[ale] Fedora or Centos - which is more relevant for someone wanting Red Hat experience today?

[Jeff Hubbs]

Wow - sounds like working with Windows 12 years ago...

On 2/6/10 1:17 PM, Brian W. Neu wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 4:27 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>
>
> I'll second everything that Michael wrote.
>
> I run Fedora for production systems too, and simply upgrade every 12-18
> months to prevent the support from deprecating.  I too run the "yum
> upgrade" and while sometimes they are sometimes real PIA's, a successful
> reboot is almost guaranteed.  I do make sure that I have the ability to
> make an on-site visit in the event that the server doesn't reboot
> successfully, but I've only had to do it maybe 5% of the time.  The
> other 95% of time time "yum upgrade" is your best friend, and you never
> have to change out of pajama pants.
>
> The other huge advantage to running Fedora is that if you need something
> bleeding edge such as btrfs or nilfs, the RPMS are there for you.
> Plenty of times I'd looked for software in the repo for a newer version
> of Fedora, downloaded the SRPM and recompiled for my current release.
>
> I firmly believe that Fedora provides the most flexibility, though it
> does require more maintenance.  Though if you're looking to improve your
> Redhat&  sysadmin skills, it's probably the perfect proving grounds.  If
> you want rock-solid support, few surprises, and minimal maintenance,
> then CentOS is your best bet.
>
> I wouldn't sweat the decision that much though as I agree with what many
> others have said which is that the differences are minimal compared to a
> switch to a different distro.  You'll still be in the RHEL neighborhood
> no matter what you pick.
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>