Slackware has also an 'enterprise' behind.
It's possible not driven by the random changing policy of some random people.
If this works, what is obviously the case, respect, but I can't tell you how good it works for Slackware and how it developed over the years.

Hmmm ... that sounds like Slackware, doesn't it ?

-- kjh

I used to use Scientific Linux 6, a clone of upstream RH Linux 6. It was in many ways a worthy, rock-solid distro. Then along came version 7, with ABI/API breakage, the dumbing down of the Gnome desktop, and of course the insane, immature decision to include systemd by default. I no longer use Scientific, but I have great respect for the team. I have none whatsoever for RH. They have single-handedly screwed up Linux with so many of their initiatives. And here's a taste of what is to come:

Enterprise Linux employees break screen (+tmux) usage

So much for stable, predictable Enterprise Linux. But of course these kids working for Red Hat know so much better than everyone else what is needed. They even know better than those people who developed screen all those decades ago, which is a marvel, given they weren't around then.

Give me stable, predictable Slackware any day. It remains rock-solid despite integrating software far more recent (read: bugs fixed long ago) than Red Hat.

9 members found this post helpful.

gezley --

Yes, we install CentOS 6.x on our Headless Linux Appliances for now, but the next generation will NOT be CentOS 7 because of the direction RH has taken -- 'every server runs like a laptop'.

I've been playing with Slackware tag files to replace the CentOS kickstart files we now use and I don't see any reason to not go with Slackware for the next generation of Appliances.

And Yes, I saw and posted a reply to an anti-Slackware post on that Slashdot thread.

-- kjh

4 members found this post helpful.

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

2 members found this post helpful.

Slackware does the job for me.

2 members found this post helpful.

That other product called Slack might be a better example...

Seriously, this is just another brick in the wall, of my global depression... It makes me anxious how the whole "mainstream" community is racing to the bottom, with presumptuous "ideas", and are "backed up" with some "big companies" (or stupid investors/directors/managers)... The "enterprise" trend is sometimes full of fallacies.

"Is there anybody out there ?"

haha! That's funny! They even have an enterprise package coming onstream soon!

;-)

https://slack.com/pricing

Almost, except a few points. The recent bump from PHP 5.4 to 5.6 is an excellent example. Enterprise class Linux distributions like RHEL/CentOS would never do such a thing, but instead keep the 5.4 line and then backport the bugfixes. Something else you don't get with Slackware is certification, and support is roughly five years - and not ten as with RHEL. On the plus side, you have much more flexibility, so I tend to use Slackware whenever I can.

Judging from some posts, the word "enterprise" seems tainted, and I guess some folks imagine Leonardo Di Caprio in "The Wolf Of Wall Street", whereas I mainly see a server that I can install and then run for a decade without reinstalling the whole mess. Just give CentOS a spin, it's an enterprise-class distro that's free as in speech & beer.

Cheers,

Niki

kikinovak --

Yes, our Linux Appliances all run CentOS 6.x for now.

However, what 'upstream' did with RHEL 7.x concerns me more than a little.

I haven't yet released any CentOS 7.x boxes because the jump to systemd felt like a little too hasty to me.

I've got our unattended CentOS 6.x install down to about 30 minutes.

And I am now testing what I need to do to build a ready-to-ship appliance with Slackware rather than CentOS ( tagfiles vs kickstart ).

-- kjh

edit: something that Slackware can do that CentOS and upstream do not support is an in-place 'Major' Upgrades.

1 members found this post helpful.

sorry, I think I missed this: is there really someone backporting bugfixes to php-5.4.x?
this would be really useful for the sites I have to run on that version...
do you know where to find these sources?

1 members found this post helpful.

LPIC is a vendor neutral Linux certification program.

As for support, if RHEL introduces disruptive new technologies to its latest server then I, as a paying customer, would expect them to support the mess they made for 10 years. Since nothing disruptive enters the Slackware tree there is no need for 10-year support, although I'm sure the Slackware team would gladly rival Red Hat's 10-year support if the funds were there.

Suse and Oracle (Linux) have longer support terms than RH, by the way.

Ponce --

Yes, RH does backport bug fixes into older versions and CentOS essentially RHEL ...

I don't know specifically about php ( we don't install it ) but here is one link for CentOS ...

https://wiki.centos.org/Sources?highlight=%28source%29

hth

-- kjh

from what I was able to find, updates to php-5.4.x in CentOS stopped eleven months ago, 2015-07-09, with version 5.4.40

https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/php54-php

while updates in slackware64-14.1 stopped on 2015-10-01 with 5.4.45 (see the Changelog)

in their sources git I was able to find only older ones

https://git.centos.org/sources/php54-php/c7/

but maybe it's me, please report if you have newer patched ones...