----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Vaughan" <wvaughan@steelerubber.com>
You most definately will want to make sure your user id's are identical between the two systems, otherwise stuff like @CB will have wrong information.
Excellent point.
Also, do you have any expertise maintaing a linux box? If you want something closer to SCO in mentality, FreeBSD and SCO have the same grandparents. Linux is like the cute girl that moved into town. Stuff isn't always where you expect to find it, and you may get a surprise if you reach into the wrong place.
Oh, don't *even* send him to BSD. CentOS and SuSE 11 are the only rational free Linuces for business use. *Any* of the BSDs are so much less well supported that they'll drive you straight up a wall. Cheers, -- jra
On 05/09/2011 08:58 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
CentOS and SuSE 11 are the only rational free Linuces for business use.
With the uncertainty surrounding the future of CentOS, it's not something I would recommend for business use at the moment. See the following article for a collection of links why that's the case: http://evilrouters.net/2011/04/11/its-time-to-move-on-from-centos/ Regards, Lori Jakab
Lori Jakab wrote:
following article for a collection of links why that's the case:
http://evilrouters.net/2011/04/11/its-time-to-move-on-from-centos/
That article perfectly illustrates why using or moving to debian makes a lot of sense. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On 5/9/11 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Vaughan" <wvaughan@steelerubber.com>
You most definately will want to make sure your user id's are identical between the two systems, otherwise stuff like @CB will have wrong information.
Excellent point.
Also, do you have any expertise maintaing a linux box? If you want something closer to SCO in mentality, FreeBSD and SCO have the same grandparents.
if you mean they forked from a common tree around 1976, sure but beyond that the similarities are superficial. http://www.levenez.com/unix/unix.pdf
Linux
is like the cute girl that moved into town. Stuff isn't always where you expect to find it, and you may get a surprise if you reach into the wrong place.
If one's introduction to operating systems was less than 35 years ago maybe not, the analogy posed is completely mysterious me.
Oh, don't *even* send him to BSD.
CentOS and SuSE 11 are the only rational free Linuces for business use.
that's an opinion, certainly there are a diversity of opinions to the contrary with sufficient scale to disprove that handily.
*Any* of the BSDs are so much less well supported that they'll drive you straight up a wall.
Start with, "what is the most appropriate tool for the problem I am trying to solve"
Cheers, -- jra
*Any* of the BSDs are so much less well supported that they'll drive you straight up a wall.
If by "less supported" you mean that your local strip mall doesn't offer a "BSD-certified-systems-engineer" class, then yeah .. but like anything else, experience in the tricker stuff is going to come at a premium. There are plenty of commercial support options (if that's your cup of tea) for the various *BSD offerings. IME, the BSD flavors (and versions of Linux like Slackware) are the tools of choice by people who will support themselves. These are also the people I trust when they come back and say "won't work, need to buy $x". My $0.02. Michael Holstein Cleveland State University PS: I'm not making a business judgment on going either route .. there's a case to be made for "free, but takes 3 weeks to configure" versus "costs WHAT? .. but you get 24x7 support". It's just that sometimes nobody multiplies the 3wks * salary_of_person (and discovers that it often is >= "WHAT?").
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:58:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Vaughan" <wvaughan@steelerubber.com>
You most definately will want to make sure your user id's are identical between the two systems, otherwise stuff like @CB will have wrong information.
Excellent point.
Also, do you have any expertise maintaing a linux box? If you want something closer to SCO in mentality, FreeBSD and SCO have the same grandparents. Linux is like the cute girl that moved into town. Stuff isn't always where you expect to find it, and you may get a surprise if you reach into the wrong place.
Oh, don't *even* send him to BSD.
CentOS and SuSE 11 are the only rational free Linuces for business use.
*Any* of the BSDs are so much less well supported that they'll drive you straight up a wall.
Depends on what he is doing. BSDs tend to be far more mature than any Linux. They are poor systems for desktops or anything like that. They are heavily used as servers by many vary large providers and as the basis for many products like Ironport (Cisco) and JunOS (Juniper). (I'll admit that I run FreeBSD on my laptop with great success, but you have to REALLY want it.) That said, the BSD community is smaller and the addition of features and the latest hardware support is slower on BSDs. If you are very concerned with security, I'd never hesitate to recommend OpenBSD. For more general use, FreeBSD. For an "unusual" platform, NetBSD. For a walk on the wild side, try DragonFly and Hammer. That said, I run both Linux and FreeBSD regularly and they both have their place. You want the right tool for the job. The one Linux distro I don't recommend for experienced users is Ubuntu. I don't like Windows because it presumes it know how I want to do things better than I do and Ubuntu does the same. If my sister was planing to play with Linux, I'd send her directly to Ubuntu, though. (Tool...job. She does not get along well with computers.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
On Monday, May 09, 2011 04:45:36 PM Kevin Oberman wrote:
Depends on what he is doing. BSDs tend to be far more mature than any Linux. They are poor systems for desktops or anything like that. They are heavily used as servers by many vary large providers and as the basis for many products like Ironport (Cisco) and JunOS (Juniper).
Cisco had an RHEL rebuild (internal) at one time, called, refreshingly enough, Cisco Enterprise Linux. Cisco also uses/used a Linux base for their Content Engines and subsequent ACNS-running boxen. The rather high-priced ADVA-sourced Cisco Metro 1500 DWDM boxes used a 486 ISA single-board computer running off of DiskOnChip SSD for control and SNMP. Having said that, I'd be just about as comfortable with a BSD as with a Linux. And I do, and will continue to, run CentOS in production.
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:14:06 -0400 Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On Monday, May 09, 2011 04:45:36 PM Kevin Oberman wrote:
Depends on what he is doing. BSDs tend to be far more mature than any Linux. They are poor systems for desktops or anything like that. They are heavily used as servers by many vary large providers and as the basis for many products like Ironport (Cisco) and JunOS (Juniper).
Cisco had an RHEL rebuild (internal) at one time, called, refreshingly enough, Cisco Enterprise Linux. Cisco also uses/used a Linux base for their Content Engines and subsequent ACNS-running boxen.
The rather high-priced ADVA-sourced Cisco Metro 1500 DWDM boxes used a 486 ISA single-board computer running off of DiskOnChip SSD for control and SNMP.
Having said that, I'd be just about as comfortable with a BSD as with a Linux.
And I do, and will continue to, run CentOS in production.
I'd rather run Scientific Linux over CentOS. Infact, I'd rather this so much that we run SL instead of CentOS even on our cPanel boxes now. Mind, for anything where we *don't* have to run CentOS, we use Debian or Alpine. Anyway, I was just wondering what the general consensus of NANOG is regarding CentOS vs Scientific Linux. SL generally has faster security updates and people are *paid* to work on it fulltime. CentOS on the other hand is supported out-of-the-box by most software. William
William Pitcock wrote:
Anyway, I was just wondering what the general consensus of NANOG is regarding CentOS vs Scientific Linux. SL generally has faster security updates and people are *paid* to work on it fulltime. CentOS on the other hand is supported out-of-the-box by most software.
William
The two teams have different goals. Scientific Linux is designed to create a common install base for labs. Which helps ensure repeatable results and reduces the need for schools to develop and maintain their own independent OS/software projects. SL uses RHEL as a base, but has a different build environment, and may build against different versions of libraries, as well as include packages which add or change functionality. The goal of CentOS is to create a 100% compatible version of RHEL. Cent tries to replicate the build environment of RHEL as closely as possible. This ensures 100% compatible programs - bugs, regressions, and all. For most, I suspect this difference in philosophy results in negligible difference. However, some may need this. Especially if they test with CentOS, and use RHEL in production, relying on the two to function and perform identically. I support CentOS, and hope the project resolves some of these problems that have been lingering for the last year. As long as there are individuals who support the project, there will still be a CentOS. --Blake
participants (9)
-
Blake Hudson -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeroen van Aart -
Joel Jaeggli -
Kevin Oberman -
Lamar Owen -
Lori Jakab -
Michael Holstein -
William Pitcock