On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM, MJang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 10:20 -0700, Michael wrote: > >> When is RHEL required? When support checks for it while examining the system >> in the course of a support call. I am told if they find CentOS rather than >> RHEL they will refuse to provide support.
I can attest to that case. Clearcase support from IBM, this is true. > > Yup, there is one package that provides links to the updates of the Red > Hat Network. While it uses yum, the configuration files for the repo are > in a non-standard location. > > (of course, this does not include those packages which have to be > reprocessed to remove Red Hat trademarks) > > The "disadvantage" of CentOS is the time lag. It takes time to process > the updates provided by Red Hat under the GPL. It takes additional time > to process it into a complete distro. Don't know if it's still true, but > CentOS at least at one time had to use non-Red Hat tools (or something) > to compile the source code packages. > > So the packages you see in CentOS are generally some short number of > weeks behind. If there's a critical update, you should be able to pull > the source code packages from ftp.redhat.com and build them as needed. > But that takes time too. > Well I run both. Security updates from Red Hat are normally available within hours for CentOS. The CentOS team follows the cert notices for Red Hat and act. Updates that are not published via update e-mails show up within a day or two of Red Hat positing the source rpm on the Web Site. Now a release, minor or otherwise does take time to build and test new images - 4 to 6 weeks. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
