Fedora vs RHEL

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> 
> On 4/12/2013 7:03 AM, Tim wrote:
> >On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 13:24 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
> >>I would agree that in a corporate environment, Fedora release cycle is
> >>too often. I personnally run Fedora on my work laptop, but if I were
> >>to administer the whole ~150 desktops of the company I wont use Fedora
> >>but CentOS.
> >I tend to agree.  However, if you're a place that's gotten used to
> >having to regularly wipe and install Windows boxes, as many will do,
> >then it's possible that having to restart with a newer version of Fedora
> >once or twice a year may be just as palatable.  But I'd definitely put
> >servers on a long term OS, like CentOS, even if the clients use Fedora
> >and are considered disposable machines.  Though it can be easier to
> >manage a system where they all run the same OS, so CentOS on them might
> >be simplest.  And with a longer term OS, like CentOS instead of Fedora,
> >you're not going to suddenly face major annoying changes to how you use
> >your computer, like how KDE 4 and Gnome 3 irritated the masses.
> >
> >If you're a place that has previously paid for Windows, then paying for
> >RHEL ought to be similarly palatable.  Again, you could use it for one
> >or two machines, the one's your mostly likely to need technical support
> >from Red Hat for, and the other basic client machines using the free
> >CentOS.  Though, if considering a paid OS, you have to consider whether
> >the type of service you're going to be able to get is useful to you.
> >
> >Mention was made of having experienced security holes with Windows, so
> >the concept of keeping a system up-to-date ought to be already accepted.
> >Keeping on using *any* out-of-date system is a risk, some are easily
> >demonstratively so, others are harder to show that there is an actual
> >risk rather than just a theoretical one, but there's still a risk.
> >
> Excellent summation Tim!  As I said my problem was not what I wanted
> but what I could "Sell" to the Boss.
> 
> One outstanding suggestion that came up in this discussion was
> Scientific Linux  as the "Supported by CERN" could be a powerful
> selling point.  That post had me doing the classic head thump D'Oh!
> I had forgotten about that release!
> 
> Female involved in the decision chain has great respect and
> admiration for the work of CERN and their web page shows no hint of
> their relation to CentOS!  That is a stable platform that I am
> certain I can get accepted.  Boss taking a long weekend so I have
> plenty of time to work up the presentation.

I may be biased since I work for Red Hat, but I haven't always worked
there.  In my previous jobs we relied on Linux and used Red Hat
because we needed support.  The definition of support is very
important here.

What does "supported by CERN" mean, exactly?  That definition is
different from the definition of support a commercial vendor like Red
Hat offers for its customers.  Your office may not be willing to pay
for any Red Hat subscriptions.  On the other hand, thinking you're
getting something for which you're not paying could come back to haunt
you.  That's why it's vital to understand the definition of "support"
for anything on which a business expects to run.

If you install Fedora, what you get for support is, essentially,
answers people are willing to give you for free here, in forums, in
IRC, and so on.  If you install CentOS or SL, I believe the answer is
roughly the same.  This does not necessarily make CentOS or SL bad
options (leaving out Fedora for lifecycle reasons others have already
made clear).  You, and your boss, have to be willing to live with that
definition of support.

If you get no answer, or wrong answers, and it ends up hurting your
business, who's accountable for that at your office?  Maybe that risk
matters to you, and maybe it doesn't.  I'd make sure my boss feels the
same way, and I'd go into the discussion with the goal of reaching a
consensus with him or her about those risks, instead of simply trying
to "sell" Linux into the environment.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com