Slashdot Mirror
CentOS Linux 6.0 Released
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."
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.
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
"I'd rather have friends who care than friends who agree with me." - Arlo Guthrie
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?
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?
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.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
...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.
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.
Debian has already released version 6.0 months ago!
you don't exist!!!!!
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.
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.
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!
At last, a first post that is first, and properly placed for nostalgia. :>)
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
It helps when you get subscriber perks.
OK, so I cheated :)
Has anybody had any luck torrenting one of the DVDs? I can't connect to tracker.centos.org.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
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!
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.
As I understand the common team and community positions, from the long debates on the -devel list:
1) The source is open, the project is not.
1a) After saying this, much of the build information has been dribbled out on the list anyway, but only after heated encouragement.
1b) There is no interest in codifying this build information (ala a B(uild)RPM file to automate the process). See also: 3b.
2) The C in CentOS (community) refers to the target of the product, not the process.
3) Many people on the list would like to see an open project, run by the community, more like Fedora.
3a) This would lead to faster releases.
3b) It is assumed this would create friction with Redhat by helping its competition, and thus cool relations with the CentOS team or cause Redhat to discontinue its fully-open strategy for software it writes.
3c) There has been talk that after 6.1 is out the door that the team will look into addressing some of these concerns.
3d) Nobody has talked seriously about fork, yet. There's probably no RHEL 7 on the horizon, so there's a long time to prepare if it ultimately becomes necessary. Whitebox Linux to CentOS in a way proved the viability of this option, but almost nobody would prefer it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Scientific Linux 6 FTW! Took the CentOS guys long enough! Surprised they didn't skip to 6.1.
Congratulations to centos team for releasing long awaiting centos 6, I just can't wait right now I'm download Centos 6.0 x86_64 off torrent and then I'll install it as KVM guest.
# For LVM based partition,
virt-install --name centos6 \
--ram 512 \
--os-type='linux' \
--disk path=/dev/mapper/vg_kvm-kvm1 \
--network network:default \
--accelerate \
--vnc \
--cdrom PathToISO
Or for file based storge,
virt-install --name centos6 \
--ram 512 \
--os-type='linux' \
--disk path=/var/lib/libvirt/images/centos6.img,size=4 \
--network network:default \
--accelerate \
--vnc \
--cdrom PathToISO
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the hard work.
I don't know how the release of CentOS makes front page news, but the recent release of Linux Mint 11 did not.
Not to trash CentOS too much, it's a viable distro with it's benefits, but for almost every user in every scenario Linux Mint is a much, much more desktop ready solution.
Unless you've done at least TWO Linux Mint 10 or 11 installs, don't bother putting in your two cents. If you HAVE done 2 or more installs, I doubt you'll disagree with me, but I'd love to hear from you if you do, and why.
Other than the clearly broken Brasero, Linux Mint 11 is the best Operating System I have used EVER. Including every version of Windows, DOS, Mac OS, and other Linux distros. Everything just works (except Brasero, which never works in any OS, but is easily replaced by Gnomebaker or K3B), is dead simple and fast, and also includes superior default apps VS any other OS I've used.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
It has been at least 9 years since I used Red Hat. Why is there a CentOS? Wasn't Fedora supposed to be RedHat with all of the proprietary stuff removed?
Feel free to join the ClearOS Core team. ClearFoundation produces the same specification on the code, has corporate backing, with open involvement from the community. We want you and are willing to listen and allow participation from everyone.
Looks like upgrading won't be as cut and dry as it has been in the past, The CentOS team is recommending a reinstall rather than an inplace upgrade. This speaks volumes to the lack of compatibility between versions and the amount of work involved. I was disappointed when I read this.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2011-July/017645.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Upgrading from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5:
We recommend everyone run through a reinstall rather than attempt an
inplace upgrade from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5
+++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are using CentOS, and you are bitching about the delays, and you really need the updates maybe you should consider using RHEL, and pay for the support. Anything too critical shouldnt be run on CentOS, even if the CentOS project was perfect, by definition of what they are (they depend on RedHat releasing the code), they are bound to be late for critical patches. So if you have little money for a server, your information is not that sensitive, you dont need the latest software you can use CentOS, for example a FileServer for a small office. If you are running 10000 EPR on CentOS you are an idiot, if you are paying a that much for software, pay a little bit more for O.S. support. Otherwise it is like buying an expensive car and use cheap oil. I have nothing against CentOS, I think the project is great. CentOS, RHEL, and Fedora are different type of tools for different types of work. CentOS for when you have no money, or for testing something to run in a similar environment. RHEL when you need critical support. Fedora, just for fun and testing, the cycle of life of fedora is really short. I think is perfect for Universities, where they format the servers at the end of each semester. Never ever use it for critical stuff.
SL website, downloads and updates are much better organized than the PUIAS.
Right off the top; SL lets me get full disk ISO files for any version they have.