Thoughts on CentOS?

>>58322790

Good for VPS/we server software... dunno about running it as an OS tho.

Great server OS... But it's a pain in the ass to set up properly as a desktop/laptop OS. Just install Fedora if you want some redhat flavored experience

prefer debian stable on servers. the epel is a pain.

>>58322790
I used it on my laptop when I was transitioning to Linux on my daily life. I chose it because I had been using RHEL at work, so I thought it would be similar.

After a year, I'm glad I started with it, because it causes a lot of issues on modern devices and laptops but thanks to that I learned a lot of stuff. Then I learned the distros are really not that different, so now I don't really care as long as their repositories contain the packages so that I don't have to compile anything.

Selinux and other stuff are worth getting into though, while we circlejerk ourselves they're actually using these in actually deployed servers.

>>58322790
Good server OS. There's no point using it as a server OS.

>packages from bronze age
>need to add extra repos to install anything useful

>>58324833
You got a point. Arch is much better for servers.

>>58325873
Nice strawman.

worst logo I've ever seen

>>58325873
Not sure if you were joking or not, but I run Arch on my server and it is pretty great compared to how Debian was.

File: 1477386274668.jpg (237KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 900x1200px

>>58325888
Nice stallman.

>>58325910
Your home seed box is not a server.

>>58325910
In an enterprise environment, I think CentOS's stability and documentation matters more. You can hire RHEL certified sys admins and be sure that they know what they're doing with your servers. There is no Arch equivalent.

>>58322790

Pretty good for servers

>>58325995
Arch has a pretty decent documentation, it's kept relatively simple and is quite similar to Fedora/RHEL/CentOS in many aspects (uses systemd, /bin and /lib are symlinks).
That said, while I've ran Arch development servers in my job, for more mission critical stuff I'd use CentOS or Debian.

>>58326087
>quite similar to Fedora/RHEL/CentOS
It's not.

>in my job
There is no point in lying on the internet.

>>58326136
I'm not lying, but whatever.

>>58326087
Arch's documentation is a (very good) community wiki, CentOS's documentation is backed by a multinational corporation.

>>58322790

If I ever have need of a server, it's on my shortlist to look into.

>>58326180
In what areas exactly is CentOS (community enterprise OS) superior to Arch's?

>>58322790
I run it as a desktop. Steam is ezpz

SERVER

>people ITT non-ironically defending Arch as a good server OS
I always thought Arch users were childish, but damn.

File: 1481834088467.jpg (29KB, 383x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 383x400px

>>58326397

>>58326059

>>58324183
How is epel a pain? You literally just install epel-release then you have the repo.

>>58326243
Since CentOS is literally just a rebranded Red Hat, Red Hat's docs apply. Are you going to ask how Red Hat's documentation is superior to Arch's?

Couldn't get it to work.

Fedora is better.

>>58322790
is just like an old fedora, you can install any software you want, yum is ok, compared to apt, every popular software has .rpm, huge serious documentation, is a exact copy of redhat

>>58325873
not bad idea. arch is stable enough, been running it for almost 2 years, last update was like 1GB and nothing broke, most of my software is from AUR.

I can picture a web server running arch, just don't install a lot of services and a couple languages, test before update, which you do with any os,
protip: make your code portable