On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:56:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/26/08 19:08, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> > hhding wrote:
> >> why debian?
> >> why centos?
> >>
> >> It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
> >> But managers w
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:13:13 +
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:38:18AM +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> > hhding wrote:
> > >why debian?
> > >why centos?
> > >
> > >It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
> > >But managers want run cento
Tzafrir Cohen writes:
> Right. But then again, that software is probably not certified to work on
> CentOS. It's certified to run on RHEL. CentOS is not RHEL, even though it
> is based on its code and it is pretty close.
Unfortunately managers are often firmly convinced that "certified on RH"
mean
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:38:18AM +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> hhding wrote:
> >why debian?
> >why centos?
> >
> >It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
> >But managers want run centos instead.
> >
>
> If you are using some proprietary software that is supported on RHEL (o
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/08 20:40, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
I can think of an obvious reason: RH is "known", i.e., management
has heard of it, and it's a *company*,
Point taken.
as opposed to a bunch of
left-wing communis
On 2008-02-27T08:46:23+0800, hhding wrote:
> why debian?
> why centos?
>
> It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
> But managers want run centos instead.
Installers are different and both work fine here.
Debian's package managers (aptitude, apt-get) are much better than
yum a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/08 20:40, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> I can think of an obvious reason: RH is "known", i.e., management
>> has heard of it, and it's a *company*,
>
> Point taken.
>
>> as opposed to a bunch of
>> left-wing communist
It seems they choose centos for commercial reason not for technology.
because less people know debian.
In my opinion, debian and centos are equally good in technology.
and centos support better for cluster filesystem such as redhat gfs.
(Seems some pruducts have test much on centos)
Raj Kiran Gr
Ron Johnson wrote:
I can think of an obvious reason: RH is "known", i.e., management
has heard of it, and it's a *company*,
Point taken.
as opposed to a bunch of
left-wing communist hippies that want to destroy capitalism.
Can't agree with that, though.
--
Raj Kiran Grandhi
--
At the sou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Ianson wrote:
|> Alan Ianson wrote:
| True, redhat has always been a big supporter/contributor to linux
| development, but so has debian.
|
from my experience execs get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that red hat
is developed in a corporate envir
> Alan Ianson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:46 +0800, hhding wrote:
> >
> >> why debian?
> >> why centos?
> >>
> >
> > Both are good I think. I don't know centos well myself so I stick with
> > debian (what I know, to some degree anyway).
> >
> >
> >> It seems same to me, and curr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/08 19:08, hhding wrote:
> What they say is redhat contribute many patchs to linux kernel, and the
> redhat AS is proved stable in product environment.
Then why doesn't he want to use RH? (Yes, I know that CentOS is the
beer-free version of R
hhding wrote:
> why debian?
> why centos?
>
You mean as a user or as an administrator?
I have used both as a user. I can confidently say both do the job equally
well.
As an administrator, I always prefer debian or debian based distros. But
that is because I spend most of my time on Debian and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/08 19:08, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> hhding wrote:
>> why debian?
>> why centos?
>>
>> It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
>> But managers want run centos instead.
>>
>
> If you are using some proprietary software that i
What they say is redhat contribute many patchs to linux kernel, and the
redhat AS is proved stable in product environment.
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:46 +0800, hhding wrote:
why debian?
why centos?
Both are good I think. I don't know centos well myself so I stick wit
hhding wrote:
why debian?
why centos?
It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
But managers want run centos instead.
If you are using some proprietary software that is supported on RHEL (or
Centos) and not on Debian, and you depend on that support.
Can't think of any other
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:46 +0800, hhding wrote:
> why debian?
> why centos?
Both are good I think. I don't know centos well myself so I stick with
debian (what I know, to some degree anyway).
> It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
> But managers want run centos instead.
Di
why debian?
why centos?
It seems same to me, and current we run debian as server.
But managers want run centos instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
