Lars Hecking wrote:
> Hi all,
>> Has anyone ever come across a situation, anecdotical or otherwise, where
> commerical software, or software available binary only, that works on RHEL
> does not work on a RHEL clone like CentOS with otherwise identical parameters
> (OS revision, package list, patch level, hardware etc.).
>> RHEL and clones are supposed to be fully binary compatible, but where is
> the proof?
>> I'm trying to assess the likelyhood of a software vendor refusing support
> on the grounds that RHEL clones are not on their supported OS list.
[snip]
Oracle (9i) is one example I've come across of where they refuse (or at
least, have refused in the past) support for a non-RHEL solution. I have
used it on CentOS, and had to slightly customise the installation
scripts so that they were fooled into thinking they were being run on a
genuine RHEL box. The checking was mostly string matching, IIRC so it
really wasn't a problem - and Oracle worked excellently on CentOS, once
it was installed :-)
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
-->Gar
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
