Slashdot Mirror
CentOs 4.0 Released
fluor2 writes "The CentOS team is pleased to announce availability of CentOS 4.0. Major new features include the Linux 2.6 Kernel, SELinux, udev replacing the /dev system, Xorg, MySQL4, CyrusIMAPD, Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3.3. These improvements along with many more are detailed in the
release notes available online.
We read recently about
Red Hat & Centos On Name Usage, and the solution is now to link to
a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor
(PNAELV).
Go ahead and download CentOs from one of their mirrors."
Go ahead and download CentOs from one of their mirrors."
I'd never heard of Centos, so I looked it up. It's an interesting idea.
They take the source code for RHEL, build it, and put it on an ISO.
Sounds interesting, I imagine if I were to try and sell my bosses on a Linux system for work they'd want something like RHEL, and this is a way to get hold of it and try it without buying a license. you could get a full prototype going and not need to spend any money until you wanted a real copy with a support contract.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
It's not new. It used to be Whitebox Linux, and then the two projects merged. It's certainly not a novel idea to recompile all of Red Hat's SRPMs. Remember linuxinstall.org? Or JAMD? All of these projects are essentially recompiles plus one or two tweaks.
Whitebox is/was pretty popular, and CentOS looks to be a good product too. It's not quite the new fledling it seems you think. You should try it. It even works with regular RHEL/Fedora yum repositories.
Can someone speak to the differences between Red Hat and CentOS, if any? Are there any caveats for running this in production, or as a testing box for a production RHEL server? Any missing features? Are the RPMs 100% compatible, no worries? How about customized RPMs? Is it really just as simple as RHEL4 with no support and RHN?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
PNALEV can't be pronounced, and it doesn't have an anatomical alternate meaning, so it's no good.
What we need is a better acronym. So get your Super High Intensity Thinking (SHIT) ready. We need Creative Reasoning Applied to the Problem (CRAP).
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Here.
for DVD
for binary disks 1-4
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
There is NO 4.0 final release ISO files as of yet. The latest available are the 4.0 RC1 ISO's.
You'll have to wait a bit for the new ISO's.
Get paid to code OSS
-
Lineox released 4.0 on 2/25.
- Piebox released 4.0 on 2/28. No free binary downloads.
- White Box, no 4.0 yet.
- Scientific Linux, no 4.0 yet.
There are more at DistroWatch. See their list of Red Hat based distos.Why did they put MySQL 4.1 in here when PHP 4 doesn't even support it ( mysqli extention is in PHP 5, but not PHP 4 )?
CentOS is one of several projects that took the source rpms from Redhat and recompiled them into a working set of isos (minus Redhat copyrighted material). Whitebox Linux, Tao Linux, and Scientific Linux are some others.
They were basically all started independantly of each other.
Whitebox (being the only one I have really used extensively) is run out of Beauregard Parish Public Library by a a JMorris. He rules with a tyranical fist and has no desire to offer anything other than the bare minimum of changes needed to make the rebuild possible. Now I like this hard-line leadership, but it has caused some friction as to the timelyness of updates.
I did recently convert a machine that was Whitebox Linux to Tao Linux to verify that it could be done. I followed this basic procedure. With this basic procedure, picking one of the projects over another isn't that much of a life or death decision. It is relatively easy to move between this projects.
As far as I can tell (not having seen an actual RHEL box) both Whitebox and Tao are very accurate representations of RHEL. I have yet to see an instance where a package desigend for RHEL didn't work with Whitebox and Tao. I have installed Oracle, vmware, various rpm's that were packaged for RHEL without much troubles.
Man, that looks like it has to be tweaked for days or something, my eyes crossed already. Interesting project, but I dunno...how is it for a non command line guru just mashing a default install into place?
"Red Hat does not authorize any person to use the RED HAT marks in association with such redistribution in any fashion, except by express agreement"
So talk to their lawyers and work out an agreement. Call them up and say, "I understand your position but here's mine. Can we work out a deal that we can both be happy with?" Clearly there's a middle ground that can be found that allows one to say that CentOS is a derivative of RHEL but is not endorsed by or associated with Red Hat. I can't find anything on the site that indicates that they tried to reach an agreement. Going through all the effort to make a web site about "a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" seems almost childish. People hammer out agreements daily about accepted usage of trademarks without spending a dime. There's no reason that CentOS can't do the same.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Here is the actual Release Announcement - Editors on slashdot - please link to the Story itself....
/ 20 05-March/000739.html
http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos-devel
http:/mirror.centos.org/centos/4/os/i386/RELEASE-N OTES-en.html
The only thing I take issue with on the legal action thing is their complaint about links to their site:
/rant
Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission.
Is even RedHat going to take issue with linking from one site to another without express permission? That thing the web was made for? It's just stupid.
This is why I was confused.
well yes, it looks like you can install it, then a week of tweaking to understand it and get it to run or something. anaconda works, I am more wondering after that point. That's a lot of "if this do that" stuff in the release notes, at least that's the impression I got, that's why I asked a question for my personal parameters. I stuck at FC2 from that reason, 3 looked like I wouldn't be able to use it and this is my "on the net" machine, so no workee, no lookee up a fix easily. I'm not a programmer, once it gets beyond a few simple command line things I admit I fail it. I've tried, my brain just doesn't do a linear programming and rote memory command line thing, never has, that's why I abandoned DOS many moons ago in the late 80s the first time I tried a Mac with a GUI.. I just use a computer, it is not my primary #1 skill set or tech interest, it's actually quite far down the list although I really like the net, if that makes any sense.. I like hardware and mechanics and woodworking and whatnot like that way more, and various outdoorsy stuff. those are my main hobbies and skillsets and interests. If programming was my job or main hobby I would obviously feel differently about it, I wouldn't mind bleeding edge as much. Guess I am still distro shopping for slightly less bleeding edge and more just "works" out of the box. I've mostly always used with linux RH or Fedora too, but then I noticed (reading on the net) all the weird problems people had with FC3 and etc and this CentOS looks similar, but *I really don't know*. Frankly, with macs dropping in price down to more reasonable I have been thinking of switching back. Maybe anyway. I would rather stick with pure open source from a philosophical angle as I agree with it, but sheesh..this is getting old with the updating and having always to tweak this or fix that, I'm just tired of it. I fully admit I am GUI centric, and see not much wrong with that in year 2005. I just don't want to even fool with CLI anymore if I don't have to. I also just last week lost my two main desktops to some weird power surge or something, so this is my last junker I have to fool around with, can't take a chance on installing something that I can't make work or that the security issues are too hard to set or something. Live CDs, no probs, a full install, nope, I want to be assurred in advance (as much as possible within reason of course) it will work most likely with a default no brainer install and not need massive admining to get it secure and functional.
Thanks for the reply though. I might try it, but only after I have another working computer as a test/play around machine.
Torrent information like this is good and keeps the downloads coming. FYI, those on the torrent please keep at least a 1:1 ratio going. I personally upload at a 2:1 just to be nice (aka, i dont play games)
thanks kalak for the post
http://tinyurl.com/6vq2z/
> and reach an agreement on name usage?
gee, i dunno, maybe because they're spending their time on better things, like actually releasing their distro?
if the use of the trademark "Red Hat" on the CentOS website means so much to you, why don't you take the time to deal with Red Hat lawyers yourself?
If you don't want people linking to your material, don't put a site on the web. http://www.redhat.com/link to Red Hat
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
If anyone else is trying to convert people at work, please see if it is possible to take some (even a fraction) of the money you save by using CentOS over RHEL and donate it to the project.
It's not as easy as it sounds, but doesn't stop me from trying.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.