-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/11/15 15:17, Edward Ned Harvey (centos) wrote:>> From: centos-bounces at centos.org >> [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Devin Reade >> >> The above answer is right-on. From a technical perspective, you >> can probably expect the 3rd party software to work exactly the >> same on RHEL and CentOS (barring some implausible edge cases), >> however your 3rd party vendor may refuse to support you at all if >> you're using something that's not on their supported platforms >> list. > > Hehehe, for what it's worth, I encountered one of those edge cases > a few years ago. Dell OMSA, at least in the days of Centos 4, was > distributed as a self-extracting binary, that would read the > contents of /etc/redhat-release and compare it against a list of > predefined strings, and then refused to operate. The workaround was > to hack /etc/redhat-release. > > But anyway. That's pretty unusual. Thanks... >IBM do something similar with GPFS. You have to tell it you are using RHEL when you are on CentOS. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWQ7imAAoJEAF3yXsqtyBlRR4QAOTu6Fr3iqOtCaffdnt9dkjY 5B2z13vjvwzYgDXWl8T8tXeGCzOHP/mk2YY92GI7wDZrGf6+l88R8f0dkxWSLpyw wbG44VlLa5dXtLPQyi+RCzq6YFMaDrsdTMDGzgqmI/kTu5RQ7EDJuv/BzpDyZ7lE Na+WwnHM70WgfzPQCRIVno5/LJPQlZxYEZKNBRwcaMzzTNSZFQrkM3Jy+WrAlgqu 9VxAqs3T2HLggxYfIqlBhihdYoDdEzMxcN+YVJYzqxoyzGnGnt4gSs8UI9WoNY3T YzkfjJwBL7o3Nbq9UJbJaL/ArtxAKfZNfdzS+d816kuPR49zYNONGHenKQR7nB7+ YgOU7uOrrVG8QYt1tFfvM3Z61IwbPPrlJRIHx4/WZlGVlG4jb15N90KunXjLxdTG CawIU3iVAtN3vzb2k7rSPfCme2A1gpnYYeFKTnsTqJ4uHKEcG4q5wvcmU4Bdmmsz HajBYYOklHHTCOzEhPgeQRGGUXTFzPXygzXodet1m/DSJR95Bqfp1gNuqAL1mqe/ I6mhan1suowvluONhBitDCjfgU5fRPP7xwTyOlk79dpvYr+aAC2QqmGAMSWo03JP RlO+SEt1+C2hw3LaEGcOBnolRhkVDVu7gqM8H34UsoVXXkcEennGjg6MdQwuZuSu RoMnMq+Plwmoip9kOQQi =HcSd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In my experience software compiled for RHEL "just work" with Centos and I don't remember any case where it didn't. I have however heard whisperings on a grapevine that RH may want to try and make future versions of Centos slightly incompatible with RHEL but these are probably just whisperings. If you software vendor will not support Centos as RHEL then they probably need a good LARTing. On 11 November 2015 at 22:52, J Martin Rushton < martinrushton56 at btinternet.com> wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 11/11/15 15:17, Edward Ned Harvey (centos) wrote: > >> From: centos-bounces at centos.org > >> [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Devin Reade > >> > >> The above answer is right-on. From a technical perspective, you > >> can probably expect the 3rd party software to work exactly the > >> same on RHEL and CentOS (barring some implausible edge cases), > >> however your 3rd party vendor may refuse to support you at all if > >> you're using something that's not on their supported platforms > >> list. > > > > Hehehe, for what it's worth, I encountered one of those edge cases > > a few years ago. Dell OMSA, at least in the days of Centos 4, was > > distributed as a self-extracting binary, that would read the > > contents of /etc/redhat-release and compare it against a list of > > predefined strings, and then refused to operate. The workaround was > > to hack /etc/redhat-release. > > > > But anyway. That's pretty unusual. Thanks... > > > IBM do something similar with GPFS. You have to tell it you are using > RHEL when you are on CentOS. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWQ7imAAoJEAF3yXsqtyBlRR4QAOTu6Fr3iqOtCaffdnt9dkjY > 5B2z13vjvwzYgDXWl8T8tXeGCzOHP/mk2YY92GI7wDZrGf6+l88R8f0dkxWSLpyw > wbG44VlLa5dXtLPQyi+RCzq6YFMaDrsdTMDGzgqmI/kTu5RQ7EDJuv/BzpDyZ7lE > Na+WwnHM70WgfzPQCRIVno5/LJPQlZxYEZKNBRwcaMzzTNSZFQrkM3Jy+WrAlgqu > 9VxAqs3T2HLggxYfIqlBhihdYoDdEzMxcN+YVJYzqxoyzGnGnt4gSs8UI9WoNY3T > YzkfjJwBL7o3Nbq9UJbJaL/ArtxAKfZNfdzS+d816kuPR49zYNONGHenKQR7nB7+ > YgOU7uOrrVG8QYt1tFfvM3Z61IwbPPrlJRIHx4/WZlGVlG4jb15N90KunXjLxdTG > CawIU3iVAtN3vzb2k7rSPfCme2A1gpnYYeFKTnsTqJ4uHKEcG4q5wvcmU4Bdmmsz > HajBYYOklHHTCOzEhPgeQRGGUXTFzPXygzXodet1m/DSJR95Bqfp1gNuqAL1mqe/ > I6mhan1suowvluONhBitDCjfgU5fRPP7xwTyOlk79dpvYr+aAC2QqmGAMSWo03JP > RlO+SEt1+C2hw3LaEGcOBnolRhkVDVu7gqM8H34UsoVXXkcEennGjg6MdQwuZuSu > RoMnMq+Plwmoip9kOQQi > =HcSd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/13/2015 09:17 PM, Andrew Holway wrote:> In my experience software compiled for RHEL "just work" with Centos > and I don't remember any case where it didn't. I have however heard > whisperings on a grapevine that RH may want to try and make future > versions of Centos slightly incompatible with RHEL but these are > probably just whisperings.Unmitigated rumors. Until someone official says otherwise there is no case where CentOS will ever purposefully be made incompatible with RHEL. There are some very minor edge cases where it can happen incidentally due to: 1. Certain identifying information being changed from RedHat to CentOS such as the previously mentioned issues where software vendors explicitly check the redhat-release file and refuse to run if it says CentOS. 2. The build process for RedHat is not known and so it is highly unlikely that the CentOS build process replicates the RedHat one to the degree needed for full 100% compatibility. That said, if you find any case where CentOS acts differently to RHEL with the same packages (and versions) installed in both then please file a bug report with CentOS as as this would likely constitute a bug in CentOS and should be fixed if at all possible.> If you software vendor will not support Centos as RHEL then they > probably need a good LARTing.If it runs on RHEL it should run on CentOS as well. I would fault a software vendor who explicitly checks the redhat-release file to exclude CentOS from running, but I don't fault them for not wanting to support their software on CentOS, that is a choice they make. At the end of the day when you run proprietary software you are fully subject to the whims of the software vendor, I never understood how a commercial business would not only voluntarily put themselves into such a position but often times want to seek it out over the freedom that FOSS offers. Anyways, the vendor is also free to support whatever OS they want, and you're free to choose not to use their software. Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWRaJDAAoJEAUijw0EjkDv5MQIAJFAA3D9HEa0VMLaXczLbsp2 K+5IJ9SkLmC6ePVod83mxkq2EZha19qmVaD0hHJIeEVo8IXiuR5UYdehVByDj8Jy 7SULhxG8O6+tv39S22iSHk2Q4JTWEL5lbhwi9QI8MZ6ndfjj3OJkXWXWGW9QuluS hKBQzRQvvNeJ0XFnJ2ZZjhOXV5mU5MBJk3Zzu2NuMxMAqZ+H4vJVJVtDr1cwq/7s FO5e0I2gDZ9QlTFg6ZOMxm+aqNVW/RCV98s3W4C47JEBKB8J7nTi266qQeCR1yH4 VIO6isDWUjsgIBuRtGJRysdAh0XqNqY8WL7SS5TPYh8j7rk+QmiajVfLGzid3A0=fCrU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----