Submission + - Is Oracle Linux acceptable? (redhat.com) 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
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
