Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CentOS Linux 6.0 Released

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the for-your-favorite-white-box dept.

Operating Systems 184

dkd903 writes "The CentOS team just announced the availability of CentOS Linux version 6.0 for both i386 and x86_64 architectures. CentOS 6.0 is based on the upstream release of RHEL 6.0 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and includes packages from all variants."

cancel ×

184 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nt (-1, Offtopic)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714794)

First post.

Re:nt (1)

dragonturtle69 (1002892) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716386)

At last, a first post that is first, and properly placed for nostalgia. :>)

Re:nt (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716564)

It helps when you get subscriber perks.

OK, so I cheated :)

Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36714832)

Its been a long time coming but its finally here. While RHEL/CentOS does seem to be falling a bit out of favour with the cool kids these days its still my go-to OS for server builds, Cent5.x has been an excellent platform, hoping 6 continues that tradition.

Re:Finally! (3, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714940)

I don't know about cool but it is a very good and stable platform for a busines. It is also the only distro that really seems to have got on top of SELinux.

Thank youCentOS team!

Re:Finally! (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714984)

Agreed.

Unfortunately, I could not wait and had to switch over to Scientific Linux (who *did* have a 6.0 version) so I could perform tests and comparisons for a real RHEL 6.1 rollout.

Re:Finally! (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715640)

Why run linux version 6 when you could run linux version 13 [slackware.com] ?????
Thats right, YOU TOO could be running the latest and greatest, instead of an ancient, dinosaur version of linux! ;)

Re:Finally! (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716226)

There are valid reasons that most businesses use RHEL on their servers. Besides after waiting 3 YEARS for version 5 to version 6, it isn't very ancient anymore :)

My other machines use Mandriva/Mageia/Ubuntu

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36714976)

Enterprises don't use Ubuntu. RHEL (and thus CentOS) are still 'in favour'.

Re:Finally! (1)

Tritoch (989763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715396)

Well that's just not true, we've been leveraging the heck out of Ubuntu for all but our Tier 1 apps. That's not because we fear it'll under-perform on those apps, but rather due to this very perception (and internal politics). FWIW that keeps those apps off CentOS too unfortunately.

Re:Finally! (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716018)

Enterprises don't use Ubuntu. RHEL (and thus CentOS) are still 'in favour'.

Redhat derived distros are nice for servers, like CentOS. Ubuntu derived distros are nice for clients. Use the tool for its purpose and you have a foundation to practice your art.

Mispurpose your tools and you're just another hack, though you may create something interesting that elevates you to Master Artist.

Re:Finally! (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716430)

Redhat derived distros are nice for servers, like CentOS. Ubuntu derived distros are nice for clients.

I fail to see how CentOS is un-nice for clients. And I say that as someone who has rolled-out several hundred CentOS client workstations.

If your assertion is that Ubuntu is better for clients, simply because it's newer and shinier, then you're thinking of very different "clients" than I am. If you want to fiddle with the latest unstable versions of everything, be my guest. I'd rather have a stable platform of everything, and only bring in a few cutting-edge bits and pieces, where they are strictly needed, and not have to worry that brokenness in the rest of the system may be making my life more difficult than it needs to be.

Re:Finally! (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717026)

RHEL/CentOS and ubuntu make very good servers and clients.

I myself prefer debian on servers over ubuntu. RHEL/CentOS is about on par with debian for me also.

Re:Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715008)

Not really. CentOS have been glacial in getting 6.0 out the door, and worse, RHEL 6.0 is a clusterfuck anyway. As an example, no RHEL 6.0 RPM for Heartbeat is available, because RHEL failed to build the packages that Heartbeat depends on. Want to do simple IP failover on RHEL 6.0? Tough!

Re:Finally! (1)

epe (851815) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715390)

use corosync instead, the alternative to heartbeat, in CentOS-5 it was not included by default, now in CentOS-6 you can install it from base.

Re:Finally! (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715798)

Are RPMs available for CentOS v6.0 now that it's out?

Re:Finally! (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715166)

Months ago, I was just finishing up my first run through a study guide for the RHCE, based on the 5.x series of RHEL, when I read that RHEL 6.0 had just been released, and at the same time, that the certification program was reworked to be based upon RHEL 6. The natural approach for self-study on a budget was to use CentOS, especially as that is the preferred Linux distribution for my employer, and for most jobs I've seen that specify familiarity with a particular Linux distribution.

I was about to download Scientific Linux, which has had a 6.0 version out for a while now -- given that it shares the goal of binary compatibility, I don't expect it to be very different.

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716218)

SL does not have the goal of binary compatibility, and some of their packages aren't directly link comparable. They just follow RHEL close enough for their needs. SL and CentOS have different target audiences:

Example [centos.org]

Why it took so long (5, Informative)

Digimer (851067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714854)

There has been a lot of drama recently about why CentOS 6 took so long to be released. Things to consider; To maintain binary compatibility, they need to not just replace the copyright material and build the source. They need to duplicate the build environment *exactly*. Compile flags, build order, etc. This while also keep the EL5 and EL4 releases updated and patched. This is something EL derivatives like Scientific Linux do not concern themselves with, for better and worse. I do know that the CentOS team have been working to improve their project, and some hear may have ideas and suggestions. Please feel free to join the CentOS mailing list(s) and pass along your ideas. Digimer

Re:Why it took so long (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714936)

They used to be able to do all that in about 8-12 weeks. Why 7 months this time?

Re:Why it took so long (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715014)

I'm afraid that they dropped the ball so hard and far this time that I, and many others have already switched to Scientific Linux, which certainly seems a most suitable replacement.

The political power BS and games played behind the delays were just so far beyond ridiculous for such an important project that it makes it untouchable IMHO. It is next to impossible to have any faith in their intentions or openness going forward.

Which is a great pity.

Re:Why it took so long (5, Interesting)

DarkAnt (760333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715238)

It wasn't until CentOS 6.0 was delayed beyond reasonable expectation did I find out CentOS was managed by a very small, closed group. The closed part was a little unnerving considering the open source nature of the project.

Re:Why it took so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715608)

They didn't drop the ball, they ran backwards 99 yards and handed the ball to the opposing team for a defensive touchdown.

What else can you call three months without security updates?

Re:Why it took so long (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716044)

you are talking out of your ass, there has been no interruptions in the security updates for Centos 5.x

Re:Why it took so long (1)

tdknox (138401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716764)

Sorry, but there was a stretch of several months this year where there were no security updates released for CentOS 5.x while they worked on 5.6 and 6.0.

https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29685&forum=53 [centos.org]

Re:Why it took so long (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716888)

I get the update emails.

You must mean after the January updates, when Redhat was only putting out 5.6 updates..Centos didn't put out 5.6 until April 8, and there was a buttload of updates starting April 14th. So yeah, no 5.6 updates while they were trying to get 5.6 out.

Re:Why it took so long (5, Interesting)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715016)

One thing to consider is that by the dates I read, they made the decision to support their existing 5.x customers by doing 5.6 before 6.0. This decision was based in large part on feedback from the existing "customer base". The Scientific Linux group decided to do 6.0 first and follow that with 5.6. Both have gotten to the same point within a few weeks of each other. Their order was simply opposite. It will be interesting to see when each gets the next 6.1 release.

Re:Why it took so long (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715328)

And Scientific Linux is already close to having 6.1 out. And they released 5.6 last week. They a little ahead, though not by a huge margin.

Re:Why it took so long (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716040)

CentOS will have 6.1 out sooner becasue they built tools and tests and infrastructure for RH6.0. Since they will be supporting it for the next 7 years, 6 months does not seem bad. CentOS has had some internal issues but this release definitely shows they are getting it together again. Still my favorite by far. Also, I usually compile my own major applications (such as Apache) and not use the distro source. Of course, Apache makes RPMs available as well.

Re:Why it took so long (5, Interesting)

epe (851815) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715384)

besides that, SL-6 is not as close to RHEL as CentOS, for example, I was not able to install SL-6 as a domU into a Xen dom0 2 weeks ago.. right now I easily installed CentOS-6 as a domU in the very same dom0. SL simply forgets several things, CentOS people are much more closer to RHEL-6 in this way.

Re:Why it took so long (2)

inKubus (199753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716048)

I can second this. We use a number of commercial applications that run on Linux, including VMWare Zimbra, WebHelpDesk and Quickbooks Enterprise. All of them only support RHEL but CentOS runs perfectly. I think the only thing I ever had difficulty with was Crystal Reports Server (Business Objects), which checked for RHEL is some weird way, not just reading /etc/redhat-release.

Re:Why it took so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717198)

The SL mailing lists are extremely responsive and helpful. Troy and everyone do a great job, and they do it as quickly as possible with as little politics as possible. If you've got an issue, let them know.

Re:Why it took so long (2)

ameoba (173803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715144)

I didn't follow it too closely but, in short, it's that the maintainers are a small, closed group that doesn't want to let anyone else into the pool. It's one thing for an OSS project to be delayed because the people working on it have other shit to do in their lives, it's another entirely when they're too busy to finish a job and actively reject volunteers from the community.

Re:Why it took so long (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715212)

I didn't follow it too closely but, in short, it's that the maintainers are a small, closed group that doesn't want to let anyone else into the pool.

Without trying to sound too dickish, that's why I've hitched my wagon to Scientific Linux for my "no Redhat support needed" machines. I'll take Fermilab and CERN over "random d00ds that disappear on a whim." Yes, I know that's probably not fair, but Lance didn't do 'em any favors.

Re:Why it took so long (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716222)

You may find your Fermilab d00ds disappearing as the Tevatron is shut down, the lab will be in skeleton crew mode soon with only some small peripheral projects ongoing. Historically it was mostly Fermilab that carried the weight of Scientific Linux, wonder if CERN is up to carrying the load?

Re:Why it took so long (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716886)

Well, I know of two reasons:

1) RHEL5.6 was released at the same time, and effort was simply dedicated to that release, at the expense of RHEL6.

2) RHEL made extensive changes to their build system / infrastructure, which required far more effort to reproduce and verify than just another 5.x release would have.

Certainly possible there were other reason as well...

Re:Why it took so long (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717008)

It wasn't only this release. Their releases have been slipping farther and father behind as time has gone on. The unforgivable part was the complete lack of updates for CentOS5 while the hamster wheels were spinning trying to get 5.6 out the door. We're talking several months. That's just not acceptable. When people complained, they got a steady diet of "if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere." OK, message received.

We've stopped using it at work as a result and will be using SL going forward.

Best,

i386 (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714904)

Do you think we could maybe, in the year 2011, make the assumption that there really isn't anybody out there who'd try to run our code on a 386? Maybe we could start targeting slightly more recent architectures?

Re:i386 (3, Funny)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714944)

Most netbooks are 32-bit x86 (i386.) It's not safe to assume x64 is universal among PC's yet.

Re:i386 (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714966)

The OP mean i386 vs i486, i586 or i686 (or later) 32-bit CPU targets. The RPMs have .i386 in the name, implying that they can run on CPUs as early as the i386. I don't know if that's strictly true anymore (or even has been for a while). It may be one of those things like the old i386 directory in the Linux kernel source being for all 32-bit CPUs, not just the 386.

Re:i386 (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715692)

Unless things have changed recently, glibc will support only the 486 and newer processors.

But yes, realistically they should shoot for the 586 or 686, because nobody's going to run a modern distro on such ancient hardware; I'd be surprised if anyone tried it on something as old as a Pentium-MMX.

Re:i386 (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714998)

32-bit x86 != i386.

Heck, the original Pentium was i586, with Pentium II as i686. Why not target i686?

Re:i386 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715350)

I think the comment referred to the 80386 processor from 1991 or so, not the i386 architecture in 32bit.

Re:i386 (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715424)

The "i386" architecture is the one in the 80386 processor. The architecture in general is "x86".

Re:i386 (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715742)

But sometimes i386 really does mean 32-bit x86 (IA-32). I mentioned in a previous post that for quite some time, there was the arch/i386 directory in the Linux kernel source. But it was not by any means 386-specific. i386 just mean the x86 architecture.

Re:i386 (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714946)

I think the i386 packages do actually take advantage of more modern features on chips. How else could you do MMX, SSE(1,2,3,4,4.2 whatever they are up to now), etc.?

Re:i386 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715108)

Yep. You compile with -march for binary compatibility with the architecture, and -mtune for the architecture with your target features.

Re:i386 (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715308)

That means you're not using any modern opcodes, though, so you're not actually taking advantage of new functionality, you're just tuning the old instructions for new timings.

Re:i386 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36714996)

You do realize that they only stopped production of the i386 in 2007, right? Four years is kind of sudden to pull support on the basis of it being old.

Re:i386 (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715048)

I doubt anyone is running CentOS, or any other modern mainstream Linux distro for that matter, on an actual 386.

Re:i386 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715146)

I doubt anyone is running CentOS, or any other modern mainstream Linux distro for that matter, on an actual 386.

In the desktop/server world probably not. In embedded systems its quite possible (although they might be using a more obscure distro than CentOS). Old x86 chips have often been chosen for embedded applications where power consumption and performance aren't such an issue due to the ease at which software, often DOS or Linux can be deployed. If you are going to build an embedded system quickly it may be easier to use a tried and tested x86 based chip than an ARM or MIPS one. For many embedded applications only a basic network stack and some simple processing is required and a 386 is more than adequate.

Re:i386 (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715260)

Anybody who needs to run Linux on a 386 knows how to build it themselves for their processor. There is absolutely no need for a pre-built distro to cater to them.

Re:i386 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716832)

I doubt anyone is running CentOS, or any other modern mainstream Linux distro for that matter, on an actual 386.

Why does "actual" matter? Linux runs in VM's too.

Re:i386 (1)

ameoba (173803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715154)

Nobody's been putting them in PCs for two decades - those 386s have been for embedded and industrial applications.

Re:i386 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715394)

Nobody's been putting them in PCs for two decades - those 386s have been for embedded and industrial applications.

You do know people run Linux on other things besides PC's, right? And that its real simple to recompile a kernel targeting your architecture, bundle it into an RPM and deploy it to your server farm? If you want optimal, compile it yourself, there's a lot of cruft in the stock kernels.

N00b

Re:i386 (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715180)

You do realize that they only stopped production of the i386 in 2007, right?

Wow! I now consider myself schooled. I honestly didn't know that.

Re:i386 (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715010)

Flash and some programs are iffy on x64. Also many Unix users (more typical of Solaris than Linux) use old software too that may not run well on x64 or the vendor wont support it with the version the company has installed.

Re:i386 (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715272)

As was pointed out above, this is about i386 vs. something more modern like i686, not x64.

Re:i386 (4, Informative)

nirik (5709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715380)

In this case the 'i386' refers to "the "i386" architecture" ie,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-32 [wikipedia.org]

The 32bit rpms you may note are .i686 and will not run on 386, 486 or 586 processors.

Re:i386 (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715440)

Well, if it is actually compiled for i686, then calling it "i386" is just plain wrong.

Re:i386 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715496)

Or, perhaps, you just didn't "get it". But now you do. The power of the internet, keeping geeks abreast!

Re:i386 (2)

evilviper (135110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716490)

Well, if it is actually compiled for i686, then calling it "i386" is just plain wrong.

i386 has, forever, been the name used to denote the 32-bit, Intel-compatible, CPU architecture.

x86 is far, far too easy to confuse with x86-64.

IA-32 is a relatively new term, and reeks too much of Intel marketing. I'd be happy with denoting 32-bit platforms as "IA-32" and 64-bit platforms as "AMD64", but I think Intel would profusely object to the later, though it's quite accurate...

Re:i386 (3, Informative)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717052)

The naming of x86-64 has a funny history. Back in 2001 or so, AMD called the 64-bit extensions to x86 simply "x86-64". By 2003 however they decided to change the name to "AMD64". Of course, by then Intel was already trying to copy it. They revealed this to the public in 2004, first calling it "IA-32e", and soon after "EM64T". When they released their Core 2 processor in 2006 as the second processor to support it (first was Prescott and it's variants), they renamed it again to "Intel 64". On the matter of "IA-32", that name was coined I think when they were developing Itanium (before x86-64 even existed). The Itanium architecture was called "IA-64". Later on as x86-64 gained prominence, Intel renamed the "IA-64" architecture to "IPF" (Itanium Processor Family) to avoid confusion.

What is the kernel version number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715002)

I prefer CentOS, but recently installed Fedora on a laptop due to a WiFi card needing a newer kernel. Anyone know what version of the kernel is used in RHEL/CentOS 6?

Re:What is the kernel version number? (2)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715140)

Well, the latest kernel for RHEL and SL 6 is 2.6.32-131.2.1, so I would expect CentOS 6 to be using that as well. You can go to their mirrors and check. Since they took so long to release 6, I switched to SL 6 last December.

What I want to know is. . . (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715182)

What I want to know is this: are they making a xen kernel and associated packages available? That's what I really need. Before you say "build your own" I'll point out that if I had the time for that, I would, but I don't want to have to rebuild the kernel and dependent modules every time a patch is released.

Re:What I want to know is. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715268)

You could automate the process... Xen is not included by Redhat, so CentOS will never have Xen in version 6 unless Redhat adds it back.

Re:What I want to know is. . . (1)

epe (851815) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715404)

I just installed centos-6 as a domU... the kernel package includes xen. But RedHat will support xen only as a domU.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715218)

...YAV© of av distro that no one uses. Torvalds should leverage his trademark holding and only allowing 2-3 major distros to use the Linux trademark.

Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (3)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715250)

Moved all of my machines that weren't already CentOS to CentOS from Fedora over the last two months. I used Fedora 15 for all of about ten minutes before I got tired of Fedora's attempt to pretend that they are the Ubuntu project.

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715578)

If you really want that sort of stability why aren't you running BSD? The strength of GNU/Linux is that things are updated so quickly. Why would you want to remove that?

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715702)

Because he's used to Linux-style userland and /dev and partitioning?

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716050)

I get the first part, but how does Fedora pretend they are an ubuntu project ?

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716752)

It's probably a reference to how Fedora 15 uses GNOME 3 as the default DE even though it's still young and hasn't stood up to any length of real-world use yet, just like Ubuntu 11.04 uses Unity as the default despite the same issues with it.

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716760)

Dont like the romper room desktops eh? Neither do I. I prefer a more professional desktop as default. If I want a desktop like gnome3 or unity I will get a cell phone instead. enough said.

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717158)

+1

Exactly. Fedora has been horrible PITA since FC8. It's sad but its so true that it hurts really badly.

We are now mostly running RHEL 5.6, Centos and Debian. More and more Debian because of the stability and ease of migration from one version to another. The number of servers grow year by year. Even though we have used PXE & kickstart from early 2004 (RH7.2), automated updates heavily since then. Nobody have time nor willing to play the games with Fedoras moving target, not even with the desktops which don't have much local data. In current situation once fixing the settings and it (current fedora) it hardly works it's time to upgrade again. No, not for us that stuff any more. Thank's for the past years, but we don't have use for the current product any more.

Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world (1)

kolbe (320366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717272)

I had a similar experience with it feeling a bit too much like Ubuntu... beyond that, GNOME 3.0 looks like a goddam MacOS X nightmare on my Linux desktop. I'll be sticking with Gnome 2.X or KDE 4.X for a while it seems.

But Debian! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715334)

Debian has already released version 6.0 months ago!

Re:But Debian! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717062)

More then a Year ago! Debian has much greater support of all "enterprise" linux distributions.

no PPC? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715554)

you don't exist!!!!!

Re:no PPC? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716154)

You either buy Redhat, or go with Debian, Gentoo, or Ubuntu (which I have on mac ibook https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCDownloads [ubuntu.com] )

Or forget Linux and go with OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or NetBSD

Re:no PPC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716874)

Dont buy RH, they are dropping PPC and Itanium too, choosing a dead end is stupid.

Re:no PPC? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717122)

RedHat and paying was put first as the least attractive option to contrast with the rest. Redhat did drop Itanium, but still have PPC for IBM servers (no client version, either). For server Debian or Gentoo would be the good GNU/Linux choices, as are the BSD depending on particular need

Re:no PPC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717128)

None of those target the same audience that CentOS does. Ubuntu LTS and debian stable are closer, gentoo is too DIY.

A lot of servers do use PPC, so I'm surprised they omitted that architecture.

Re:no PPC? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717312)

That would be a niche market, those who would use Linux on PPC but unwilling to pay RedHat subscription, most have pockets plenty deep. Maybe less than one for every thousand centos clients there are now would be customer. Not worth the resources Centos or Scientific Linux would have to throw at it.

I wouldn't rule out Gentoo, it has binary builds, and also a system for rolling out builds and updates to a group of machines. Not my first pick, but not impossible.

What a waste of time .... (2)

Jagungal (36053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36715900)

Considering 6.1 has been out for some time this is a bit of a non event, most people using CentOs have moved on.

What I saw was a bunch of developers spending a lot of time being defensive of why it was taking so long, promising it was just around the corner and letting the dates constantly slip.

CentOS is basically a dead project to the majority of people who have moved on to more responsive distributions.

I still have to wonder when some of these developers didn't get paid off for doing what they did - the way it happened just didn't seem right, there is a pretty fishy smell about this one.

Re:What a waste of time .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716038)

Well, if you're not happy with the product, you can always ask for your money back.

irresponsible (2, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716072)

trying to create your own reality there? I work with dozens of clients running Centos as their main OS, not a one has changed. You are very irresponsible as a sys admin for mission critical applications if you immediately change releases when RedHat does, without testing for months. Meanwhile Scientific Linux waited until June 21 to put out 5.6, because they put that on the back burner in their rush to heave 6 out the door, and do they maintain past versions? no!

Re:irresponsible (2)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716284)

This isn't Ubuntu, or Fedora, or ArchLinux, or any of the other Linux distributions primarily designed for desktops, developer workstations, or technically adept hobbyists. This is CentOS we're talking about, which like RHEL on which it is based, is designed for enterprise servers. From what I've seen, servers are set up with a stable version of a server-oriented distribution, and there's no full distribution upgrade unless the server is decommissioned and repurposed.

Re:What a waste of time .... (5, Interesting)

inKubus (199753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716116)

Considering they will be supporting 6.0 for 7 years, I don't think six months is a long time to build the testing and releasing infrastructure. For you to say that "most people using CentOS have moved on" is basically patently false. If you have any statistics or evidence to back up that statement, I'd love to hear them sir. I'm sure we'll see quite soon when the download numbers are out. CentOS is the only binary compatible free version of RHEL, which is the only truely commercial business Linux available (ok, there's IBM still, but no Novell anymore). If I need to go from free CentOS to supported RHEL, I can do that very easily with my existing applications and configurations. And they have GOOD support, as in some of the best I've ever seen. And great documentation. And training. I look at Ubuntu and I see a distro that's one big mistake away from collapsing. I also see a desktop distro for consumers and not a business system.

Re:What a waste of time .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36716448)

"CentOS is the only binary compatible free version of RHEL, which is the only truely commercial business Linux available (ok, there's IBM still, but no Novell anymore)"

I believe Scientific Linux is also binary compatibile with RHEL. Novell may be gone, but SUSE is still around (and IBM doesn't have their own Linux distro and never has).

Re:What a waste of time .... (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716606)

Scientific Linux is specifically not binary compatible with RHEL. That's why they were able to move so fast getting 6.0 out.

Re:What a waste of time .... (5, Interesting)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716354)

CentOS is basically a dead project to the majority of people who have moved on to more responsive distributions.

That must be why CentOS runs 30% of the Net's Web servers according to sjvn. [computerworld.com]

Re:What a waste of time .... (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716616)

Considering 6.1 has been out for some time this is a bit of a non event, most people using CentOs have moved on.

Quite the opposite. I was expecting it to be a non-event, too. Instead, reading the announcement, I found much to be excited about.

First, while this is technically 6.0, the announcement specifically says the 6.1 updates will be going in to the rolling release branch right away, so when you do a "yum update" you'll get all the 6.1 goodness, in short order.

Secondly, their plans for LiveCD images and minimal-install CD images in the next few days, which serve important niches and which Redhat didn't even provide with their release, are very exciting too, and fills a huge need.

Besides that, companies are incredibly slow to upgrade their infrastructure anyhow. RHEL6 is a pretty major change, so people weren't rolling it out to their servers the day it was released. I know we're a fully paid-up RedHat shop and we haven't upgraded ANYTHING to RHEL6 yet.

The CentOS folks stated their inability to commit enough resource to support both 6.0 and 5.6 releases simultaneously, and got an overwhelming number of requests to go for 5.6 rather than 6.0, so we already know what most people's needs really are.

CentOS is basically a dead project to the majority of people who have moved on to more responsive distributions.

Honestly, if anyone was so desperate for the new features in RHEL6, they would have jumped ship long before even the RHEL6 beta came out. RHEL5 was getting very long in the tooth, so if you had a real need for what's available now, why didn't you switch to Fedora 13, more than a year ago? Where are these people that desperately needed these updates 6 months ago, but didn't need them 18 months ago and were happy with RHEL5 until just recently?

Really, a few (and I do mean a few, certainly not "the majority") impatient folks that didn't feel like waiting for a CentOS6 desktop to play with, aren't representative of anything. And if you did switch to SL6, RHEL6, or Fedora 13, it's just a repo change and a yum upgrade to go back to the CentOS packages.

Re:What a waste of time .... (1)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716626)

Serious question - I use CentOS and have for a long time. To be really honest, I stopped looking around years ago because of the nature of getting too busy with day to day work to think about something like my distro; which was working and I am fine with it (mostly).

So, if I want to stay in the RedHat strain of things, because I am very familiar with it and don't like the idea of messing my clients around while I play at learning a new distro, what are my options? What's the alternative to CentOS? I know there was WhiteBox linux a while ago but I dropped that because it was even worse than CentOS for responsiveness. I have heard Scientific Linux is good - but I found CentOS, to date at least, pretty good with patches, etc.

So who do you recommend I check out?

Don't quit your day job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717074)

The way it's done professionally is to bring in CentOS first, free of charge, and then cut over to either the paid service, or to RedHats' supported service.

I've done this professionally with several successful startups here in Silicon Valley, as well as with projects in larger organizations. One of my products won a rather coveted award with it.

The story is always the same. Get things working under CentOS. Then, when the higher-level management starts seeing the success, they have to start worrying about covering their behinds, and so they want commercial support. Everyone has heard of RedHat and is comfortable with it. The other options are a harder sell, and people are much less happy with them. But RedHat is big, and the higher ups and/or VC's believe they can turn to RH to bail them out if they need to. Of course, there's no comparison with hiring competent and talented developers, but that's a different story. The point is, the paperpushers are happy, and that's one less headache for everyone, especially me.

You can have your "responsive" distros. They cause as many problems as they solve, and I need something that I can depend on commercially, for serious reliable enterprise products. Try doing this for a living with as much success and then come back and tell us about it.

Re:What a waste of time .... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36717410)

"Always have a proper backup! You can learn more about backups here""

Sorry, but this is the height of naive. CentOS casts a very *VERY* long shadow!

Do you want a nice, supported, "Enterprise" Linux but don't have much budget to spend? Guess what: CentOS is almost your only choice. SL is nice, but it's not binary compatible with RHEL. Mix and match a few packages with a few "EL5/6" repos and you very quickly will run into binary hell.

Other than RHEL, what "Enterprise" options are available? What you need is something that is stable, conservative in anything that changes the environment un-necessarily, and is likely to support 3rd party software from vendors.

What else is there? There's Oracle's re-branded RHEL, there's RHEL itself, and there's CentOS. Debian is almost good enough.

While there are plenty of Linux distros, there are surprisingly few other options available at the commercial/enterprise tier.

Ver x.0 is for guinea pigs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36715922)

Centos, please stop pandering to the masses, and hopefully the latest unplanned (yea right?!!) "dropping the ball" incident purifies Centos' user-base from all those who can't differentiate between stability and eye-candy.

Tracker down? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36716644)

Has anybody had any luck torrenting one of the DVDs? I can't connect to tracker.centos.org.

How hard can it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36717566)

I've mucked around with gentoo for enough to be dangerous and would like a crack at recompiling redhat sources to make a binary compatible distro. Sounds like fun...

And be more "community" than the closed group of centos. They've done an awesome job anyway - not taking that away from them!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>