Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: [SOLVED] Re: CentOS Official Support

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    30
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    I understand how some criticize the decision to run CentOS instead of the actual supported RHEL package, but we'll have to agree to disagree. While everyone banters about the different costs they pay for their favorite version of the 'real' Enterprise package, the fact remains that there *ARE* paying Network Edition customers out there that feel comfortable running CentOS, and may prioritize their budget dollars to things that actually mean a difference to the end users they support - not the least of which is the cost of servers, storage, power, bandwidth, security, CUSTOMER SERVICE, etc.

    In my own experience around sizable RHEL deployments, I've never received anything close to equivalent value for the amount of money that changed hands on an annual basis for RedHat support. I understand that a lot of corporations spend that extra money for official support as an insurance policy, and to show a measure of due diligence and compliance with certain regulations that govern such entities. There's nothing wrong with incurring such an expense, it's just a different ROI calculation with a different payback than I have for my business.

    These threads are the reason I opened the feature enhancement in bugzilla. Bug 23487 - Official Support for ZCS Network Edition on CentOS was meant to be a place for those Network Edition users who want to stand up and be counted, to make their request for official support through the official feature request process Zimbra has provided, nothing more.

    I really think that the idea of pawning a CentOS build off on the community as a FOSS initiative is disingenuous and a slap in the face to Network Edition customers asking for this enhancement as PAYING CUSTOMERS.

    If enough of Zimbra's customers are asking for this build, then maybe it's time Zimbra to bite the bullet and prioritize an official supported build for CentOS.

    It's been less than 24-hours since I filed the bug/enhancement and so far 25 Zimbra customers have voted for it. Now I'm not a heavy Bugzilla user, but that seems like a lot of votes in a single day.

    If I were in the shoes of Zimbra's product manager, I would very seriously start looking at all those install reports/notifications that you receive at the end of each install process. You might be surprised by what you find . . . then again, maybe the CentOS users are a minority after all but only Zimbra has the data to back that up, the rest of us are just guessing based on our own experience and the postings of others in this forum . . .

    Personally, I'd be very interested to see aggregate data of the most popular platforms in use to host Zimbra, you guys care to share??

    Take care!

    Robert

  2. #32
    phoenix is offline Zimbra Consultant & Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Vannes, France
    Posts
    23,587
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rwc101010 View Post
    Personally, I'd be very interested to see aggregate data of the most popular platforms in use to host Zimbra, you guys care to share??
    There is a poll here but as a self-selecting survey the results aren't guaranteed to be statistically correct.
    Regards


    Bill


    Acompli: A new adventure for Co-Founder KevinH.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Would anyone mind if I changed the name of this thread?
    I would do it without asking, but I'm afraid of someone yelling at me and saying that I'm trying to hide it.

    It doesn't exactly cover the topic, plus, it's messing up my (email) filter
    Last edited by jholder; 01-09-2008 at 12:04 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Yep you should change it to something more meaningful now, I was just trying to get your attention with this topic.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by langs View Post
    Yep you should change it to something more meaningful now, I was just trying to get your attention with this topic.
    You could have just pm'ed me
    j/k

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,017
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    How about "Should CentOS be *OFFICIALLY* supported ?"

  7. #37
    dijichi2 is offline OpenSource Builder & Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I understand how some criticize the decision to run CentOS instead of the actual supported RHEL package, but we'll have to agree to disagree. While everyone banters about the different costs they pay for their favorite version of the 'real' Enterprise package, the fact remains that there *ARE* paying Network Edition customers out there that feel comfortable running CentOS, and may prioritize their budget dollars to things that actually mean a difference to the end users they support - not the least of which is the cost of servers, storage, power, bandwidth, security, CUSTOMER SERVICE, etc.
    I can't argue with this and your other very reasoned arguments. Everyone has his/her own priorities and ways of doing things. Wallets shout the loudest and Zimbra ultimately can't turn down a horde of paying customers! And of course there are many situations where what you say is absolutely correct.

    I have two points for my personal point of view (we're starting to get off-topic here):

    1) Linux servers typically serve filesharing/printing, email, dns, websites for a company. Workgroup servers like my various zimbra boxes serve filesharing and email for small but important corporates. Redhat engineer, support and patch the software that runs the vital day-to-day IT functions of these companies. If they lose filesharing and email, even for a small fraction of the day, considerable business and money is lost. For the sake of a few hundred quid a year, what person with the ultimate responsibility for IT in these corporates would in their right mind would go for the unsupported software?

    2) CentOS essentially uses the loopholes (ok wrong word, really it's the essence of freedom that opensource provides) of opensource licenses to 'pirate' RHEL. SLES is also free/open like this, just as far as I know no-one can be bothered to produce a similar alternative. CentOS doesn't hire Linux experts fulltime to both further the greater cause of Linux and their own commercial product, doesn't engineer/test/QA/package/sell their own product, doesn't offer/guarantee that they will fix their customers problems or provide timely patches to security issues. In essence, as a paying customer of Redhat, I am paying for all of you that run CentOS - it is a form of legal piracy. There are plenty of other really good, genuine distros out there so if I want a free distro I go elsewhere, despite being most familiar with RHEL - my opensource versions of zimbra run on debian/ubuntu and in the past I have used OpenSUSE a fair bit.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,017
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    1)

    "In essence, as a paying customer of Redhat, I am paying for all of you that run CentOS - it is a form of legal piracy."

    No your paying for commercial support!

    So, what about all the people who are sat at home fixing bugs in RH and feeding them back in? Do you think RH are paying them?

    OSS is what it is, but if you want it commercially supported then pay the pennies.

    2) "what person with the ultimate responsibility for IT in these corporates would in their right mind would go for the unsupported software?"

    But they still use M$ products aswell
    Last edited by uxbod; 01-09-2008 at 05:52 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    jholder,

    Your wording seems to indicate the you are SURE that there is a problem in CentOS that is not present in RHEL ... I do NOT believe that is the case at all.

    If there is a problem in CentOS that is not in RHEL, and if you show us that information, it will immediately be corrected.

    In looking into this problem for YOUR USERS, I do not see any issues in CentOS-4.6 or CentOS-5.1 that are not also in RHEL. You obviuosly seem to know of some:

    We've identified that the issue is not with Zimbra, but rather CentOS.
    So, please post what these so called Errors in CentOS (that do not exist in RHEL) are so that:

    1. I can fix them
    2. Your users can get their installs back up as quickly as possible.

    The thing is ... I do not believe that there is any such issues and that your statement is instead false.

    You ignore CentOS in the enterprise at your own peril.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    30
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    I'll condense my response to a single post . . .

    Hey Bill!

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
    There is a poll here but as a self-selecting survey the results aren't guaranteed to be statistically correct.
    I would totally agree, but would tend to believe that they are more accurate than those of a poll that a user/customer may or may not see, choose to respond to, or care about. ANY numbers are better than no numbers, especially when those numbers are sourced as even an optional part of the installer package.

    Hey dijichi2!

    Quote Originally Posted by dijichi2 View Post
    1) Linux servers typically serve filesharing/printing, email, dns, websites for a company. Workgroup servers like my various zimbra boxes serve filesharing and email for small but important corporates. Redhat engineer, support and patch the software that runs the vital day-to-day IT functions of these companies. If they lose filesharing and email, even for a small fraction of the day, considerable business and money is lost. For the sake of a few hundred quid a year, what person with the ultimate responsibility for IT in these corporates would in their right mind would go for the unsupported software?
    Who said it was unsupported, I have support, but it's not from RedHat. Remember, support comes in many forms, not just an email address or an 800 number outsourced to a foreign country!

    Quote Originally Posted by dijichi2 View Post
    2) CentOS essentially uses the loopholes (ok wrong word, really it's the essence of freedom that opensource provides) of opensource licenses to 'pirate' RHEL. SLES is also free/open like this, just as far as I know no-one can be bothered to produce a similar alternative. CentOS doesn't hire Linux experts fulltime to both further the greater cause of Linux and their own commercial product, doesn't engineer/test/QA/package/sell their own product, doesn't offer/guarantee that they will fix their customers problems or provide timely patches to security issues. In essence, as a paying customer of Redhat, I am paying for all of you that run CentOS - it is a form of legal piracy. There are plenty of other really good, genuine distros out there so if I want a free distro I go elsewhere, despite being most familiar with RHEL - my opensource versions of zimbra run on debian/ubuntu and in the past I have used OpenSUSE a fair bit.
    I think John can quote me as going on the record that CentOS lives on the margin of the GPL, but if you ask RedHat I think they would be the first to say that the product they provide is is less about the Linux software itself, and more about the value-add of the enterprise package, patch and support services for an Open Source operating system. I would even venture to say that RedHat ultimately gain business by playing ball with CentOS, in that a CentOS customer is already accustomed to their product, and will have little trouble transitioning to RHEL when the need arrises or the business model warrants. I won't speak to the other points you make on the CentOS community, as I have no direct knowledge of the points you raise.

    Those that provide and/or use the CentOS platform are no more pirates than Zimbra's own Open Source customers are - and no, I'm not calling ANYONE a pirate here, but your point illustrates a common misunderstanding with FOSS software. When a company releases an open source package under a open source license, they cease to have the right to call anyone a pirate

    As you move into the realm of a buildable source release with the Zimbra platform, you'll start to see just how the pirate argument doesn't work and will see the benefits of a true open source community.

    Cheers!

    Robert

Similar Threads

  1. Suggestion For Zimbra Licensing for WebHosts
    By andreychek in forum Administrators
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 05:30 PM
  2. [SOLVED] CentOS is NOT supported
    By uxbod in forum Users
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 03:06 PM
  3. OS Selection... Any Centos NE users out there?
    By timothyalangorman in forum Installation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 08:04 AM
  4. Zimbra startup hangs after install CentOS 4.2
    By eger in forum Installation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2006, 10:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •