Should I get a RHEL license or is CentOS good enough

jibbajabba

Don't mind paying for it if necessary, but if you say there is no need then obviously I do mind

So is it advisable to get a subscription ? Trial won't be enough

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

dynamik

What are you going to be using it for?

undomiel

Basically it comes down to will you need someone to call? That's the benefit of going RedHat; you can get a tech on the phone when it all goes to pot. With CentOS you'll just be left to the forums when you need help on something.

jibbajabba

dynamik wrote: »

What are you going to be using it for?

Yea should have been clearer

Basically purely for study purposes. All my webserver running CentOS anyway, but I am wondering if the RedHat network is needed for study purposes etc.

I don't think so, but I thought I rather ask

zenzen

I think CentOS 5.2 is just a rebuild of the red hat source code. The only thing that is different is the logos and backgrounds and stuff that is copyrighted like that.

It should work the same as red hat EL if you don't add special repositories.

darkerosxx

Gomjaba wrote: »

Yea should have been clearer

Basically purely for study purposes. All my webserver running CentOS anyway, but I am wondering if the RedHat network is needed for study purposes etc.

I don't think so, but I thought I rather ask

A license will give you access to Red Hat Network through YUM. You can get the same packages and the OS for free by signing up for a RHN account and downloading them manually.

A support subscription gives you access to support, so just remember they're different things.

You don't need RHN for studying for RHCT/RHCE.

LinuxLee

We use both RHEL and CentOS at work, they are interchangeable and functionally identical.

The only thing that RHEL gets you is the hassle of having to register the system with Redhat Network for updates - and in the case of RHEL-5, having to type in a long serial number every time you do an install.

amart83

I've never used Linux before so I decided to build a server using CentOS. I read that CentOS is basically the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

My question is, would it be safe to add in my resume if that I have entry-level experience with RHEL (no cert obviously but experience) if I have worked with CentOS?

darkerosxx

amart83 wrote: »

I've never used Linux before so I decided to build a server using CentOS. I read that CentOS is basically the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

My question is, would it be safe to add in my resume if that I have entry-level experience with RHEL (no cert obviously but experience) if I have worked with CentOS?

In my opinion, put CentOS. It may not get past HR, but the people that it matters with on the inside should know.

vsmith3rd

darkerosxx wrote: »

In my opinion, put CentOS. It may not get past HR, but the people that it matters with on the inside should know.

Forgive my *nix ignorance, but would it be okay to just put Linux experience, and not specify CentOS until questioned further during an interview. That way, you could remind them that CentOS is basically a Red Hat clone.

darkerosxx

vsmith3rd wrote: »

Forgive my *nix ignorance, but would it be okay to just put Linux experience, and not specify CentOS until questioned further during an interview. That way, you could remind them that CentOS is basically a Red Hat clone.

That's a good idea, too! I've talked to many hiring managers for linux positions and one thing most have agreed on is that whether it's SuSE or RHEL or whatever, they're all extremely similar and experience with one will lend extremely well with another, so all they're worried about is experience with at least one distribution.

BeaverC32

If you are just installing it and testing out features at home I would say that does not qualify as "experience" at all, at least not in the sense that I would list on a resume. That's just me though.

darkerosxx

BeaverC32 wrote: »

If you are just installing it and testing out features at home I would say that does not qualify as "experience" at all, at least not in the sense that I would list on a resume. That's just me though.

Linux experience seems to be in a weird position. I agree with your statement, but I don't agree that it applies to Linux. I only say that because employers and hiring managers have said multiple times to me that when looking for employees to work with linux, they're looking for powerusers who used it at home before ever working with it...experts who do it for fun as well as for work. Linux is the only IT that I've ever heard that statement made about.

amart83

BeaverC32 wrote: »

If you are just installing it and testing out features at home I would say that does not qualify as "experience" at all, at least not in the sense that I would list on a resume. That's just me though.

So what would you recommend?

I intend to use the server for lab purposes. I plan to assign it server roles, get it to inter-operate with my W2K3 domain, and eventually plan to install a Directory Services on it.

I'm new to Linux so I also plan to do some reading to get a better understanding of the terminology that is used and the Linux way of getting things accomplished.

If I can accomplish all of that would you still say it's not worth mentioning on my resume that I do have "entry-level" skills/experience in Linux?

dynamik

Have you looked at the Linux+ or LPI certs at all?

amart83

dynamik wrote: »

Have you looked at the Linux+ or LPI certs at all?

No, only because I'm placing higher priority on the certs in my sig.

I just want to get my feet wet with Linux. At the moment, I'm not really targeting a career working in a Linux environment. Unless there is a huge demand for it.

jibbajabba

Well .. I did get actually two licenses at the end

Not really for study purposes but being a n00b I thought it is good to have support .. Well I have both now, server and desktop of RHEL and due to the basic subscription - which gives you a 2 day response time - I solved my own problems normally within those 2 days myself with a lot of google and time lol ...

One thing to keep in mind when using the Desktop version though : You have a LOT of development packages missing .. I always wondered what the difference is ... well there is one .. I tried to install a certain burn program which requires also stuff like gcc-c++ which just doesn't come with the client os and cannot even downloaded via yum.

You can still grab certain packages from the server DVD - but sometimes it is still not possible to install them. I had a problem where I wanted to install package A - which required B as dependency. B requires C but in order to install C I needed A - so there was no way to install them as one depended on the other ...

dynamik

Gomjaba wrote: »

You can still grab certain packages from the server DVD - but sometimes it is still not possible to install them. I had a problem where I wanted to install package A - which required B as dependency. B requires C but in order to install C I needed A - so there was no way to install them as one depended on the other ...

Using RPM? Just use the --nodeps option to skip the dependency check.

jibbajabba

dynamik wrote: »

Using RPM? Just use the --nodeps option to skip the dependency check.

D'oh

A lot more to learn then ey

Forsaken_GA

amart83 wrote: »

My question is, would it be safe to add in my resume if that I have entry-level experience with RHEL (no cert obviously but experience) if I have worked with CentOS?

Unix's and resumes are weird. I tend to list them by what I call 'working environment'. That is, some distro's are based off other distro's, and you can be more or less functionally equivalent on the distro's clones.

For example, I'm most familiar and comfortable with Debian on a server install, and I use Ubtuntu as a workstation OS. On my resume, I just list Debian. I work in an environment where the majority of our servers are Debian, but we have a few RHEL servers for Flash Media Server, and we have a few customers who insist on running CentOS. We also have some FreeBSD and even a BSDi box or two that are legacy installs from an acquisition. So in my working environment, I have to be nimble enough to move from Unix flavor to Unix flavor and be pretty much agnostic in regards to the OS if I want to do my job well.

Currently, I list Debian,RHEL,FreeBSD, and OpenBSD as the Unix's I have experience with (no one actually uses OpenBSD at work, but it's my favorite of the BSD bunch, and I use it quite a bit in smaller environments that I work with). Any technical manager worth their salt will be able to figure out from that list that I can pretty much work with any Unix you throw at me except Solaris (which I have absolutely no experience on).

If I were applying for a Linux related position with a company and I knew they were say, a SuSE shop, I'd go out of my way to include SuSE in the list of Unix's I was fluent with on the copy of my resume that I'd be sending them.