Slashdot Mirror

4. Red Hat: Gone. I hear Fedora Core is good. Nice that they gave us the free version, but it doesn't have near the support or attention that Red Hat does.

There's always CentOS. The Open Source version of RHEL stripped of all the Red Hat branding.

Presuming you're not trolling...

But we will be hosting lots of servers for our customers with some RHEL4-based distro.

I want to make sure that when an update comes out from the source, that I am not wholly dependant on a middle man that not be able to or capable of a prompt update release.

I'm still testing our recompile version. If it works out, then great. Otherwise, I'm confident now that even running a non-North American Enterprise Linux Vendor version of RHEL4 I can always compile and distribute the errata udpates I need. (Well maybe except for a few kde packages, dbus and iproute which are spitting out heinous c++ errors at the mo).

Umm, why bother when you can just grab CentOS 4.0 instead?
(or one of the other RHEL-rebuild projects like Tao or Whiteboxlinux)

Budget at least several hours sys admin work per server you manage each time a new version comes out to perform the upgrade.

Allow for the odd issue to creep in. e.g. pre-existing functionality not working, or not working the same.

And add in a bit of hair loss for the odd problem that crops up during the new distro upgrade. e.g. FC2->FC3 introduced udev which seems to cause the odd hassle.

So, if you are 'hosting' with a distro that changes every several months, then be prepared for the extra work.

We offer a choice of distros for our VPSs. And some advice on choosing between them.

We recommend people use Fedora if they like the latest versions of software and want to upgrade their software frequently. If follows that if you are running a hosting operation where you don't want to interrupt/change a working setup then FC is probably not the right distro for you.

We recommend WBEL if they want an enterprise distribution that is stable, widely supported and will have updated RPMs for fix bugs and security issues for the next several years. WBEL is derived from RHEL sources. WBEL alternatives include CentOS. Or rpmbuild --rebuild your own (just got a few udpates SRPMS to go on my own RHEL4 recompile...).

We recommend Debian for people that prefer it. i.e. if you are familiar with Debian then you'll know whether it suits you or not. If you are not familiar with debian then you'll probably find things 'easier' on a RedHat based distro.

--
Which distro do you want on your shiny new VPS?

Its also a teensy bit different since Red Hat provide the full source to their dist. The much touted OpenSolaris is just vapourware at the moment and won't be comparable until it is without restriction.

It's also a teensy bit different since Linux in general runs on vastly more hardware platforms than Solaris. Red Hat Solaris runs on Sun hardware first and a few select servers from the likes of Dell, Compaq etc. if you're lucky.

It's One of these (oh, yeah I bought two for £25!), hooked up to two of these in an Acer Altos G310 P4-2.4 with 768MB RAM running Centos-3.

The system is running eGroupWare for around 40 users and is also a store for their mailboxes. Load is not that heavy and such a non-issue that I've not bothered to benchmark anything

There was no hassle installing the drivers from the manufacturer's Web site. The initial RAID 1 sync on the disks took 90 mins.

Redhat is Good in the same way that Google is Good you say?

What about their bullying of people who redistribute their (GPL) source code?
If Linux (and BSD, other Unixes, etc.) ever take over we may well start to fear Redhat. They are easily capable of trying to control competing distributions, and their treatment of CentOS (they are no longer allowed to use the phrase "Red Hat", even to acknowledge the company's contributions) shows that they do not really care about open source.

CentOS. Stable and predictable releases as opposed to long drawn out ones which might happen or might not.

I love Debian but I don't use it much any more for servers. I grew tired of using backports and hearing excuses like "just use testing or unstable on servers" considering both those branches aren't supported by the Debian security team.

The projects are unrelated.

If you'd like to migrate from WBEL:
Migration from WBEL to Centos

Also check out Whiteboxlinux.net you'll see that the site maintainer was growing frustrated with lack of updates to Whitebox, and switched over to Centos.

The projects were started about the same time.

There are also other competing projects Taolinux, Rocks, XOS, etc...

http:/mirror.centos.org/centos/4/os/i386/RELEASE-N OTES-en.html

We read recently about Red Hat & Centos On Name Usage, and the solution is now to link to a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor (PNAELV).

"Red Hat does not authorize any person to use the RED HAT marks in association with such redistribution in any fashion, except by express agreement"

So talk to their lawyers and work out an agreement. Call them up and say, "I understand your position but here's mine. Can we work out a deal that we can both be happy with?" Clearly there's a middle ground that can be found that allows one to say that CentOS is a derivative of RHEL but is not endorsed by or associated with Red Hat. I can't find anything on the site that indicates that they tried to reach an agreement. Going through all the effort to make a web site about "a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" seems almost childish. People hammer out agreements daily about accepted usage of trademarks without spending a dime. There's no reason that CentOS can't do the same.

CentOS is one of several projects that took the source rpms from Redhat and recompiled them into a working set of isos (minus Redhat copyrighted material). Whitebox Linux, Tao Linux, and Scientific Linux are some others.

They were basically all started independantly of each other.

Whitebox (being the only one I have really used extensively) is run out of Beauregard Parish Public Library by a a JMorris. He rules with a tyranical fist and has no desire to offer anything other than the bare minimum of changes needed to make the rebuild possible. Now I like this hard-line leadership, but it has caused some friction as to the timelyness of updates.

I did recently convert a machine that was Whitebox Linux to Tao Linux to verify that it could be done. I followed this basic procedure. With this basic procedure, picking one of the projects over another isn't that much of a life or death decision. It is relatively easy to move between this projects.

As far as I can tell (not having seen an actual RHEL box) both Whitebox and Tao are very accurate representations of RHEL. I have yet to see an instance where a package desigend for RHEL didn't work with Whitebox and Tao. I have installed Oracle, vmware, various rpm's that were packaged for RHEL without much troubles.

Here.

Sometimes it is referred to as RedHat, without a space between the Red & Hat.

Sometimes it is referred to as RedHat, without a space between the Red & Hat.

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Actually, every time you mention Red Hat, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or any other variation of Red Hat you can find, you should just link to the free version of Red Hat.
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat, I really do like Red Hat products and have to admit that Red Hat 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
;-P

Sorry to bother you with this note about etiquette in posts, but when you mention products and companies that people might be interested in, such as Red Hat or CentOS, please provide links. Thank you.

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

I would like to clarify the position of the cAos Foundation, of which CentOS is a project, on the web site matter.

First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post):


First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.

However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.

RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.

The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.

This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.

Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.


Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.

Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).

And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.

Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation

In that case... does Slash use nofollow links yet? If not, its time to start Google bombing:

free Red Hat Enterprise distro.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux on important servers. Guaranteed updates until 2010 makes me happy.

CentOS or Whitebox on servers that are less important, or more numerous than the notes in the corporate kitty. Both are Free rebuilds of RHEL that should have similar update availability, compatibility and QA.

Fedora on expert users' workstations or servers that need the latest and greatest TODAY, and damn the consequences.

WhiteBox is obsoleted by CentOS. See this FAQ and answer.

WhiteBox is obsoleted by CentOS. See this FAQ and answer.

Now for the application stack. I prefer using Novell's eDirectory as opposed to Microsoft's Active Directory. It'll run on Linux so that's one less Windows server right there. The price is based on a per user basis which comes up to $2 per user! Not a bad price. Tie that in with all your Linux services such as Samba, IMAP server, Postfix with eDirectory using the LDAP protocol. Their password self-service option is pretty enticing as well.

While we're on the topic of Novell and moving away from Windows on servers, look into GroupWise as a messaging server instead of MS Exchange. Again, it runs on Linux as well a bunch of other platforms and has cross platform clients so you're not limited to Windows for end users either.

There are a number of admins out there that won't buy a shrinkwrapped linux server because the prices are just insane. IBM and HP/Compaq think that you'll pay 3 times the going rate for memory, storage, processors, etc...just for the perk of having a "big name" badge on the computer.

So I've just resigned myself to rolling my own 1RU and 2RU server systems. Then I throw CentOS http://www.centos.org/ , a RHEL clone, on them. That saves me a couple thousand per server.

I used to be a big fan of the Proliant line, but the prices just got to be so ridiculous. They haven't figured out that this is a commodity market yet. Oh well.

Try Whitebox Linux or CentOS, both are free clones of RHEL.

Yes Red Hat is propriatary according to:
Whitebox
SCI-Linux
CentOS
Lineox
Taolinux
Those are the RHEL builds feel free to ask Mandrake, or RedFlag, or Fedora how propriatary other builds are.
Can I have more FUD please? mmmmm thank you.

Here's my setup:

Tivo, 80 hour version, hooked up to the 5.1 reciever.

Wireless 802.11b access via a linksys USB nic - hooked up to the tivo.

D-Link wireless router, hooked up to the server as well as the internet connection.

CentOSrunning on the server. JavaHMO loaded on the server as well

With this setup, the music is automatically browsable so long as the server is on and functional. All one has to do is select 'music and pictures' within the tivo menu, and volia - all of the cd's, ripped, sorted by directory.

As an added bonus, there's the DVR functionality there as well. Parents, even older ones, can appreciate that (they may not with an xbox).

I use CentOS. It's nearly identical to WhiteBox, but with seemingly better community support, rather than having the appearance of being a one man project.

You can rebuild a complete RHEL3 (minus the few bits of proprietary stuff I haven't noticed yet) from the public source, so long as you change the name and remove any Red Hat trademarks.

Some RHEL3 based distributions:
http://www.centos.org/
http://whiteboxlinux.org/
http://taolinux.org/

We use Fedora for both our dedicated servers (to be leased/rented to clients) and for internal use. We theoretically offer FreeBSD installs as well, but no one has ever taken us up on that offer (I wonder why)...

Yeah, Fedora is great: cutting edge features along side the familiar Red Hat environment. But I would have a hard time implementing it in a "stable" role with its 6 month product cycle and all. It's great for my laptop and at home, but we have a little under two dozen odd machines in the data center and around the ranch. I just don't have the hours in the day to maintain those upgrades two times a year.

RHEL is seemingly the way to go if you want the high end service and support that comes with its high price tag. No doubt, the support it top notch, but my .org doesn't have that kind of cash. Fortunately, we've found a couple of great alternatives.

White Box Linux and CentOS are effectively the poor man's RHEL. Built from Red Hat source, and blessed by the GPL, they're both testament to the fact that free speech can still mean free beer if you're willing to corral the liability square in your own corner (in other words, I'm the support, and if I screw it up, my ass is on the line).

I know at least four projects of this kind, namely CentOS, White Box Linux, Tao Linux and Fermi Linux LTS from Fermilab.

As they are all based on RHEL 3 we will factor lots of stuff, the admin will be very similar, so will the automated install using kickstart.

And to boot we will not have to worry about some critical components like a JVM being only available on RHEL for example, if it runs on RHEL it has a 0.9999999 probability of doing so too on one of the clones.

And for some apps like Oracle we will go with RHEL since they impose it to us. But in the end we will not get commercial supports for the 70 or so servers we've been running on 6.1, 6.2 and 7.3 without support for all those years.

Since Red Hat is open source, you have at least the following choises: Cent OS, and Tao Linux. Both being clones of RHEL.

Try cAos. Basically Red Hat enterprise version but not built by Red Hat, if I understand correctly.