CentOS Reviews

In my company, we use CentOS to work in my test environments on my laptop. I didn't implement CentOS on the enterprise server.

My company uses it like a work server, and I got access to services provided by Apache and ManageEngine, which I used to deploy solutions, especially the minor ones like Elasticsearch. I didn't use other solutions because of security reasons in my company. I use it for testing purposes related to DNS servers, directory servers, binding servers, and Hyper-V servers, which are minor cases.

CentOS is not very different from other solutions apart from its distribution since it is a free edition of Red Hat.

I find the solution's stability to be the most valuable feature of it since I have been using a virtual machine with the help of the solution since 2015, and it still works on all the laptops in my organization.

I don't think any improvements are needed in the solution since we can just use it to test Red Hat before deploying it in our IT environment. We can learn more about CentOS from Red Hat.

In the future, CentOS should provide a free or open-source version for its community, which can involve improving and testing it.

CentOS NetworkManager is an area of concern in the solution that needs improvement, and it is the same with other products from Red Hat. CentOS NetworkManager was better earlier compared to what it is nowadays. The implementation or configuration would be better if there was some new CentOS NetworkManager available.

I have been using CentOS for seven to eight years. I currently use CentOS 7. I haven't got ISO on my laptop to use CentOS 8 in my test environment.

It is a highly stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. When testing the product, I found its scalability features very stable while considering its impact on the testing phase I was involved in with the tool.

CentOS has no technical Support since it is an open-source or free edition platform. If I face any issues or I want to learn something about the product, then I would have to learn them through the online communities for the tool. In Linux, you can find every documentation you need by doing a simple Google search or on the online communities created for CentOS.

The initial setup is the same as installing an ISO file in Red Hat. The product allows me to configure the IPS and allows me for automatic configuration, making a big difference. If a person is familiar with Linux, the setup phase gets easy. If a person is familiar with Windows, installation will be hard for the first time.

Considering the use of the solution for my company's test environment, the deployment process takes only a minute or two.

There are no cons in CentOS or Red Hat products. The cons are mostly found in Microsoft products.

It is completely easy to maintain the solution. I haven't faced any issues with CentOS. For CentOS, I have a virtual environment on my laptop in a VMware workstation. If I face any issues with CentOS, it will be because of VMware workstation owing to the version or edition I use.

CentOS is a good product for testing and learning purposes. You can go with CentOS or Linux if you are into cyber security.

With CentOS, I didn't conduct or operate myself in a GUI environment for testing or learning purposes.

I rate the overall product a ten 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. 

CentOS is one of the standard platforms we use to perform jobs.

There was a team of 15 people who were using this solution.

In Microsoft Windows, we store the data in a graphical way, but in CentOS we can store the data based on the command. That is the specialty of CentOS.  In Windows, you can store the data in folders, and anyone can still see that data. In CentOS, it's more secure.

I like the command prompt of CentOS. It's very simple. You can share your files based on command prompt.

I would like the integration to be more secure.

I've been using this solution for one year.

It's stable.

It's very scalable. It's open-source.

We're also using Solaris. We're mostly using these for database storage to fix details and manage the organization data.

Installation is simple. It doesn't take much time. It's just a simple operating system.

The price is very good.

Once you buy the license, Linux will provide you with yearly or monthly patches, so your systems will be scalable for a long time. You can decide whether or not you want to install a patch. They're giving patches instead of going for automatic updates because some of the services will not work.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution 100% for someone who is working in IT.

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.

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.

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.

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.