Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free Alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0?

Posted by Cliff on from the more-crimson-caps dept.

looper_man writes "I'm a hardware design engineer, and our tools have been migrating to Linux over the last years. I've been running Red Hat Linux 9.0 on our compute servers for a while now without a problem. The latest release of one of our CAD tools requires Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0, and will *not* run with RH9.0. I'm not very happy with the (yearly!) licensing fees that Red Hat wants for RHEL3.0, so I'm looking for alternatives. I plan on running one real RHEL3.0 server (for any OS/tool issues if I need to verify that the problem is real), and the rest of the machines running a RHEL3.0 clone. I've seen CentOS, TaoLinux, WhiteBox, and a few others. I don't have the time to spare to test these out, so I was looking for recommendations from the Slashdot masses. I need something that's stable, easy to install/maintain, and closely tracks RHEL3.0. Any words of wisdom?"

8 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. redhat closeness by bendsley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is taken directly from CentOS.org's page.

    CentOS : Community ENTerprise Operating System

    CentOS 2 and 3 are a 100% compatible rebuild of the RHEL 2 and 3 versions, in full compliance with RedHat's redistribution requirements. CentOS is for people who need an enterprise class OS stability without the cost of certification and support.

    This should answer your question.

    Link I found info. on is below.
    http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.ph p?id=2

    --
    Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive.
    1. Re:redhat closeness by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting
      C) Use a loop hole to take their work and use it as your own for free.

      This is not a "loophole". This is the essence of Free Software.

      Don't pity Red Hat. It's up to them to make their business model work in the Free Software world, not up to the Free Software world to un-free software just because Red Hat has touched it. (I hope they can do so, but I have doubts about their current attempt.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  2. Re:CentOS by gid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know if you use CentOS to update an already installed RHEL install (say your license ran out and you can't get updates anymore or something)? Or do you have to reinstall? I couldn't find this information on the CentOS website anywhere, so I guess it means a reinstall is required.

  3. What does it require? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What specifically does this special software package require?
    I would guess, absolutely nothing. It probably just checks /etc/redhat_version to make sure they have already reamed you for the cost of linux in addition to reaming you for the cost of the software.
    add RHEL or something to /etc/redhat_version, that should work

  4. Mandriva/Mandrake by toddbu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A great distro that was originally based off of Red Hat. Switched back to it after Red Hat instituted the new licensing structure. I still spend $120/year for MandrakeClub to support their efforts, and for that money I get access to the Powerpack DVD with all the extras on it. Uses RPM format, and virtually any Red Hat 9 RPM will run on it. More and more sites support Mandriva RPMS directly. Patch support is fabulous.

    My only complaint is that they can be a little too bleeding edge. They shipped the 2.6.8 kernel with 10.1 and it totally sucked. 10.2 (now Limited Edition 2005) ships with 2.6.11 and has been very stable. I run it on everything from multiproc boxes to my laptop.

    http://www.mandriva.com/

    --
    If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
  5. CentOS...The Way to Go! by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CentOS simply rocks. If you like Red Hat, you'll love CentOS because it looks and smells like Red Hat. So far everyone I have talked to has said they can not find anything that won't work on it, and the updates are free. I guess if you can get it for free, why would you pay Red Hat for it? CentOS gets my vote!

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  6. SL: Great product and support by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I second this recommendation. In fact, I thought I had submitted a similar post, but apparently I had a brain fart or something.

    Not only is SL maintained by people from several of the USA national labs, but their mailing lists are excellent for support.

    They track pretty quickly on RH's heels, and try to be 100% compatible with RHEL. They've complied with RH's terms (replaced copyrighted images and trademarked logos), and don't even mention RH on their site.

    https://www.scientificlinux.org/

    We expect to have a mix of RHEL and SL. That way we pay RedHat, who after all has done most of the work here, but at the same time we won't go broke as we would if we were a shop running an OS where we had no choice but to pay high per seat licenses.

  7. CentOS is cheap, but RedHat is worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have used CentOS 4 and found it to be very stable. I use apt-get for updates and add-on packages.

    But if you need a reliable OS, and don't have the time to support it yourself, RedHat's support is a good deal: you get a wide variety of high-quality, tested software, plus you can call them when you can't figure out how to use or fix it, and don't have the time to look it up.

    I have been supporting UNIX and Linux for years, so I have elected to take the risk of running my (small) business without that safety net. But as I grow, I plan to switch to RedHat. Why? Because its cheaper than hiring a full-time person to support it.