Views from an Red Hat -> Ubuntu -> Fedora migrator

[William Muriithi]

> > Other cases that have left me flabbergasted,  Vertica, Oracle or even
Dell
> > will not support their application on Scientific Linux despite them
being
> > the same binaries as RHEL.
>
> This is incorrect. SL does not strive for binary compatibility with
> RHEL. So far as I know, only CentOS strives for this. It's a major
> reason why SL was able to push out v6.0 months before CentOS was able
> to. The CentOS folks needed to effectively reverse-engineer the Red Hat
> build environment.
>
Don't matter,  I tried to raise a case with Dell over open manage and they
refused to work with me after saying I was on centos. Called back and lied
it was redhat and they worked with me.

I was honestly using sl here to cover all the redhat clones.

William
> I am not one to defend either Oracle, Dell or Cisco (quite the
> contrary), but in this case I can understand their reasoning. You don't
> know what corner-case bugs might slip in with RHEL derivatives that are
> not 100% binary compatible. So to support distros like SL, they would
> have to spend a fair bit of time and money to test against them (and
> repeat for every update). Why bother when there is a compatible, free
> alternative in CentOS?
>
> As for Debian support, I suspect it's more a question of market share.
> If you're selling a product aimed at enterprise, and if the bulk of your
> potential client base runs OS A, why spend a lot of money to support the
> smaller OS B option? These are fairly simple business decisions and do
> not reflect on the quality of OS B.
>
> --
> Digimer
> Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
> What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
> access to education?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20121023/11e2532a/attachment.html>