CentOS Reviews

It's normally next to our operating system, which helps us to install our servers, et cetera.

I'm satisfied with the product. It fulfills our desired needs.

We haven't had any issues with performance. The stability is good.

The initial setup is easy.

You can work with the UI or in command line, if you prefer.

It is scalable. 

It would be ideal if Red Hat would continue the CentOS versions in an open-source format. They seem to be moving away from that. Now only paid versions are available. 

I've been using the solution for six to seven years. I've used it since CentOS 5.

The solution is stable, and the performance is good. For years, we have had no complaints. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable.

The solution scales well. 

We have about 50 or more systems set up in our organization. I'm not sure how many users are on it. 

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage right now. 

I've never used technical support. If we need to troubleshoot, we look at blogs and forums. 

I have previously used Windows. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It's very easy to set up. We did not find it complex in any way. 

The UI makes it very easy. You just go through it step by step. Of course, if you like, you can also do command line as well. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on the speed of the system. It's got very good capacity and a nice configuration setup. It can usually be installed in 20 minutes to half an hour. If a person has experience with Linux, they can likely install a server in 15 minutes. 

We used it as an open-source solution. We did not have to worry about licensing. 

We are using the latest available version, which is on the cloud only.

My understanding is that CentOS is a Red Hat product now, so CentOS is now converted to CentOS Stream. It's not open-source anymore. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Many of my customers use Linux as their client operating system because it is more secure. Since it doesn't have a UI and there are a lot of anomalies and viruses affecting the UI-related applications, some customers prefer to have an operating system without a UI. I have seen most people use CentOS, Red Hat, or Ubuntu as a client operating system or server.

CentOS is very easy to use, and all the commands are user-friendly. Installing any package or application is pretty easy with CentOS. Security-wise, most of the latest security software and applications are compatible with CentOS. Updating the patches for CentOS is very easy.

CentOS is a stable, consistent, and secure solution.

The solution’s stability could be improved.

I have been using CentOS for three years.

CentOS is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution is very scalable. CentOS is very good for any microservices or any application that has an auto scalability mechanism available. The number of users usually depends on how many users can access the OS through the network based on the bandwidth.

The solution provides good technical support for all flavors of Linux.

The solution’s initial setup is very straightforward.

The solution’s deployment takes hardly 10 to 15 minutes. You can use the image to manually deploy the solution, or you can use the DevOps or any automation methods to deploy it.

CentOS provides very good cost efficiency. It is a very efficient operating system without any hassle or inconsistencies. I don't see much difference between CentOS and Ubuntu. Ubuntu has a few more user-friendly commands than CentOS. Once you are familiar with the flavors, CentOS is also very user-friendly. For a new user of Linux, Ubuntu is a little bit easier.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I chose CentOS because it's easy to understand and user friendly. If you read the code base and know the operation system that you're using and which folder contains which part, it's easy to use.

I started using CentOS because our website customers started to increase, and I couldn't manage them. I realized I needed to make a structured system to start this, and I installed the website panel from Windows. I started using Windows, but I was mostly making websites like Joomla, Mambo, and WordPress, which aren't compatible with the IIS system from Windows. I started having some problems with the email service from Windows.

For the past two years, I have been providing this solution to my customers. Currently, there are four people using this solution. One person does SEO for the back-linked part of a project. Another person works on UI/UX, and I also have a VHMGC engineer that knows the Smarty framework.

I'm using the terminal based version of CentOS, but I also prefer to use software that I build. For example, I use Plesk GUI, but if there's a problem, it's not fixed with my software interfaces. I have to log into the terminal and create it. I can use one of my machines that resides in my system with the proxy under the security. I have a lot of servers, so I'm able to log in on any terminal or the Windows space.

I'm a software engineer. I'm also working on a robotic base with the Raspbian base. Raspbian is the same as Linux, so I'm using the Debian part.

I'm using direct CentOS distribution from the ISO, but I'm not using the cloud. There are many differences between the cloud and dedicated servers.

There are a lot of sources on the internet that you can use to solve any issues, and people share their experiences. It's not a closed system.

The security could be improved because the server system isn't very secure. I prefer to use Cloud Linux because of the CPU base, and they have CageFS technology. Cloud Linux isn't open-source.

I don't immediately update the solution because I want to wait for a stable version.

I would like them to provide features on GitHub or any docker core without any installation.

The problem with CentOS is that updates are made by the community's free sources, which can cause problems. You have to dig in deeply to realize what the problem is.

I have used CentOS for 22 years.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable. I would rate the scalability as nine out of ten.

I haven't used technical support. I always use the community resources and forums.

Initial setup is easy. The amount of time it takes to deploy the solution depends on your computer's speed and parts. Eight gigabytes/four core can take 20-25 minutes.

The solution is open source. Sometimes I donate a little bit of money to support the solution.

I would rate the solution as nine out of ten. CentOS is a very flexible system.

My advice is to first activate the GUI in the desktop version, or else you won't be able to understand it.

CentOS is an operating system for business. Basically, it is used for application servers used for deploying.

We've improved ourselves via testing. 

When we want to create a new environment or test a new product, for example, if we have to deploy maybe testing passwords with high ability, we first try to deploy it. 

We prefer to use a CentOS platform for testing new implementations. Basically, we don't have to spend money and resources when we are not very secure in implementing a testing solution.

CentOS is compliant with Red Hat packages, so we don't have to spend on a subscription for little projects or small projects. That's the reason we use it.

The initial setup is easy.

It is scalable. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

It's free as a community product.

The package manager could be improved. For example, for my background, I prefer Debian. For me, the Debian package managing it fits a better solution. Sometimes using RPE and packages is a little complicated trying to resolve some dependencies.

The GUI interface could always be better. 

I've used the solution for around four years. 

The solution was stable. There were no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is a scalable solution. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. We may, in fact, reduce usage as we migrate. We are trying to migrate to Kubernetes however this is a very slow plan. For maybe three or five years, we will continue using Red Hat or CentOS.

We have about ten people using the solution. They are IT administrators. 

We never had CentOS support. Right now, we use Red Hat support. In terms of Red Hat support, it's a very good. If we have issues, we often turn to the community first. 

For the production environment, we use Red Hat Linux and for the testing or relevant environment, we use CentOS.

Right now, with a Kubernetes solution and maybe we need a new solution as we are trying to move onto SecureNet. If we use, for example, EKS and right now, maybe in the future, we don't need to deal with an operating system. In the future, if we cause CentOS, we might use it in a smaller, more basic implementation.

We did not use anything previously. 

The implementation process is very easy. When I started to learn about Red Hat, for example, it was a little difficult. Right now, it's very, very easy.

The deployment took 15 minutes to half an hour. It didn't take long. 

We have three people that can handle deployment and maintenance. They are computer science engineers or people with a Linux background.

The initial setup was handled in-house by our team. We didn't use any consultants or integrators. 

We are using the community version. It is free.

I did not personally compare other different solutions. 

We're a customer and an end-user.

We are using the latest version of the solution and are working on a migration.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It is good for ensuring that only approved applications are allowed to run. Other applications, which have not been approved by IT, are picked up as violations. You really can define at the start of it, what is approved, what is not approved, and you can clearly identify if there's an exhibition of unapproved applications and that get filtered or blocked by the tool.

The security and IT team can go back and question the user to see why that particular application was run or maybe do further investigation in terms of seeing if that machine has attracted any malware.

The solution is stable.

It’s scalable.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution could be a bit more user-friendly. In terms of commands, it's all CLI and there isn't any GUI which can make it challenging to use for some people.

We have been using it for the last two years.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

We have found that the solution can scale.

Our company has 15 to 20 users leveraging it right now.

I’ve never directly dealt with technical support. I can’t speak to how helpful they are.

We were using Redhat Linux. We just had the application need, which is why we adopted this product.

It was just an application requirement. The application we are managing requires CentOS, which we had to install. There wasn't any choice.

For CentOS, the setup itself is straightforward. It didn't take much time. We installed it in one day. It was just the image that was installed. It also doesn’t take much staff to deploy or maintain the product.

The licensing is per device.

I’m not sure which version of the solution we’re using. It might be version 8.

I’d recommend the solution to others. However, it all depends upon if the application needs it. If there is an application dependency, yes, you will need that. However, it'll come from a specific need.

We have not been using the OS as such. We have been just managing the application on the OS. We have been only supporting the application. We don't do anything, particularly on CentOS. We are doing all the settings on the application that's running on top of it.

That said, the product is okay. It's good, stable. It hasn't given us any issues, and we have no performance problems. I’d rate it overall an eight 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. 

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. 

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.