Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:31 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Red Hat CentOS, with almost 30% of all Linux servers. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux-derived distro is #1 according to Web Technology Surveys.
Permalink for comment 434704
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Really a good distro
by gnufreex on Thu 29th Jul 2010 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Really a good distro"
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

Yeah Oracle made a PR splash when they introduced OEL but they didn't really made any sucess. Those are not customers. They just took OEL and use it, like they would use CentOS. Onl a few of those 1,500 actually pay support. Oracle's support is useless, especially if it is not large scale multi-milion $ deal in question. They are usually more interested in asking about other (unrelated) software you're using (so that they can send salesdroids to hook you up at more of their stuff) then actually helping you with your problem. I hear that they also ask about hardware and storage since they bought Sun. It is better not to call them at all and not buy support from them in the first place. Anyone who dealt with them will confirm this.

Also, that CW article about Yahoo isn't true. It says Yahoo had 50,000 of RHEL servers. If they used basic subscription ($350) that would make $17.5m per year. That kind of money would show up on Red Hat bottom line. But it didn't. OEL didn't budge Red Hat. And Yahoo uses FreeBSD and CentOS, as far as I know. They never used Red Hat, at least not at that scale. They might had a few servers.

I laughed hard when I read one of the Red Hat guys (I think it was Brian Stevens, cant remember) saying: "In past 4 years, we lost 3 big customers to Oracle. One came back to us shortly after, one was Oracle itself, and one was acquired by Oracle so they had to switch".

I tend to believe that he's saying the truth.

No it isn't a fact, both you and Caitlyn haven't provided an average from an adequate sample size.

Everything I said about CentOS, I learned from experience. I didn't counted time, but after looking at Wikipedia, I guess I was about right. As for micro updates, I didn't count that either. It is time passed from me seeing particular update at work (RHEL), 'till seeing that same update on home server(CentOS). It is always more than a week for micro updates. And more than a month for minor point releases (the 5.x).

You on the other hand, probably never saw a RHEL box and never logged to Red Hat Network in your life (not to mention that you didn't compared it with OEL). You are only annoyed with Red Hat proving you wrong (that GPL'd software can make money) so you try to get back to them by promoting Oracle and unsupported Linuxes. Thats fine, I don't care, have your petty buthurtness. I just cant believe how rabid you are, attacking people who say simple facts: that RH subscription actually have a value proposition over unsupported solution and that security updates come to RHEL first because they are ones making the damn thing.

And then Caitlyn the "Linux security expert" comes along and writes multiple articles lambasting CentOS for delaying critical security updates and cites a Firefox update for her netbook as the only example.

On second read, I think Caitlyn has a valid point, and not exaggerating as I first thought. Thanks for showing me that blog. That link was only useful thing you shown it this discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 1