I find that in places where I don¹t have latest and greatest hardware, CEntOS makes a much better Desktop OS than Ubuntu. If all I am doing is running a web browser for the most part, I use CEntOS.
-- cwebber On 1/19/11 7:13 AM, "John Hodrien" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> CentOS would likely only be used as a desktop OS by people who also run >> servers and like everything to be the same. They all assemble >>approximately >> the same set of upstream packages, though, so it is possible to make >>them >> all do the same things with varying amounts of work in finding current >> packages that might be missing in the base distribution. > >I do think CentOS gets unreasonably knocked as a desktop OS. I definitely >don't use it on desktops *because* I run it on servers. > >All the advantages of long release cycles apply to desktops. Despite >often >thinking otherwise, many users require relatively few packages to be the >latest shiniest, so running a bleeding edge distro isn't really needed. >Even >then, a reasonably amount of software can end up being commercial, where >EL5 >is currently better supported than any other linux release. Where users >do >have requirements that diverge from the base OS, it's probably a good >idea for >that to be satisfied out of the main OS tree anyway, as that lets you >satisfy >local requirements while keeping the core identical across the board. > >jh >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
