Cent OS migration

William Pitcock nenolod at systeminplace.net
Mon May 9 22:54:11 UTC 2011

On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:14:06 -0400
Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:

> On Monday, May 09, 2011 04:45:36 PM Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Depends on what he is doing. BSDs tend to be far more mature than
> > any Linux. They are poor systems for desktops or anything like
> > that. They are heavily used as servers by many vary large providers
> > and as the basis for many products like Ironport (Cisco) and JunOS
> > (Juniper). 
> Cisco had an RHEL rebuild (internal) at one time, called,
> refreshingly enough, Cisco Enterprise Linux.  Cisco also uses/used a
> Linux base for their Content Engines and subsequent ACNS-running
> boxen.
> The rather high-priced ADVA-sourced Cisco  Metro 1500 DWDM boxes used
> a 486 ISA single-board computer running off of DiskOnChip SSD for
> control and SNMP.
> Having said that, I'd be just about as comfortable with a BSD as with
> a Linux.
> And I do, and will continue to, run CentOS in production. 

I'd rather run Scientific Linux over CentOS.  Infact, I'd rather this so
much that we run SL instead of CentOS even on our cPanel boxes now.

Mind, for anything where we *don't* have to run CentOS, we use Debian
or Alpine.

Anyway, I was just wondering what the general consensus of NANOG is
regarding CentOS vs Scientific Linux.  SL generally has faster security
updates and people are *paid* to work on it fulltime.  CentOS on the
other hand is supported out-of-the-box by most software.


More information about the NANOG mailing list