Posted by: Anonymous
on January 17, 2008 02:11 AM
Red Hat adds a great deal of value with their packaging, bug fixes and institutionalized choices. This makes for a stable environment, unlike Fedora where every time you type 'yum update' something new pops up.
What Red Hat stopped providing is a 'home server' type of product, where I want to run Linux on my 1 home machine. I don't want to assemble all of the possible packages and pick through the inter-relationships (this is more involved than simple dependency checking done by yum). Yet they stepped up the cost to something an enterprise feels is worth it, but a home user may want to switch back and forth between distos and a subscription up front doesn't make that easy. CentOS allows me to run a stable environment without a long-term commitment.
One could argue that if I'm storing my ever-growing email archive on a machine I should be paying for the OS, so I've contributed to CentOS. But not as much as if I had to shell out $$ for MS Exchange.
I personally feel a business should invest in RHEL and home users (and possibly public libraries, etc) are the proper target for CENTOS.