4 ms·

true for the components, but not for all of the low-level integration work needed to bundle/assemble these, and all of the development/integration of the instal

by cat199 6y ago

true for the components, but not for all of the low-level integration work needed to bundle/assemble these, and all of the development/integration of the installers, etc. there's a reason people use linux distros over building their own

pas 6y ago
RHEL's only real value is the looong support cycle. (And CentOS was the gateway drug, and now probably someone at IBM, beancounter or VP of sales, or someone with an ideology about how to convert free users into paying customers thought that many current CentOS users will just buy RHEL if they really need RHEL7/8. And ... it's hard to think they won't. The "vendor lock-in" happened the moment they picked CentOS instead of Debian/Ubuntu.) The low-level integration is just as good in Debian/Ubuntu land too. Hell, Arch does it too pretty well. (There's an announcement list about manual updates, it's worth subscribing to even if you don't use arch[0], because usually the same change will percolate down on the grapevine and next releases of other distros will also change similarly.) [0] btw, I don't use arch
- curt15 6y ago
  >RHEL's only real value is the looong support cycle. They also have in-house expertise for most critical Linux subsystems, which could in theory be useful if you are a paying customer.
  - pas 6y ago
    No questions about that. And were I operating something that critical I'd feel good about paying to International-RHEL-Machines for support, they have great engineers. But at the same time there are many other ways to get really competent support. Of course not for their frankenkernel. But again, were I operating something critical I would likely want to budget for regular updates that support newer HW/firmware/kernel/libc ... but we all know that certifying all that is much more expensive than just occasionally running yum upgrade. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by cat199 6y ago

pas 6y ago

RHEL's only real value is the looong support cycle. (And CentOS was the gateway drug, and now probably someone at IBM, beancounter or VP of sales, or someone with an ideology about how to convert free users into paying customers thought that many current CentOS users will just buy RHEL if they really need RHEL7/8. And ... it's hard to think they won't. The "vendor lock-in" happened the moment they picked CentOS instead of Debian/Ubuntu.) The low-level integration is just as good in Debian/Ubuntu land too. Hell, Arch does it too pretty well. (There's an announcement list about manual updates, it's worth subscribing to even if you don't use arch[0], because usually the same change will percolate down on the grapevine and next releases of other distros will also change similarly.) [0] btw, I don't use arch

curt15 6y ago
>RHEL's only real value is the looong support cycle. They also have in-house expertise for most critical Linux subsystems, which could in theory be useful if you are a paying customer.
- pas 6y ago
  No questions about that. And were I operating something that critical I'd feel good about paying to International-RHEL-Machines for support, they have great engineers. But at the same time there are many other ways to get really competent support. Of course not for their frankenkernel. But again, were I operating something critical I would likely want to budget for regular updates that support newer HW/firmware/kernel/libc ... but we all know that certifying all that is much more expensive than just occasionally running yum upgrade. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯