Linked by Andrew Case on Thu 11th Nov 2010 22:02 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 449752
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is not really true.
I use both RHEL and CentOS in production and I can say with a high degree of confidence that while CentOS usually takes a while to get in sync when Red Hat does version updates (eg. 5.4->5.5, 5.x->6.0), the normal flow of security updates is usually not that far behind. A RHEL update for some package is usually followed by a CentOS update in 1-2 days (or shorter, as was the case with the recent glibc security updates).
I don't see any reason for not using CentOS in production, especially on machines that aren't running any kind of proprietary "enterprise" software and where management can be confortable on relying only on you for support (not that we *ever* had to call Red Hat for support...).





Member since:
2005-07-06
I'd think twice before putting production machines on CentOS.
E.g. RHEL 5.5 was released on the 30/3 while CentOS 5.5 was released on the 14/5 - a month and a half. As far as I remember, CentOS 3.7 took even longer.
No, I'm no suggesting that CentOS is bad, quite on the contrary, I use it all the time for staging purposes.
I am suggesting that if you're running anything mission critical, and unless you have the man power to port RHEL fixes yourself, consider using RHEL and not CentOS.
The price of RHEL pales in comparison to unscheduled down time.
- Gilboa