The fact of the matter is that Red Hat will sell support contracts for CentOS now on the same terms they sell support contracts for RHEL.

    That's interesting, do you have a pointer/URL to that information?

    Any software company that supports RHEL distributions, should NOT, in my opinion, be allowed to deny support for CentOS users.

    Functionally, the software is the same, when it comes to you and I administering servers. But they are different binary packages. Red Hat has binary packages that are tested against hardware and software (hundreds? of vendors), and that is what is certified.

    When doing a rebuild of the SRPMS, an Enterprise Linux rebuilt distro team could make changes when building the binary packages. That introduces doubt in a troubleshooting process. It makes it harder for a third-party vendor and a customer working through an IT issue.

    It's not the fear of the unknown but rather the comfort with the known that is at the heart of why one cares about the source and process of binary RPMs.

    It is that added complexity that makes it hard for a vendor to support non-Red Hat binary RPMs.

    Another way to think of this is, if it were easy and desirable to support Enterprise Linux rebuilds, wouldn't there be multiple companies doing that on a large scale?

  • quaid
    More software for Enterprise Linux - the EPEL repo
    Just curious if people use or contribute to the Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux repository? [url]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL[/url] This add-on repository is a set of community-supported packages that are rebuilt from the Fedora software repository. It has packages for Drupal, Moodle, git, many Perl modules, and so on. There are over 4000 EL5 and ~1800 EL4 packages registered for i386, for example. These packages are intentionally supported, that is, it is not just a rebuild of all Fedora packages with maintainers who don't care about Enterprise Linux users. Instead, these package maintainers specifically want to support software in a style similar to the RHEL maintenance. EPEL tries to focus on stability, updating software in a similar philosophy with Red Hat around RHEL. This is different from the rest of Fedora, where updating to the latest from upstream is the norm. EPEL updates are more likely to be conservative, security and bug fixes over feature enhancements. My favorite thing about EPEL is how it lets an organization directly contribute to an upstream about only the software that matters to them. If you have a set of Perl modules you use that are not in RHEL, put them in EPEL. You gain instant community collaboration, only have a small set of packages to maintain, and you get a ton of potential and real QA on those packages.
    Link to this post 15 May 09

    Just curious if people use or contribute to the Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux repository?

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL

    This add-on repository is a set of community-supported packages that are rebuilt from the Fedora software repository. It has packages for Drupal, Moodle, git, many Perl modules, and so on. There are over 4000 EL5 and ~1800 EL4 packages registered for i386, for example.

    These packages are intentionally supported, that is, it is not just a rebuild of all Fedora packages with maintainers who don't care about Enterprise Linux users. Instead, these package maintainers specifically want to support software in a style similar to the RHEL maintenance.

    EPEL tries to focus on stability, updating software in a similar philosophy with Red Hat around RHEL. This is different from the rest of Fedora, where updating to the latest from upstream is the norm. EPEL updates are more likely to be conservative, security and bug fixes over feature enhancements.

    My favorite thing about EPEL is how it lets an organization directly contribute to an upstream about only the software that matters to them. If you have a set of Perl modules you use that are not in RHEL, put them in EPEL. You gain instant community collaboration, only have a small set of packages to maintain, and you get a ton of potential and real QA on those packages.

  • quaid
    RE: RHEL or CentOS?
    [quote]However, in reality, I use CentOS all the time, whenever possible, b/c it is easier to reinstall it, update it, and use get additional software for it. And I don't support a Ginormous Corporation of end-users. or NORAD.[/quote] Have you ever expressed those reasons for using CentOS back to anyone at Red Hat, formally? Such as a support person, sales person, or sales engineer? I ask because I find many people who are not CentOS users think folks use it because it is no-cost to them. In fact, when you talk with people, the no-cost is only one of the reasons. If, when in a customer role, you tell Red Hat about the parts of CentOS that you prefer, and/or why you don't use RHEL in all those places, you may help influence Red Hat positively. :) Regarding getting additional software, I presume you use the Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) repository? [url]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL[/url] The repos for EL4 and EL5 are full of thousands of community-supported packages of software that did not ship with the associated RHEL version. In some cases, RHEL updates have pulled packages from EPEL inclusion in the update. Very cool.
    Link to this post 15 May 09

    However, in reality, I use CentOS all the time, whenever possible, b/c it is easier to reinstall it, update it, and use get additional software for it. And I don't support a Ginormous Corporation of end-users. or NORAD.

    Have you ever expressed those reasons for using CentOS back to anyone at Red Hat, formally? Such as a support person, sales person, or sales engineer?

    I ask because I find many people who are not CentOS users think folks use it because it is no-cost to them. In fact, when you talk with people, the no-cost is only one of the reasons.

    If, when in a customer role, you tell Red Hat about the parts of CentOS that you prefer, and/or why you don't use RHEL in all those places, you may help influence Red Hat positively. :)

    Regarding getting additional software, I presume you use the Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) repository?

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL

    The repos for EL4 and EL5 are full of thousands of community-supported packages of software that did not ship with the associated RHEL version. In some cases, RHEL updates have pulled packages from EPEL inclusion in the update. Very cool.

  • quaid
    RE: Nvidia problems
    Even if the philosophy weren't there, the law is. Fedora's main sponsor, Red Hat, has to adhere to US laws, including the DMCA. Too bad Bob Young et al didn't incorporate on the Isle of Man! The fact is, while I understand how nice it is to make things easier for new users, we are doing them and the wider world a serious disservice when we make it easy for the proprietary video drivers to be used. Intel's open source drivers are making leaps and bounds in quality, and it would be faster if we had all of the Linux distros and their users doing the right thing. Better quality FLOSS drivers for Intel puts enormous pressure on ATI and NVidia. I know there is concern from those IHVs about patents and their secret code. Perhaps the Open Invention Network + open sourcing their drivers is the right solution? [url]http://www.openinventionnetwork.com[/url]
    Link to this post 15 May 09

    Even if the philosophy weren't there, the law is. Fedora's main sponsor, Red Hat, has to adhere to US laws, including the DMCA. Too bad Bob Young et al didn't incorporate on the Isle of Man!

    The fact is, while I understand how nice it is to make things easier for new users, we are doing them and the wider world a serious disservice when we make it easy for the proprietary video drivers to be used. Intel's open source drivers are making leaps and bounds in quality, and it would be faster if we had all of the Linux distros and their users doing the right thing. Better quality FLOSS drivers for Intel puts enormous pressure on ATI and NVidia.

    I know there is concern from those IHVs about patents and their secret code. Perhaps the Open Invention Network + open sourcing their drivers is the right solution?

    http://www.openinventionnetwork.com

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board