CentOS Reviews

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.

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. 

I use the solution as a SIEM tool for system locking purposes.

They should improve the solution's hardware performance.

I have been using the solution for four years.

It is a stable solution.

We have five to ten users of the solution at our organization. We may plan to increase the number of users. It is challenging to scale the solution when we have to increase the storage capacity from one end.

I have used Kali Linux before. I switched to CentOS as it is free of cost and has a good infrastructure.

The solution's initial setup is easy. There are installation options provided. We can either do a full or a minimum installation. It is easy to install tools in it. The process takes 30 minutes to complete.

I implemented the solution myself.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a seven. I advise others to know about the solution's commands before purchasing it.

Our company has fourteen administrators and developers who use the solution to develop code. 

The solution is open source.

The community collections and collaborations are valuable. 

The interface could be improved. 

I would like more features for the system manager. 

I have been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The solution is open source so there is no formal technical support. The community is a great resource and the solution's developers post content or answer questions. 

We previously used Oracle Linux. 

The setup is easy. 

We implemented the solution in-house.

Four administrators handle ongoing maintenance and management. 

The solution is open source so it is free. 

We switched from Oracle Linux because the solution is free and now private. 

The solution is a good product and I recommend using it. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

Support of public systems

We are going with CentOS due to minimalistic and stable approach during OS build preparation.

The most valuable feature of CentOS is that it is easy to use.

The price of CentOS could improve.

I have been using CentOS for approximately five years.

CentOS is stable.

The setup of CentOS is easy.

CentOS is an expensive solution. There are other solutions that are rated at the top that are not expensive, such as Red Hat or Oracle Linux.

I rate CentOS an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for our telecommunications platform and call center application for video, text and audio calls.

The stability of this solution is its most useful feature. It is a high quality product and you know what you're getting. You also receive wide support from the community.

This solution is no longer suited to our business following the change they have made to the release process. It is no longer an enterprise solution. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

We have not needed to scale this solution because we work with several small servers or containers.

We have not needed to make use of the support team. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. You do need a team for maintenance and we would recommend using maintenance tools like Ansible or Chef. 

Deployment was done in-house. 

This is an open source solution.  

I would not recommend this solution for enterprises. If you are looking for an enterprise solution, I would recommend Rocky, Linux, Oracle or Red Hat from our point of view.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

I use CentOS as an operating system for many of the services we are using.

CentOS should extend the support of the solution. The solution is set to have no update support in 2023.

I have been using CentOS for approximately 10 years.

CentOS is stable.

The scalability of CentOS is good. We can deploy the operating system in many hardware, laptops, and servers.

This solution is not used by end-users, it is used by IT staff.

There is not any technical support available from CentOS since it is open-source. However, there is a large community where information can be found for any problem that might arise.

The initial setup of CentOS was simple. There was some configuration to be completed but then it is up and running.

We did the implementation in-house.

This is a free solution.

The number of maintenance people needed depends on the company and its strategy.

I recommend this solution to others but the support of the solution is ending next year.

I rate CentOS an eight 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.