On 17/07/13 15:31, Robert Porter wrote: > The only effective difference is that CentOS is that it will always be > slightly behind RHEL. This is because it is re-compiled from RHEL sources. > Those sources have to be released before work can start. How long? It can be > significant... RHEL 6.0 released Nov 10, 2010. CentOS 6.0 release July 10, > 2011 - 8 months to the day. This may or may not be a problem for you - > just something to be aware of when your trying to decide. Personally, I love > CentOS and run it on many machines.
Another possibility is Scientific Linux - also an RHEL clone. But do you have any RHEL boxes on which you pay support? Because if you do, what's the problem with adding another? And if you don't why don't you run RHEL anyway? I would let the VAR load RHEL. The only "problem" with doing that is the terms of RH's support contract - and if you don't have one then that's your lookout. If you take out a support contract the terms are "you pay support for ALL your machines running RHEL". You can't install four copies and only pay for two. But there's nothing to stop you installing a hundred copies and paying for none. I know - this "Free Software" paradigm can be a bit difficult to understand sometimes :-) Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
