Slashdot Mirror


CentOS 4.3 Multi-Platform Release

hughesjr writes "The CentOS development team has announced the availability of CentOS-4.3 for the i386, x86_64, and ia64 architectures. Major changes in this version of CentOS include: upgraded update system - this new system provides more that 100 total mirrors for updates and picks geographically close and non-stale mirrors based on our master server's content; Frysk, InfiniBand Architecture (IBA), and z/VM hypervisor added; see the release announcement for more information. ISO's are also available for download on their site."

17 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. CentOS? by Musteval · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to their website, it stands for Community ENTerprise Operating System. I've never heard of them. Are they related to Microsoft ENTerprise Operating System? I'm fairly certain I've seen ads for that somewhere.

    --
    Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
    1. Re:CentOS? by Wdomburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was really that easy, CentOS wouldn't exist because there would be no value to it. For starters, packaging is no small task - one package may not work with glibc because they don't explicitely include errno.h, another has a broken makefile, another may install its files in weird places and give no option for relocating because their authors are jackasses, another utill uses imake and not make, et cetera, et cetera. Never mind building and verifying dependency chains, backporting security fixes, doing regression checking, integrating it into the platform (e.g. setting up log rotation, lsb compliant init scripts, etc).

      Red Hat brings a ton of value to the free software world, not just in the resources that the distribution, but in development as well. They employ a very significant number of kernel developers, gcc developers (remember, they bought Cygnus and inherited most of their employees), gnome developers, et cetera. They've acquired a number of previously propriety software and open sourced them - think GFS and Netscape Enterprise Directory Server (now Fedora Directory Server) for starters.

      That's not to say I have any qualms about using CentOS. Red Hat benefits from other projects, other projects benefit from Red Hat. That's the beauty of the free software community.

    2. Re:CentOS? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Red Hat owns the images and copyrights that have the words "Red Hat." Thats it, and thats what your paying for when you buy RHEL.

      Hardly. What you are paying for is a support contract for that specific build of RHEL on a specific machine or set of machines. Redhat is in the business of selling support contracts, they've choosen to sell them for specific builds of the RHEL distribution. There is no deeper, trickier meaning beyond that.

      Red Hat has no problem with not paying for OSS packages it uses, why should I have a problem with not paying Red Hat?

      Whether they do or do not make any significant contributions to the OSS/Free source base is irrelevant.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:CentOS? by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its not like they [RedHat] own or do the majority of the work on the software.

      Give me a fucking break. RedHat pays Alan Cox's salary. RedHat is big into the development of gcc and glibc. RedHat has become basically the standard for Linux distros (for bad or good). RedHat is only by more PBHs than SuSe, and second to Suse by almost nobody, depending on the region of the world you come from. RedHat has been known and is still (via Fedora) the "bleeding edge" distro. And that has made a number of OSS packages to keep up to date and squash a bunch of latent bugs in the process. To my knowledge, RedHat is the most supported Linux distro when multiplied by the number of platforms it runs on (3rd party support, software actually working support, paid for Indian support, don't blame me support, etc).

      As far as the US, and much of the Linux community is concerned, RedHat is a "good thing".

      Personally, I would rather use Debian or Gentoo, but I have only been inconvenienced with running RedHat Linux. Performance is above average, stability is above average, ease of install is well above average, 3rd party support is second to none, etc.

      Like RedHat or not, they have done good stuff for the computing world.

  2. A clone of RHEL by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obligatory Wikipedia link. CentOS is a project which uses the source packages published by Red Hat in order to create an Enterprise Linux solution that can compete with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is distributed only in uncool binary form. While the differences between RHEL and Fedora Linux, the everyday consumer version, are not great--they are often documented in a single book, as in Wiley's Red Hat Fedora and Enterprise Linux 4 Bible , CentOS is probably not important news for most Linux hobbyists.

  3. Re:Hmmm by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 3, Informative

    From my personal experience, a stable CentOS release is great for a Cpanel/WHM server environment. Its relatively easy to setup and has been pretty much problem free for me.

    --
    Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
  4. Re:Does This Mean A Fork? by Andrew+Tanenbaum · · Score: 3, Informative

    They really have to roll their own update system, because RHEL's isn't really suited for a free product.

  5. Not important news? What are you smoking? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a reliable "clone" of RHEL, it's free, it's very well supported and it placed 2nd in the most recent Linux Journal reader's choice awards.

    I'd say that makes it important and relevant for hobbyists and people who are using their servers for real work alike.

    Cheers,

  6. Upgrade by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Informative


    Untested, but in theory you should be able to upgrade from 4.2 via:

    rpm -Uvh http://mirror.cs.vt.edu/pub/CentOS/4.3/os/i386/Cen tOS/RPMS/centos-release-4-3.2.i386.rpm

    rpm -y upgrade

    reboot

    Don't blame me. Should work, no guarantees.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
    1. Re:Upgrade by caseih · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually upgrading is completely automatic. A yum update from today should do it. My installations of CentOS have automatically upgraded themselves from 4.0 all the way to this release.

      Just to verify, I ran yum update on one machine that doesn't auto update and it's upgrading to 4.3 all by itself. (no need to install centos-release)

      I use RHEL4 and CentOS interchangably. They are 100% compatible (binary package-wise). I have switched machines back and forth on the fly. I must say, though, CentOS needs to get a graphics designer to tweak things. Their gdm and gnome login screens are hideous. Even their grub background is awful.

  7. Re:Wow, that was quick! by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Informative

    You dumbass, the entire 2.6 scheduler, virtual memory manager, and auditing subsystem are all written and maintained by Red Hat. Let us not forget the countless other contributions they make to the kernel and the development of one of the most often used filesystems, ext3 (its not the fastest, but it is one of the most feature filled and stable). The majority of GCC is also maintained and/or coded by them. They didn't like using a proprietary virtual machine so they started GCJ too, a native compiler for java. Shall we start about how they pay the salary of Chris Blizzard, the big firefox developer and mozilla board member, or Alan Cox, one of the most important kernel developers alive. Red Hat has contributed more code to linux and OSS in general than any other entity, and they don't even brag about it. They also do the majority of the development for Gnome (even the Gnome.org site is hosted by them, read the bottom of the site). Red Hat has spent millions making sure that Linux stays competitive, they bought GFS and Logical Volume Managing from Sistina and gave it away for free, the bought eCos and Cygwin, gave them away for free, spent a few million on the Netscape Directory Server and gave it away for free, and I could go on for much longer. You really have no idea how important Red Hat is to the OSS movement, if something ever happens to them we'll all be set back years as far as development pace goes. Even a good chunk of GLibc is written by them. Unlike most distributions, Red Hat actually codes a good portion of that which they sell, they aren't just repackaging other people's work in an easy to use fashion, they are responsible for where the movement is today. (They also gave 12 million dollars worth of stock to Linus Torvalds to show appreciation for what he's done, thats why Linus never has to worry about work, owns a big home, and drives 3 cars, a Mercedes SLK32, a BMW convertible, and an Acura SUV) Get your facts straight.
    Regards,
    Steve

  8. Re:Not important news? What are you smoking? by massysett · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, I have heard that people who are studying for Red Hat certification need distros like Centos. Of course you want to play around with RHEL and study it, and of course RHEL is too expensive for that. From what I've read Fedora doesn't cut it for this purpose either.

  9. Re:Wow, that was quick! by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which again, changes absolutely nothing. They're using other people's code, which they didn't write, and are making money off of it. They aren't paying back the majority of the code contributors, and no matter how butt hurt you get over it, they aren't the primary source of all that is linux. Do they host some important projects? Sure. Does the majority of the code they use come from other people (who they aren't funding)? Yup.

    Take a look at the base install packages of RHEL4 and let me know how many of them were written by Redhat and get back to me.

    Get YOUR facts straight.

  10. Re:Not important news? What are you smoking? by jludwig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agreed. We've now deployed Centos 4.2 with Warewulf on three Beowulf clusters, two of which I directly administer. RedHat EL was unfortunately priced outside of our budget (we're in academia), yet some scientific software vendors only *offically* support the Redhat series. For this type of situation, CentOS fits the bill nicely, not to mention there exists good VNFS scripts for warewulf already. Its a valuable resource filling the hole that Redhat Linux left.

    Jeff

  11. Re:Wow, that was quick! by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People using CentOS may, undermine some of RedHat's business. However, they also help maintain a vibrant RedHat-based server ecosystem that encourages third-party packagers (like Dag, etc.) to support RHEL distributions, indirectly making RHEL much more usable.

    Most people who use CentOS _like_ RedHat, they just don't want to pay RedHat for support they will never need. If they didn't have something like CentOS, they'd probably use Debian or some other free distro. They almost certainly would not pay RedHat support fees in any case.

    Personally, I have CentOS installed on 28 servers, currently. I recommend to consulting clients who can afford it to buy RHEL subscriptions, and some of them do. I value the work RedHat puts into the stability of their distro, especially the kernel and compiler chain. However, I don't think using CentOS undermines RedHat any more than using Fedora Core does; you just get a more stable server environment that you don't have to upgrade every 6 months. If RedHat didn't want projects like CentOS to exist, they wouldn't give away SRPM's. Doing so makes them even better guys in my book.

  12. Don't Forget to Donate by ajayrockrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love CentOS and thank god it ramped up when it did. RH9 support was over and I was concerned about an upgrade path. I looked at a bunch of distros but honestly, as an admin/programmer I don't want to deal with learning all the details about another distro since I've been using Redhat for years. So CentOS picked up speed (and users) and have been releasing a solid product for years (based off the hard work from Redhat and the OSS developers of course).

    Also, don't forget to donate. While my company didn't pay for RH9, I was able to get them to fork out some cash for the CentOS team. I would have to do A LOT more work if it weren't for those guys.

    --Ajay

  13. Re:Wow, that was quick! by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're using other people's code, which they didn't write, and are making money off of it.

    With their permission of course. Red Hat is complying with the entire letter and spirit of the F/OSS licenses under which they obtained the code. In GPL, it's as simple as this: you can take, modify and redistribute my software, as long as you pass along the same rights to users of the modified work. This doesn't preclude make a buck, or even a lot of bucks.

    If this is not what the original authors intended, they should have used a license that allowed modified version to be distributed for non-commercial purposes only. If they chose the GPL "by accident", then they should speak up; if enough of the contributors to a particular project raise enough of a ruckus, there's always a possibility Red Hat would replace that project in their products.

    But none of us, who aren't contributors to the code in question, have have any right to speak on the behalf of the authors.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.