CentOS Reviews

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.

The solution is the equivalent to Red Hat, so everything is good and very equivalent. If you can't afford to have Red Hat, you can use CentOS. I primarily use the solution for testing purposes. 

The product is stable.

The scalability is good.

It's less expensive than Red Hat. The product is open-source.

As an open-source solution, there isn't much technical support. 

I've used the solution for a few years now. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is good.

I've never scaled it or tried to. That said, it must be. It is just a replica of Red Hat, and therefore it must be.

I use the solution myself, for personal use. My business unit is using this product and we may expand it to one or two more people. We wouldn't scale up to more than that.

I've never directly dealt with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

The product is kind of open-source. I am not sure of the support model for this one.

We also use Red Hat.

The solution is not complicated. It is straightforward in terms of the setup process.

I'm able to handle the installation process myself. I do not need the help of any integrators or consultants. 

If a company cannot afford Red Hat, they should use this product.

It's an open-source solution.

I'm dealing with version seven or eight at this time. I can't remember which one. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten. If there was more support available to users, it would get a higher rating.

We have a team of ten who use the solution for Linux-based SIEM and network monitoring. 

We particularly like that we can remove the graphic user interface to minimize attack settings for the operating system. We access applications on the operating system from our web interface and other machines. 

We would like Red Hat to keep supporting the solution but they have decided to get rid of it and there isn't much we can do about it. 

Our company has been using the solution for three years. 

Our team loves working with the solution because it is very stable. 

We experienced a few crashes that were due to human error, not issues with the operating system. We experienced a crash when upgrading from version six to seven but managed to rectify it with assistance from the knowledge base. 

The bugs that we encountered were fixed with constant live updates that were quite straightforward and useful. 

The solution is very scalable. We started using one machine with two nodes but scaled it up to four nodes. 

I utilized support when upgrading from version six to seven and experiencing kernel issues. The technical team was able to give us excellent service and assistance.

I rate support a six out of ten because there is always room for improvement in response time. If you make a request for immediate assistance, you might not get help until a day later but when the support comes it is quite good. 

Neutral

The initial setup was a bit complex but workable after training, reading through distribution papers, and increasing knowledge base. The solution can be learned and mastered after some time without too much difficulty. 

We deployed the solution in-house and sometimes got stuck but figured it out after a couple of weeks. 

The longest deployment took a month because we made a few errors. CentOS support helped us through the configuration of some applications so we managed to get it up and running. 

Setup of the solution is rated an eight out of ten. 

We use the free, open-source solution because we cannot afford the price for Linux. 

Because the solution is being depreciated, we are considering moving to Ubuntu but haven't made that decision yet. 

The operating system is very good and stable. We hope to continue to work with it, but are not sure if that is possible because Red Hat has decided to depreciate it and not develop it further. 

Considering that there will not be further development, I recommend considering alternate solutions. 

I'm using the solution for storage. It’s a specialized storage service.

The solution is very stable and secure.

It’s a simple, straightforward implementation.

For how I use it, it is a scalable product.

I taught myself how to use the solution. You don't need to worry about having to go through a very deep learning curve for CentOS. It's very easy to use.

CentOS is very close to the end of life.

I’d like them to improve the licensing options in the future.

I’ve been using the solution for a while. We’ve used it since version five and are now on version eight.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It’s reliable. It doesn’t crash or freeze.

I usually work with smaller companies. Therefore, I don’t have issues with scaling. For me, it scales. I’m using one or two-tera hard drives, and it works well with no issues.

I have one client with ten users and other clients who have a bit less than that in terms of users.

We do not have plans to increase usage.

I’ve never directly dealt with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful they would be or how responsive.

I installed CentOS from the command line and administer it from the command line or web media.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward.

I'm using it for different clients, one or two servers for each client, so I don't use it. I don't deploy it, I just do an individual installation.

The central source is under an open-source license. I use it this way due to the fact that I don't need any license for using it.

Even though it is near the end of life, I would recommend the solution to others.

I’d rate the solution ten 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.

It can be used for setting up virtual spaces and the development environment. We have CentOS VPS.

The user access level is most valuable. When you do administration with CentOS, the number of customizations that you can do for each user is higher than other solutions. It is very customizable.

Its memory consumption is much lower than any other OS.

The YUM install manager can be improved. It is below average as compared to the other install managers. This is the only major problem that I see with CentOS. They should reduce dependency on the YUM manager.

They can improve the help for features. It has so many features, but there is no help. They should provide more information and tutorials. Currently, because of the lack of knowledge or availability of resources, features are getting underutilized.

I have been using CentOS for around two years.

It is quite stable.

It is one of the top-notch products in terms of scalability. For scalability, many premium features are available.

Currently, we have around 12 to 15 users. We have plans to increase its usage.

We don't have much experience with their technical support.

Its installation was quite straightforward. There is not much in terms of the setup cost. It was quite straightforward, and it happened quite quickly. From scratch, it took around one and a half hours.

I installed it myself. For its deployment and maintenance, we don't have any technical team. We are able to manage with less than one person per month. We have a manager who manages it.

It is open-source, which means it is a free product. It has a one-time deployment cost.

I evaluated Red Hat.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate CentOS a nine out of ten.

The solution provides stability and standardization. CentOS is fairly faithful to the Linux Standards Base, Freedesktop.org, and POSIX. Pretty much any code targeted at Linux builds and runs without any tweaking. Hardware support is extensive and diverse.

It's good to have a stable server OS that many people understand in depth. It has easier to find CentOS internal experts than Microsoft Windows internal experts, for example.

Out of the box, the NFS client is weak. It needs considerable kernel tuning before it runs NFS-bound applications efficiently. Perf "goes off a cliff" long before it should with the default settings.

The auto-mounter has been unstable, although it has been getting better recently.

We've been using CentOS 5 and 6 for seven years.

It needs a kernel tuning tool. Many settings are mysterious and require considerable forum searching.

When the NFS client becomes overloaded, due to its default queue sizes that are way too small, combined with poor scheduling algorithms, it makes the host unstable.

There were no scalability issues yet.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

We were using Suse Enterprise. It was too non-standard. We often ended up fighting its mysterious "Yet Another Setup Tool" to get things installed.

The setup was straightforward, until the need for kernel tuning arose. Then we were kind of on our own.

We developed an installation image in-house and we distribute it to new hosts through a combination of PXE and Perforce sync.

The ROI is incalculable. We could not do our business without CentOS/Red Hat. It's the standard platform for most of our engineering tools.

Buy a Red Hat license. It's worth it.

We used SLES for a few years on some hosts. We considered Ubuntu LTS, Debian Stable, and FreeBSD.

FreeBSD may be a better choice for network intensive applications, if your apps will run on it.

CentOS is an operating system, and our applications are running on EC2 instances.

I am using the latest version, which is version 6.9. 

It's a Linux operating system, but it's compatible with cloud solutions.

This solution is used by over 1,000 clients. We don't plan on increasing usage because Red Hat announced that support has ended for CentOS.

 The open architecture is useful for us. That's why we're using CentOS. 

The main issue is the End of Support. For that reason, we will switch to another operating system.

I have used CentOS for over eight years.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable.

Installation is straightforward. Deployment takes 10 minutes with EC2. In AWS, there is nothing to install because it's ready.

I would rate this solution as five out of ten. 

Because there's an EOS, no one is willing to use CentOS anymore.