Trying To Justify CentOS Vs. RHEL

Home » CentOS » Trying To Justify CentOS Vs. RHEL
CentOS 3 Comments

Hi all,

I’m in the process of moving all of my RHEL systems over to CentOS but the argument that fires back at me is for critical vulnerabilities for items such as zero-day exploits and such. than CentOS which makes sense since CentOS is simply a copy and when changes occur they propagate down to the RHEL clones. My question is what kind of time frame are we looking at when a vulnerability (critical or high) is announced and a patch has been released for RHEL does it get implemented into CentOS?


3 thoughts on - Trying To Justify CentOS Vs. RHEL

  • Thanks for that quick response! I guess I should have looked closer through the wiki. Much appreciated!

  • Bidwell, Christopher wrote:
    Please don’t top post.

    One suggestion: if you have a number of systems, buy at least one RHEL
    license – that way, you can ask for enhancements, bugfixes, and such from them.

    That’s how we got US gov’t PIV card support from them. Most of our systems are CentOS, though….


  • Why all? Lets keep that question in the back of our minds.

    If zero day patches are important to maintain your accredidation on your systems then you need to have a support plan. That plan can either be a commercial services provider, vendor support contract (RHEL), or an in house team to support the system.

    Using a service provider other than RedHat is kind of silly since purchasing from RedHat support CentOS.

    Staying with RHEL is a non-change.

    Having an in house support team will be much more expensive as you will have to have staff for each of the packages on the system.

    It has always been fast enough for us, but if it were not, we would help by providing patches to the SRPM to CentoOS development team.

    For offical specifics, contact me off list.