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 5 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

Operating Systems 163

jonesy16 writes "Only a few weeks behind the release of Red Hat Enterprise 5, CentOS announced today the immediate release of version 5 of the free derivative of RHEL 5. Torrents are available for both i386 and x86_64. New features include compiz and AIGLX support as well as better virtualization and thin-client support. Package updates include Apache-2.2, kernel-2.6.18, Gnome-2.16, and KDE-3.5."

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Does anyone even use this OS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18714999)

Other than 3 people on the /.?

Like Freespire, it's rather sad to watch.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Interesting)

phase_9 (909592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715023)

I know you're trolling but in my last job we had CentOS running on 30+ servers (the rest were Win2k3 servers). I find CentOS to be stable, easy to maintain and navigate around, and most importantly reliable with regular and prompt updates.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Insightful)

Oxide (92607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715047)

I want an enterprise quality Linux to run a database server on it. But I don't want to pay the Redhat price tag; CentOS gives me the quality of Redhat Enterprise Linux for free. So it's running my database server and doing so quite well too.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715087)

Strange. The last thing I'd want in an enterprise server is compiz.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Informative)

aarmenaa (712174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715125)

We use Cent where I work. There's a special "Server" CD that strips out pretty much everything that's not a major requirement. I think they're taking the same path that Microsoft has with Windows: you put one version on the server, and another version on the client, and it's all tested to work very well together. In that respect, Compiz on the client might be considered a feature.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

hughesjr (734512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715457)

How about on an Enterprise Desktop???? Maybe you have heard of those :P

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715495)

Apparently you haven't heard of this thing called RPM and how you can install or remove packages whenever it pleases you. Besides, if you don't actually run X on your servers, the only side-effect of having it installed is wasting some disk space.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715543)

Yes, you're right. I still cannot think of many compelling reasons to run a server with a default run level of 5

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716647)

I may be being dim, but the default run level is 3. Try it and see.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

sulfur (1008327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716769)

It depends on what packages you selected during initial installation. If you chose to install X11, then default runlevel will be 5. If not - it will be 3. That simple.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716949)

Actually the last thing you want on an enterprise server is X11 running. Any admin worth their weight in neoprene mouse pads knows not to run an X server on critical hardware.

  Compiz is there for the *desktop* install. Yes, Centos lets you choose and has package sets that reflect your choice of using it as a desktop or server.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717497)

It depends on what you are doing with your enterprise server. One thing you can do with an enterprise server is run a FreeNX terminal server for many clients. Granted you don't need to run the server at runlevel 5 or run a LOCAL X-server, but having the xserver installed and usable by clients is not "always" a bad thing.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

LazloToth (623604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717517)

If a server is behind application-layer switches, firewalls, VLANs, and multiple NAT layers, and the DMZ is well configured, how much more risk does X introduce? Just wondering - - I though X had been cleaned up fairly well for server usage.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Interesting)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717561)

Actually there were zero-day exploits for X.org just last week. RHEL updated their packages and CentOS followed suit a few days later.

  Better safe than sorry, just like running IIS as an external web server, you can do it but the risk isn't worth the reward and you can do nearly anything via an ssh session anyway.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715153)

And it's not only enterprise-quality, but since it essentially is RHEL without the branding, all documentation for RHEL works for CentOS as well. Though the Cent OS user can't depend on support from Red Hat, he could still use something like Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Administration Unleashed [amazon.com] or whatever. If only all enterprise-level software was both well-documented in the public sphere and had Free versions out there.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Insightful)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717681)

I want an enterprise quality Linux to run a database server on it. But I don't want to pay the Redhat price tag; CentOS gives me the quality of Redhat Enterprise Linux for free.

And thus the beauty of free (as in freedom) software. Red Hat takes the work of others, adds a few features, a lot of stability and testing, and sells their result with a support plan for a nifty profit. They give those changes back to the community, which then takes their work and releases a free (as in beer) version for people who don't need the support.

Everyone wins. This is no longer a zero-sum game. I don't understand why that's still so difficult for so many people to understand.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Interesting)

dn15 (735502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715069)

I find CentOS to be stable, easy to maintain and navigate around, and most importantly reliable with regular and prompt updates.
Absolutely. I use Debian on servers (it's what I know and am comfortable with) but I would definitely consider CentOS and recommend it to others who are less *NIX-savvy.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

AliasTheRoot (171859) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716275)

At our bigname hosting company the majority of Linux boxes ran RHEL apart from a few Debian machines. Anything testbed / non customer focussed was running CentOS because for all intents and purposes they are identical.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716977)

You are absolutely right. We run RHEL on our mission-critical Asterisk server but Centos on less critical servers. Centos is a little behind Redhat with the updates but they trickle down a few days later after they've had the logos/branding removed.

  There's alot to be said for making Centos 100% binary-compatible with RHEL. Like I tell everyone, Centos is Redhat Enterprise with the stickers removed.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (0, Offtopic)

reezle (239894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715073)

What jobs were the Cent servers doing? How well did they integrate into Windows Active Directory?
I sometimes think about adding some Linux machines to Windows networks, but worry about passing security back and forth.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

guacamole (24270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715083)

Given the traffic on the mailing lists, I would say yes, a whole lot of people are using it. In my organization, all desktops and secondary servers run CentOS. We keep RHEL on a few critical servers just for the sake of our (sysadmin) jobs.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

st3v (805783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715095)

We use CentOS at work extensively for our engineering stations and the IT dept. uses it on their Linux servers. Very stable, and compatible with our engineering tools, and the IT people don't have to worry about licensing.

What is RedHat Enterprise? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715183)

"RedHat Enterprise 5" Never heared of it, unlike "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5". It's not that hard to work out.

The product is made by "Red Hat"

The product is called "Enterprise Linux"

The version is "5".

In the past there were specific options of "AS ES WS" etc. In version 5 there the base and Advanced Platform.

CentOS-5. Easier to write. Cheaper to use.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Insightful)

tehSpork (1000190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715289)

I used to use CentOS for my server boxes, however version 3 left a very bad taste in my mouth. I then attempted to roll out CentOS 4 on a new box I was preparing for a customer (seeing if it was any improvement over version 3) and it had some problem that prevented it from rebooting for the first time after the install. I've switched to running Fedora 5/6 on my servers and everything has been much more stable.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

phase_9 (909592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715325)

Wehre you trying to do a RAID-1 Mirror on a SATA controller by any chance? I have had to rewrite the grub config to the "secondary" drive more times than I care to mention

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (3, Informative)

Gerb (88657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715517)

You can also do:

grub

grub> device (hd0) /dev/sda
grub> root (hd0,0) (if /boot is on the first partition)
grub> setup (hd0)

and then the exact same for /dev/sdb

Then both disks are bootable via grub. After that you won't have to mess with grub.conf again.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

dean.collins (862044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717459)

All of the Trixbox servers use CentOS4, theres got to be more than a few thousand of those out there.

Cheers,
Dean

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715041)

Only the sad types who can't afford a couple of hundred dollars to license the real thing and get real, enterprise quality support from RedHat Inc. CentOS is just a way for them to rip off the hard work of RedHat without paying for it, which sadly we see all to often in the Open Source community. No one is allowed to make any money.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715147)

And RHE uses the work of FOSS developers without paying them. What is your point?

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715403)

You're just an armchair fanboy who knows nothing about the real state of OSS. You clearly have no idea of who RedHat employs, what they do and the projects RedHat host and support. Ever even seen http://sources.redhat.com [redhat.com] ? No of course not. Why would you? You're just a user.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (3, Insightful)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715581)

I would lend credence to what you say, but you don't even know Red Hat's name...

His point is that most of the code in Red Hat products is not owned or written by Red Hat, as is the case with every other distro. They simply feature freeze and stabilize it, and then sell support contracts for it. They are selling support, not the product.

If Red Hat did not want this to happen, they could simply not base their product on GPL software. Of course, if they did that, they would never have become profitable in the first place, because there is no way they could have built a product as capable as RHEL5 from the ground up completely on their own and stayed in business.

Red Hat, while contributing as you point out, piggyback's on other peoples' work, and CentOS is doing the exact same thing to Red Hat. I don't see an issue here.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715763)

No, his "point" was very clear. He believes that Red Hat do not pay for the work they are using. This is demonstratively wrong, as Red Hat do employ a large number of high profile OSS developers and directly support some very important OSS projects. They obviously use other OSS projects that they do not support, but Red Hat are putting in just as much as they get out. So for Red Hat it is a zero sum game and they make all their money from support contracts.

Now, projects like CentOS are not paying for OSS developers and are not putting anything in to the OSS projects they are distributing, so lets not try and pretend they have the moral high ground or anything. All CentOS are doing is spending a couple of weeks deleting anything that is not redistributable, hardly time well spent. The net effect of CentOS is that it draws away customers from Red Hat. They are indirectly slowing funding to OSS projects.

Red Hat gives as much as it takes. CentOS just takes.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Informative)

hughesjr (734512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715911)

Well ... it seems that the Fedora team (and Board Chairman) do not seem to share your opinion of CentOS (they must not have gotten the memo to hate CentOS before we shared a FOSDEM 2007 [fosdem.org] devroom). Also see:

LinuxFormat Article [linuxformat.co.uk]

I'm sure that Red Hat would be much better off if the people who want to install a free server did not install CentOS (which can easily run anything on RHEL later if support and a paid for OS is required) ... but instead used debian or ubuntu. Of course they wouldn't ... Red Hat benefits greatly because CentOS gets software installed that can easily move to their flag ship product when and if the time is right.

Also, take a look at the Red Hat bugzilla sometime and do a search for CentOS. The code base gets seen / installed by many more people on many more pieces of hardware, many of which would not have installed on RHEL but some other free OS if CentOS were unavailable. This allows RH to get feedback and bug reports from many more people to stablize their codebase. All the time, RH does not need to provide any real support to this group of people.

You can even argue that because of the popularity of CentOS combined with some big name 3rd party repositories like RPMForge [rpmforge.net] and KBS CentOS Extras [karan.org] that a whole new need was demonstrated, and that the EPEL project [fedoraproject.org] was created to help fill that need. Again, Red Hat and RHEL users benefit greatly because of this colaboration.

There are other numerous advantages as well ... but that is enough for now. No, Red Hat is not loosing sleep because CentOS exists ... indeed, quite the opposite.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715963)

If the advantages that CentOS delivers Red Hat actually existed, Red Hat would be shipping their own free version instead of leaving it to a third party. They stopped providing free versions after Red Hat 9. The didn't stop and then say to themselves "Oh, what have we done! If only someone would come along and produce a freely redistributable version of our product for us!" If CentOS didn't exist people would use other distributions, many of which would be RHEL. The ones that didn't use RHEL wouldn't be a loss to Red Hat, because it would largely be cheapskates who were never going to pay for support anyway.

Red Hat have to publically be seen to support CentOS because it would be a bad PR move to do anything else. CentOS supporters love to squawk about their "right" to redistribute RHEL, because it is an effective method of drowning out any dissenting opinions.

CentOS exists because some people have a fundamental problem simply paying to obtain the benefits of the work Red Hat has put into producing their distribution.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716371)

That, or can't justify an OS that costs more than Windows does to put on a desktop machine. I mean, yes there are alternatives. Red Had does support the Fedora project after all, and they don't make money on that, other than the same way they make money on CentOS distribution.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Insightful)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717369)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Red Hat also make money from the contributions of others? I know Red Hat pays people to work on Linux, but don't they also benefit greatly from a lot of "free" labor from others? Not to knock Red Hat, but just trying to point out that this is the nature of the game with GPL work.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Insightful)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716195)

If Red Hat did not want this to happen, they could simply not base their product on GPL software. Of course, if they did that, they would never have become profitable in the first place, because there is no way they could have built a product as capable as RHEL5 from the ground up completely on their own and stayed in business.

They could have based their server product on *BSD, then close the source and live happily thereafter.

It's only GPL-ish licenses that prevent such behaviour

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Interesting)

Michael Hunt (585391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715229)

The only use I see for something like CentOS is for a dev or UAT environment, when you're running the same RHEL version in production. This gives you two (three) essentially identical environments, but you've only gotta pay the man for one copy.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (3, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715711)

What about students, both formal and informal? Red Hat is the most popular distro when it comes to finding books. A free (as in beer) clone that you can work the exercises & examples on without the distraction and niggle of differences is a Good Thing(tm).

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

goonerw (99408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716533)

What about students, both formal and informal?
For formal students, they should be able to buy the academic version of RHEL which, for v4 was $50 for AS.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (3, Informative)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715821)

If you are running RHEL in prod, then nothing in the license stops you from installing it on the dev machines. We do that, and it works great because we have to maintain only 1 distro in the whole environment.

The RHN subscription is for access to the download page, and for support. If you have two licenses, then it entitles you to have support for 2 machines, but doesn't in any way prevent you from installing on a third machine. Just an FYI, in case you weren't aware of it.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716061)

https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us.html?count ry=buying+a+Red+Hat+Subscription+from+Red+Hat [redhat.com]

You need to reread section 5 if you have an RHN subscription. You MAY NOT install redhat software on a machine that does not have an RHN subscription and they MAY ask to audit you.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716815)

How can they enforce this if Linux is GPLed?

I thought the point of the GPL was that you could sell the software, but you can't keep your customers from making and distributing additional copies.

Redhat can ask you to be nice and not install it, but I doubt they have any real legal recourse if you do.

-Z

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717061)

Sure, you can install it on 10 machines if you want, but good luck getting RHN and updates to work on 9 of those if you only have a license for one. We just went through this and ended up using Centos 4.4 on our dev boxes and RHEL (that we paid for) on a single mission-critical server. When Redhat gives you no choice, this is what you must do if you want to run an identical environment for test builds.

  Another thing that pissed me off was juggling licenses. I used to have our dev box and production box both registered. The dev box was on a temporary demo license that just never expired. However I only had a single subscription to RHN. I would have to visit the RHN site and disable production and enable the dev box if I wanted to enable it, then go back and undo it when production was ready. It got really stupid and I should have just bought another license..but $1k doesn't grow on trees around here.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717385)

GPL doesn't prevent the standard "you can't copy my software" practice as many believe.

What the GPL says, is that if you give someone a binary copy of the software, the source must either come with it, or be readily available. Now, the giving of that binary copy is still subject to normal copyright laws. If I for instance create a boxed software product, GPL it, and then put it on the shelves of Best Buy (with source on the CD), you still wouldn't necessarily be able to copy it and give it to friends, because you have no distribution rights on the binary, and therefore whether or not you must include the source with it becomes moot.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (3, Informative)

timbo234 (833667) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716475)

I don't think that's right at all. I've come across the same question in 2 different companies now and the answer has always been that you must have a RHEL subscription for every machine you have RHEL installed on. In fact have a read of the licencing agreement:
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us.html?count ry=buying+a+Red+Hat+Subscription+from+Red+Hat [redhat.com]

Read sections 3.1 and 5.1 in particular. In 5.1 they are saying that you must notify them if the number of installed systems exceeds the number of subscriptions you have, and they will bill you for the extra systems etc.:
Client will promptly notify Red Hat if the number of Installed Systems exceeds the number of Installed Systems for which Client has paid the applicable fee. In its notice, Client will include both the number of additional Installed Systems and the date(s) on which such Installed Systems were put into use. Red Hat will invoice Client for the applicable Services for such Installed Systems on a pro-rata basis and Client will pay for such Services in accordance with this Agreement.

This is why Centos is so useful, you can have as many dev/test/uat/whatever machines as you like without having to worry about subscriptions.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716867)

Thanks for the link, I see that my claims may not have been true. Still, how does this become compliant with the GPL? Redhat distributes the OS (the source form) on the terms of the GPL. This allows me full redistribution rights, as long as I comply with the trademarks and copyright laws. In other words, I can use it to clone other systems internally and can install the software as I see fit on any other server in the organisation. The problem would be when I try to sell this OS - if I use Redhat's name without their knowledge (since I am selling a copy of RHEL) that would be a violation of their copyright, and their trademarks.

It is a bit dodgy, but I can install the redhat software using up2date, on any system that is registered on RHN. up2date has an option to keep the rpms after they are installed. I can use those rpms (note: now the terms of rhn subscription stop and the gpl enters) on any systems in a way that I deem fit, provided I do not violate the GPL. What is prohibited is me using RHN or the up2date utility on another system. As long as I have my own re-distribution mechanism setup, I can ship those rpms to any other system. This is my take on the license, I may be wrong afterall.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717657)

Uh, how sure are you about that ? Does that mean you aren't patching your dev servers ?

From what I remember from RH licensing (although contract negotiations were two years ago, so things may have changed by now), the definition of support support included errata. Our legal team took this to mean that you can't install Red Hat errata (new packages to patch vulns and bugs) on servers not covered under the license / contract.

Additionally, you have to pay per seat for Satellite provisioning entitlements, so a dev server with a different deployment system makes life a pain in the ass.

In short, our legal team and Red Hat both advised that we had to buy licences for our dev servers. They did discount these generously, but the mere fact that there was any cost in testing and developing on Linux while there wasn't for Windows (due to the organisation site license) was always a big black mark against Linux.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716935)

If you have a lot of developers, you can give each one their own environment (or virtual environment, take your pick) without having to buy 1 copy of RHEL/developer.

Doesn't take very long for that to be a substantial saving.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715563)

All I see them doing is exercising their rights under the GPL using others' copyrighted code, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what Red Hat does with the vast majority of the code in their products...

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Funny)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715097)

Who uses CentOS? Well, the website of this [wikipedia.org] *ahem* rather famous city runs on it :)

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715491)

Heh, there must be a mod from Tuttle out there.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715213)

About 75% of the University of Wisconsin Computer Science dept. (graduates + faculty + computer labs) uses CentOS. That's, I dunno, 400 computers?

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Informative)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715241)

CENTOS is ideal for any dev work that will eventually be deployed to RHEL, as its basically the same binaries with the redhat copyrighted stuff removed. ( and sans support contract ...)

we tend to set up vm's as dev and staging environments per project, last count there was about 30 dormant and 5 active on our vmware box.

as for the compiz & desktop candy.. you can thank fedora for that finding its way to centos... of course you dont have to install or even use it.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Interesting)

donaldm (919619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715337)

I know you are trolling but yes. CentOS is great for Development were your System Admins' take care of everything and if you move the machine to production you can get a CentOS or Redhat maintenance contract.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715435)

Yes, used on hundreds of servers at a University in the UK with no issues. Stuff that has commercial support goes on RHEL; but the rest goes on CentOS to maintain an identical environment to administer.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (5, Informative)

hughesjr (734512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715469)

A few people use it ... well, maybe more than a few as we have had 2 million unique IP Addresses do updates against our yum repositories in the last 12 months.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716149)

Did you filter out the dynamic address ranges to get a reasonable estimate of your userbase?

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (4, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716347)

Yeah, sorry about that - I was doing an update to my CentOS server at home over a flaky broadband link and every time it reconnected I got a different dynamic IP address. BTW how's the other user getting on with their system?

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715509)

Well, Duke University Shared Cluster Resource (http://www.csem.duke.edu/ [duke.edu] , over 1,100 processors and still growing) has used CentOS for the last couple of years, and it was working just fine.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

toby34a (944439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715645)

I know that I'm feeding the troll... but the entire atmospheric science department (and Marshall Spaceflight Center employees, and National Weather Service employees on the UAH network) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville uses CentOS. In my experience, it's a very solid *nix build, with good coding implementation built in. My only beef is the network op not giving me root access... but then again, that's b/c they don't trust anyone in that department.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (1)

pwrtool 45 (792547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717035)

If you're talking about UAH's CNS, that's because don't trust anyone in any department. They have some of the oddest, most byzantine network policies imaginable; but I might be biased. I remember the ResNet / Main campus network split around 2001. They basically shut off network access in both dorms (SE and CCRH) for more than a week. During midterms.

Re:Does anyone even use this OS? (2, Insightful)

dubonbacon (866462) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715805)

http://www.rocksclusters.org/ [rocksclusters.org]

ROCKS cluster at our university's department of economics.
There is a couple of clusters registered on the site, too.

Wikipedia says:
"Rocks Cluster Distribution is a Linux distribution intended for computer clusters. Rocks is based on CentOS, but uses a modified anaconda installer that simplifies mass installation onto many computers."

title (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715017)

They should have made the title "CentOS 5 Leaked!!!"

STALKER uses Doom 3 textures, with permission? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715169)

From http://mapcore.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8034 [mapcore.net]

"I browsed the stalker .db" files with this new extract tool which is around.
I saw that they are using doom3 lightimages.
for the people which own both games can compare the "lights" folders.

I'm wondering if the russian guys got the permission for using them.
As a hobbyist i think its not that fair. If i'm using textures from another game without having the big money in mind i will get mails from a lawer or someting like that. even if i only want to do a cool level."

I'd really love a ServerCD version of this (1)

golemwashere (265567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715243)

I'm a big fan of the servercd version, containing just the bare minimum for a server installation and really hope the developers will produce one even for version 5.
Centos rocks!!!

Re:I'd really love a ServerCD version of this (2, Informative)

morcego (260031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716705)

The ServerCD version of CentOS always take some time to show up.

That said, you can do a bare minimum install with CentOS 5 CD1 these days easily enough. Just select custom install, and deselect all package groups.

Pirates! (4, Funny)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715323)

Torrents are available for both i386 and x86_64.


OMG, pirates!! I'm sooo calling the BSA.

Re:Pirates! (2, Funny)

ady1 (873490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715417)

quick, here's the number:

1800-BULSHTALNC

Re:Pirates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715583)

It's sad that people associate torrents with pirates.

Re:Pirates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715595)

It's worse that some people can't understand sarcasm.

Re:Pirates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716051)

What makes you think he didn't understand? Maybe he was just commenting on the sad state of the world.

Re:Pirates! (4, Funny)

jjacksonRIAB (1050352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715749)

In Soviet Amerika, the BSA calls YOU!

yet another Fedora Core 6 (0, Flamebait)

postmortem (906676) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715431)

RH admitted that 300+ packages in RHEL5 are rpms from FC6. RHEL 5 strongly resembles of FC6... it is nothing but augmented version of it anyway ...and CentOS is exactly that as well.

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715513)

It is not yet another Fedora Core 6. Fedora and CentOS have different purposes. CentOS releases are supported for seven years, while Fedora usually supports just the current release and the previous release. After that, you have to upgrade to a newer release, or have no security updates. Fedora is great to try and use the latest technology, whereas RHEL and CentOS are useful for production boxes that should run for years without pain.

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (4, Informative)

hughesjr (734512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715531)

Except ... Fedora Core 6 will stop getting updates once FC8 is out in a year .. but RHEL5 (and CentOS) being Enterprise OSes will continue to be supported for 7 years. So, while they are the same (or at least very similar) to FC6 now, if you are installing it on your enterprise servers or desktops, you will appreaciate the support lifetime and reduced cost of totally reloading your OS every 6 months.

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715593)

Yeah, what are they doing releasing this? We all know that teh internet is a series of tubes that you can't just dump stuff on. All they are doing is filling up teh internets!!!

Do you have a point, or are posting out of boredom? If all it is is another FC6...well then, don't download it, while people that do find it useful will. Sound good?

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716567)

only a 13 year old poser newbise use words like teh.

Please go back to school, your friends in 6th grade miss you.

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18717567)

Or folks who occassionally make typos and don't care enough to proofread their work. I type teh all the time and it irritates the hell out of me.

Only 11 year old poser grammer nazi's criticise the wording and not the content of the post

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (5, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716873)

RH admitted that 300+ packages in RHEL5 are rpms from FC6. RHEL 5 strongly resembles of FC6... it is nothing but augmented version of it anyway ...and CentOS is exactly that as well.

That's the whole point of the fedora project: to provide a base from which to produce RHEL.

The core difference, as has already been pointed out, is long-term support. If you find you need a security update for a particular package for Fedora Core 6 in a couple of years when FC9 is the latest version, good luck. Your only options are to upgrade the whole system or build the package (and any dependencies which also require updating) yourself.

You may not have a problem with that. CentOS and RHEL is intended for people who do.

Re:yet another Fedora Core 6 (1)

xdroop (4039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717287)

RH admitted that 300+ packages in RHEL5 are rpms from FC6. RHEL 5 strongly resembles of FC6... it is nothing but augmented version of it anyway ...and CentOS is exactly that as well.
Yeah, I used to think that too.

Two years later I have a Fedora Core 3 based mail server in production that doesn't have any further updates coming and is too critical to down and rebuild. (I'm sure a hardware failure will force the issue eventually -- can't come soon enough for me).

It is, however, the last one. My current infrastructure is all CentOS 4.x; in three or six months I'll start migrating to CentOS 5.x for new systems.

BiLtch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715541)

Only a few weeks behind...StartCom... (1)

StartCom (1018308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715579)

"Only a few weeks behind the release of RedHat Enterprise 5"? Whereas StartCom [startcom.org] released its clone almost two weeks ago! However /. doesn't think it was news ;-) , but Linux-Watch [linux-watch.com] did...

Re:Only a few weeks behind...StartCom... (2, Insightful)

hughesjr (734512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715691)

Right ... BUT ....

Try some some ldd compares between RHEL and startcom ... then do the same for CentOS

CentOS has nearly 200 mirrors world wide and a geoip enabled system to deliver updates and find downloads, startcom as about 10.

Though ... the more the merrier I always say ... and startcom is a fine distro too.

Looks great but (1)

BeoCluster (995566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715693)

Can I Make a Beowulf Cluster of CentOS ? OH SHI !

The second best server OS (4, Informative)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715705)

Debian is best for running non-commercial stuff on, but for most HP stuff and VMware server etc (that officially support RHEL4) CentOS is the way to go. The server install (single CD with all the stuff you need) rules, hope they make one for CentOS5 soon.

When installing for example VMware Server, all the stuff one needs is already in. Even the kernel modules load without any recompiling.

Re:The second best server OS (1)

embsysdev (719482) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716425)

Sweet. Not to start a OS war, and at work we standardized on CentOS, but at home I use Ubuntu (Debian based) and I can say the same about Ubuntu with respect to VMWare Player. The Ubuntu (universe?) repositories have .deb packages for VMWare Player so there is no compilation necessary. However, to install VMWare Server, I had to run the install script that compiles the kernel module. Not that it was a big deal - it only tool a few minutes.

Re:The second best server OS (1)

Dalroth (85450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716811)

That's pretty funny. I just installed Debian AMD64 on an HP machine this week as a host OS to another instance of Debian AMD64 running under VMWare. I had no problems at all. Everything just worked.

So, do tell me, what's the problem running VMWare on Debian?

Bryan

Re:The second best server OS (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717245)

In your house where the only critical thing you probably have is your porn is fine, when your companies business is on the line. Well, you wouldn't be working for me if you used an unsupported OS for a critical application... I use both RHEL and CentOS. (because they are the same and make management/documentation that much easier) If I'm installing Oracle, it's going on RHEL. If I'm installing LAMP or an SMTP/IMAP server, it's going on CentOS.

This guy uses CentOS, straight outta Brazil! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18715741)

http://www.tuttle-ok.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SE C= [tuttle-ok.gov] {CC5DEFB6-1B2A-4783-A5F8-A92275C95081}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_A._Taylor [wikipedia.org]

City Manager Jerry A. Taylor

Jerry A. Taylor I am pleased to serve the citizens of the City of Tuttle. I am dedicated to working with the City Government Officials and citizens to ensure Tuttle maintains the qualities that makes it a great place to live. Many challenges lie ahead to meet the rapid growth of this community. The citizens of this city worked many hours to help develop a consolidated plan for growth of the city through the year 2020. This plan ensures that future growth is managed in an orderly manner. Having a plan provides direction and guidelines to ensure city services are available to accomodate the demand resulting from increased growth. I welcome new ideas to enrich the community and provide a better quality of life for all residents. Please call me, or come by my office at City Hall. My door is always open and I answer all calls.

Re:This guy uses CentOS, straight outta Brazil! (1)

pedalman (958492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717235)

Does this mean that the City of Tuttle, OK has given its official approval for this new release of CentOS?

In other news... (2, Funny)

jjacksonRIAB (1050352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18715801)

City manager of Tuttle decries more sophisticated attacks against his website, threatening legal ramifications against hacker terror networks who have targetted him for termination.

50 Cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18716675)

The should have just called this the "50 Cent".

Stop Hacking! (5, Funny)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716961)

Dear CentOS developers,

Please stop hacking my browser. When I visit my favorite site, Slashdot, your software's name keeps appearing on my browser. If you don't stop this at once, I will be forced to call the FBI and report your hacking.

Thank you.

Cool (5, Funny)

Jimbo God of Unix (221452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18716995)

Does that make it NickelOS?

One Red Hat to Rule Them All (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717349)

Why is there any functional difference between CentOS and RHEL? There are different HowTos for installation and operation of various SW on each of RHEL and CentOS. And how about a script that will convert either CentOS or Fedora to look exactly like RedHat for installing/running apps?

Re:One Red Hat to Rule Them All (4, Informative)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717705)

The only functional difference between the two is the removal of the RedHat name and logo from all packages. redhat-config-network becomes system-config-network, etc; the rest is all artwork.

Fedora is a whole other beast. While Fedora rpms will often run fine on a RHEL system (and RHEL5 makes many of the FC6 packages available as unsupported extras), its goal is to be much faster moving and bleeding edge, at the cost of reliability and long term support.

Red Hat and the GPL (-1)

Builder (103701) | more than 7 years ago | (#18717709)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it's been bugging me more and more.

While Red Hat do comply with the letter of the GPL (the provide the source code) they don't do it in a very friendly or helpful way. By only distributing their sourcecode in a way that includes their trademarks, and then vigorously pursuing anyone who uses or distributes their trademarks, they make it difficult for you to actually use that source code.

You really have to take it apart, remove all of their trademarks, or just go through and find the changes from the last update before you can redistribute GPL code. That seems to go against the spirit of the GPL to me.

Added to that, some of their more useful software is not GPLd, and not only that, it is based on a proprietary closed source database.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?