Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Is Oracle Linux acceptable? ( 2

um... Lucas writes: I wanted to ask the slashdot community their thoughts on their choice of Redhat compatible distribution. I'm working on a project for which there's no money, but there may be in the future, so keeping initial costs down is important. The choices seem to be as follows:

RHEL — just get stick with the real McCoy and call it a day. I'm somewhat disappointed that Redhat doesn't make ISO's available anymore, but that's outside my control.

CentOS — CentOS seems to be RHEL, just free and without support. By my reading of it, CentOS is just a couple of people, who are busy repacking and compiling all the code coming from Redhat. My concerns with CentOS are A) no support option, B) if one of their key people got hit by a bus, that could introduce noticeable delays in their releases.

This brings me to the third option — Oracle Linux. I'm beginning to think that this is the ideal way to go — the distribution is freely available (unlike Redhat), yet support is available should I want the option (unlike Centos). I do wish that I could go this route with Redhat, but I can't.

I've also read a little bit about Scientific Linux, but since the maintainers are more concerned research institutions, I feel like I should side-step that one, as it would essentially leave me in the same place as CentOS would.

So the question here is, am I missing something? I'd really like to go Redhat, but can't justify the cost initially. Oracle seems to be getting a thrashing for their offering, but it really sounds like they're offering what I'm looking for.

So, fellow slashdotters, which way would you direct me? (If it matters, the installation will be the basis of blackbox hosting several virtual machines, virtually networked, with just one of them facing the rest of the internet). I'm still tossed up between KVM and Xen, but for developmental purposes, I'm going with KVM.

Thoughts are appreciated

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Oracle Linux acceptable?

Comments Filter:
  • by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:30AM (#42430733) Homepage

    Deploy to a U.S. Government customer? Red Hat. Makes the certification process so much easier. And they'll pay you for it.

    Rock solid stable servers? Debian. The completely free stable version's software is consistently 6-12 months behind the other distros but it's, well, stable. And they have more open source software under package management than most any other distro so you'll spend much less time compiling sources and watching those sources' bug reports.

    Desktop? Ubuntu.

    CentOS? Unless you're trying to make your home computers look like your work computers and don't want to cough up the $400 per year each, don't waste your time. If you *are* trying to make your home computers look like your work computers, well, CentOS does a respectable job of that. Know what else does a respectable job of that? Red Hat. Seriously: your work didn't license Red Hat, they bought support and updates. You don't break any license by installing it at home, you just can't attach it to their update server. But you can keep copies of the RPMs that your work computers download from the update servers and carry them home.

    Oracle Linux? Hah. Seriously? You must be joking.

  • I'm not a fan of either Red Hat / CentOS or OpenSuSE, let alone Oracle Linux. But if you're looking for a rpm-based distribution, OpenSuSE is by far the best choice IMHO. It's reasonably stable, it's up-to-date and it has management tools.

    Otherwise, just go for Ubuntu or Debian. Especially if you're an rpm-o-phobe like me :P.

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.