10 Years of Red Hat Enterprise Linux | Hacker News Reader

10 Years of Red Hat Enterprise Linux

redhat.com

66 pointszhiping16 comments

I'm very happy to see Red Hat to grow every day.

Let's hope one day Red Hat could supplant the dominance of Microsoft/IBM in the "enterprise" area (so instead of the expensive .NET tools, we could use JBoss with standard JEE6 and/or Seam+Hibernate).

I secretly wished Red Hat to acquire more "enterprise" software stack out there (i.e.: Zimbra, Alfresco, Liferay, Compiere) and MySQL (gone)/EnterpriseDB to provide more end-to-end offering.

Congratulations to Red Hat for producing a Linux distribution that I have used for most of those 10 years. Stable for many years at a time with binary compatibility, it has always been a given that if a commercial piece of software supported Linux it will run on RHEL.

Passed the RHCE back in 2006, at the time was spending the days (and many nights) running high end RHEL systems. Stability wise everything was great, except issues with EMC drivers and booting from SAN. These were ironed out by vendor support - which is why it can pay to have that level of enterprise support; it just depends on your environment.

These days, I use Ubuntu everywhere including here - http://hackertarget.com. It is just easier to quickly get up and running (not because its Free I could be using CentOS).

So good job Red Hat, and good job Ubuntu!

Great job. RedHat makes some awesome stuff. I just wish that they could drop some of the "not invented here" and "luser" culture, which bit me more than once and made me leave for Debian. Somtimes I miss the good 'ol days :-)

And RHEL packages are still from 10 years ago...

Not one mention of Centos.

Did ec2 launch with RHEL AMI's or with Centos AMI's?

CentOS does not mention Red Hat and Red Hat does not mention CentOS. That's the deal...

It launched with RHEL AMI's. There are no official CentOS AMI's, though there are plenty of images supplied by the community.

RedHat mentioning CentOS in its historical timeline would be like the New York Times mentioning The Huffington Post in its.

I don't understand how they got to 10 years?

What about that do you not understand? They keep RHEL as up to day as most businesses care to have it, the only thing really connecting RHEL 1 and RHEL 6 is the name, and there isn't much reason for that to wear out..

Unless maybe you are talking about Redhat the company, not RHEL? This article is about 10 years of RHEL.. Redhat has been around for nearly two decades now.

There was AS 2.1, then RHEL 3. But yes.

Ah yes, you are correct.

Well RHEL started in 2003, since it's now 2012 that equals to only 9 years.

Red Hat distro was created in 1994, but in 2003 (~10 years ago) they created RHEL, merged vanilla Red Hat with Fedora, and shifted corporate strategy to RHEL.

Amusing they mark the start of the Fedora Project at the University of Hawaii, don't mention CentOS at all.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I went to 2002 in the timeline and didn't see anything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Still it should be 9 years... or maybe 9.5 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com