CentOS Reviews

The product is based on Red Hat and very stable. 

The tool has no official support. 

The product helps us to create applications. 

We had used support in the past and it was good. 

The product's setup is simple. You can deploy the solution in one hour. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. One admin is enough to maintain the product. 

I primarily use the solution for personal and testing purposes. It's used as an operating system. 

The solution is easy to use. The performance is good.

The community and knowledge base are very robust.

It has a lot of great features. 

It is stable and reliable.

I have found the solution to be scalable. 

The support could be a bit better. They should be more customer friendly. They could also be a bit faster. 

I've used the solution for many years. I've used it for almost five years at this point. 

It's stable. I'd rate it nine out of ten for reliability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance has been fine. 

The solution is scalable. I'd rate the scalability nine out of ten. 

I'm not sure how many people are using the solution in my company. 

Support could be faster and more responsive. However, support is okay. 

Positive

I'm also using Ubuntu. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It is not complex. I deployed both on-premises and cloud options. It only takes a few hours. 

I followed the documentation for preparing the nodes and the administration. There's good documentation for configuring time zones, networks, et cetera. The steps are pretty standard. 

We had development and infrastructure teams on the solution. However, only one person can handle the deployment. I only have details on just my team and area. I'm not sure what it was like across the company. 

I handled the implementation in-house by myself. 

I've never looked into the ROI of the solution. 

I do not handle licensing. It's not in my scope of work.

I've used the latest version of the solution. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd advise people to have a clear view of how they will use the solution and take care to consider how they would like to scale. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I am using CentOS for hosting applications.

The most valuable features of CentOS are it is built from Linux, has good performance, and can we can create scripts. The scripts are you to do minor work automatically.

If CentOS could add Office features then that would be beneficial. Additionally, the UI could improve.

I have been using CentOS for approximately three years.

CentOS has been stable in our usage. We have had one server up for five years without any problems.

CentOS is scalable. However, it is depending on the deployment. We use Docker for our applications so we have not scaled the solution, but if the bandwidth is good then CentOS can be scaled.

Our entire company infrastructure is using CentOS. When I host an application, it's usable by about 1,000 people.

The support is handled by our other team. Even though I'm facing an issue, I talk to our team. If they cannot handle it, then they scale it to the CentOS support team.

I use MacOS, Windows, and Ubuntu on a daily basis.

For a server environment, I would recommend CentOS, but for normal usage, I would recommend MacOS.

When you buy a Mac it just comes with MacOS which is beautiful to work on. If I'm using a Windows laptop, I would go for CentOS. However, the problem with CentOS is there is no Microsoft Office.

For the enterprise version of CentOS, there is a license required. However, for personal use, I do not need a license.

My advice to others is if they have a server environment then I would recommend CentOS. It's stable. One of the only letdowns is the repository for some applications, it takes time for CentOS to adapt.

It has to do with the ecosystem of CentOS, I'm not sure. When comparing CentOS to Ubuntu, if Ubuntu comes out with a release today and a few days later you see you can install it.

I rate CentOS a seven out of ten.

We use CentOS for repository features.

There could be more integration features included in the product.

We have been using CentOS for five years.

It is a stable product.

We have five CentOS customers. It is a scalable and cost-effective product compared to public cloud solutions.

The initial setup process is easy. It requires five executives for deployment, including managers, admins, engineers, and developers. It takes around a month to complete.

We take the help of a reseller to implement the product.

We don’t have to pay for the system’s licenses.

I rate CentOS a nine out of ten.

I use the solution as a web application server. I use it with Apache. 

It's saved us a lot of money on licensing. 

I like that the updating is very easy.

It's saved us a lot of money based on the licensing structure.

The solution is stable and reliable.

There's lots of great documentation available. 

The initial setup was easy for me. 

I do not need any extra features. Nothing is missing from the solution. 

We are aware that the licensing has shifted, and it's not a change we've liked. 

I've been using the solution since 2017.

It is a very stable product. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I've never scaled or clustered in any way, although I do have it in multiple systems. 

I do not have plans to increase usage since that changed the way the licensing works. 

The documentation is excellent. I've never actually reached out to technical support. I've needed to leverage support services since the documentation is so strong. 

Since they have changed their licensing strategy, we are using more Ubuntu. 

I have the solution in Red Hat Linux. It's easy if you understand what to do. You do have to have some level of knowledge, however. It's not for non-technical users. 

I've had it deployed on-premise and on the cloud. 

We have witnessed a strong ROI. It manages our web applications very well. 

I'm not well-versed in licensing. It's almost free. The cost is very, very low. 

I started with version seven, and now I'm on version eight. 

Now that the licensing has changed, I'd advise potential users to be aware of this.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. The stability and security are good. 

This solution is mainly used for testing and development purposes.

The latest version of this solution has everything built in, making it comprehensive and very easy to use.

There is no notification before updates are applied to the solution, which occasionally means that new functionality isn't compatible with how the product is currently being used, and causes issues.

I have been working with this solution for around 10 years.

I have found this solution to be stable during my time using it.

This solution is very scalable, you simply add a node and expand a cluster so that you can scale out on your containerization.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward and very self-intuitive.

This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs involved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We deploy our products onto the solution. We use it as an OS. Our support team deploys it to customers. 

Overall, the solution works well. 

The team is very comfortable using it. 

It is very simple and straightforward to set up.

The solution is stable.

It's open-source.

The solution is easy to troubleshoot.

As a well-known product, it's easy to find people who know the solution well. 

I'm not an expert on the solution. I cannot pinpoint specific issues. 

The solution could be more scalable.

The company has used the solution for more than ten years, and I have used the solution in the company for one year (since I came on board).

The stability is very good. I'd rate it eight or nine out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. We haven't had any issues. There haven't been any crashes. It doesn't freeze. 

The scalability could be better. It doesn't scale that well. I'd rate the scalability seven or eight out of ten.

We have around 50 people, our support team, using the solution. 

Our support team deploys the solution on the customer side to assist customers, so the amount of usage would depend on the number of customers we have.

We get support from a vendor. It's open source. We can figure out how to troubleshoot on our own. 

I've also used Oracle Linux as well. We put deep packet processing on the Linux solution.

We haven't had issues with the setup. The support team is comfortable handling the setup. 

The deployment isn't too long. I didn't get a sense that the deployment took too long. 

They mostly give you a file, and it's deployed in a single step. It's not a big project.

We have about five people who handle deployment and maintenance. 

The solution is open-source. We do not pay a licensing fee. 

We may be using version nine of the solution. 

This is a very widely known solution that is very stable. It's easy to find engineers comfortable with it since its usage is common. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use CentOS in conjunction with our applications and databases.

It's free — it's an open-source solution. It has all the features of Red Hat, but you don't have to pay for the subscription. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same as Red Hat Linux. It uses all of the same repositories, the only difference is that it's open-source.

Integration with other platforms could be improved. There should also be more repositories. There are ways to get data from the repositories, but it could be enhanced.

I have been using CentOS since 2019.

Version 7 is stable — not the recent versions; I believe they have some issues. We are using a stable version as of now. We haven't faced any issues so far.

CentOS is scalable.

I have contacted their support, but it's not commercial technical support. On their website, there are blogs and other users that help. They have a large community that can answer most questions.

Before CentOS, we used Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The reason why we approached CentOS is that it has the same flavor, but there is no subscription. Earlier, we were paying for Red Hat Linux on a yearly subscription. In order to minimize the cost, especially for some of the applications, it didn't make sense to pay on a yearly basis. 

The initial setup is not very straightforward — it's intermediate. Linux is not an easy thing to install. If you don't have the knowledge, it can be a little difficult.

I believe there is a desktop version available that has a UI but we haven't tried it. That might be a little easier to install; but since it's on a server, we needed to use the command prompt.

We installed it ourselves.

There is no price or licensing required — it's open-source. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. Not the desktop version — I don't have experience with it. On a server level, I would definitely recommend it.