Fedora vs RHEL

[Bill Davidsen]

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 Keeping on using *any* out-of-date system is a risk, some are easily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.
>
They don't have a connection to ContOS, they have a relationship to RHEL. Now 
there is a good/bad thing there, SL has some install changes which make it easy 
to maintain your own versions of packages, and not have your packages and the 
standard step on one another. From a flexibility standpoint that's good, but the 
install may be slightly different than RHEL. If you don't use the feature you 
don't care.

Being able to say the CERN uses this to run their multi-$B hardware may make an 
impression.

One last thought, I have moved many people to RHEL for desktop, people who want 
to use it for mail, news, browsing, RSS, IRC. People who want to work with docs 
and spreadsheets in MSFT formats. They just have no issues with what they use, 
minimal learning curve, file format compatible, etc.

I have suggested using the seamonkey suite to most of them, some like having all 
their interfaces the same, like reading tweets as RSS feeds like mail, etc. 
About half have gone that way, they like it better than the Windows tools or 
figuring out the browser of the day.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot