CentOS Linux 6.0 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Sunday July 10, 2011 @10:12AM from the for-your-favorite-white-box dept.

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."

140 of 184 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 10:18 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Finally! by Alain+Williams · 2011-07-10 10:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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!
2. Re:Finally! by markdavis · 2011-07-10 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  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!
4. Re:Finally! by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-10 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Finally! by epe · 2011-07-10 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Finally! by Tritoch · 2011-07-10 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Finally! by orangesquid · 2011-07-10 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why run linux version 6 when you could run linux version 13?????
  Thats right, YOU TOO could be running the latest and greatest, instead of an ancient, dinosaur version of linux! ;)
  
  --
  --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
8. Re:Finally! by Doc+Ruby · 2011-07-10 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Are RPMs available for CentOS v6.0 now that it's out?
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
9. Re:Finally! by symbolset · 2011-07-10 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
10. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 13:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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
11. Re:Finally! by markdavis · 2011-07-10 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  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
12. Re:Finally! by evilviper · 2011-07-10 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
13. Re:Finally! by itzdandy · 2011-07-10 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:Finally! by M1FCJ · 2011-07-10 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Latest Version is 13.37....
15. Re:Finally! by Heretic2 · 2011-07-10 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on if you consider Hedge Funds and High-Frequency Trading firms that makes 200% profit margins "Enterprises" or not. I mean really, what positive thing are they doing for the economy? Maybe Ubuntu is used by economic parasites more than Enterprises, even if they are businesses that make lots of profit.
16. Re:Finally! by Heretic2 · 2011-07-10 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  I myself prefer debian on servers over ubuntu.
  Yea, marginally better, they are both affected by the same huge gaping security holes.
17. Re:Finally! by rjch · 2011-07-10 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  Enterprises don't use Ubuntu. RHEL (and thus CentOS) are still 'in favour'.
  Absolutely not true. I've worked for three companies now that used Ubuntu. Often times, they stuck to the LTS release for extra stability and longevity, but they're still using Ubuntu. CentOS is very often a long way behind - after all, CentOS 5.0 was released over four years ago. I've had trouble maintaining an ageing MediaWiki site running on CentOS since MediaWiki have recently dropped support for PHP 4 - which is still the only version of PHP available in the main repositories for CentOS 4.
  Sticking with older software versions (patched with security updates) isn't a bad thing - letting them decay so that admins are forced to rely on third-party repos with unknown compatibility issues or conflicts is something else entirely.
18. Re:Finally! by caluml · 2011-07-10 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, me too. I bet Scientific Linux has seen a surge of new users.
  
  Still, now that CentOS 6 is out, that's great news - normal service is resumed.
  
  --
  Get your own free personal location tracker
19. Re:Finally! by rjch · 2011-07-11 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's all well and good, but when you go four years between releases, that creates unnecessary problems with old software. Ubuntu does not have this issue. Even if you stick to the LTS releases, their software isn't so old as to cause serious incompatibilities with software you may need to install that aren't in the repositories.
20. Re:Finally! by protektor · 2011-07-11 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  You can actually thank the Fedora community for the SELinux support. Some people turn off the SELinux in Fedora because they don't understand how it works. I leave it on and watch the logs to see what if any errors pop up. Complaining that is hard to use or that you don't understand it doesn't help make the system run better and definitely not more secure. There is also the fact that Fedora ships with a SELinux tool (SELinux Troubleshooter) to tell what isn't setup/working properly and how to fix it. If you take the time to learn how SELinux works and watch all the log files to know what is going on, you will gain a valuable skill that is definitely usable in the work place.
  Fedora is the upstream of Red Hat Enterprise which is the upstream of CentOS. So all of them are getting a large chunk from the Fedora community. Remember it's the upstream provider who does most of the heavy lifting.
21. Re:Finally! by HalWasRight · 2011-07-11 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yes Ubuntu has has serious issues with old software, even in LTS. I got burned by this with just last month with Apache 2.2.14 on 10.04 LTS. That version has bad memcpy bug, that we hit after changing our config, but it hadn't been updated in 10.04 LTS. I had to tweak my repo settings to get 2.2.16 from maverick, and was lucky it worked. Where's the LTS in this? It was hardly an obscure bug.
  
  --
  "This mission is too important to allow you to jeopardize it." -- HAL
22. Re:Finally! by bastion_xx · 2011-07-11 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry CentOS, two months too late. I also moved some new servers over to Scientific Linux 6. Not that much difference and I can help support my old peeps at the Natioanl labs!
23. Re:Finally! by symbolset · 2011-07-15 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  A tool is what it is. It's a tool to to work some purpose. Turn it well with your art to a different purpose and you've gone from craftsman to Artist.
  Turn it poorly and you're a hack. There's the risk - though there's good money to be had in being a hack.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
Why it took so long by Digimer · 2011-07-10 10:21 · Score: 5, Informative

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
1. Re:Why it took so long by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-07-10 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  They used to be able to do all that in about 8-12 weeks. Why 7 months this time?
2. Re:Why it took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Why it took so long by hierofalcon · 2011-07-10 10:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Why it took so long by ameoba · 2011-07-10 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  my sig's at the bottom of the page.
5. Re:Why it took so long by IceNinjaNine · 2011-07-10 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Why it took so long by DarkAnt · 2011-07-10 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
7. Re:Why it took so long by danbuter · 2011-07-10 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:Why it took so long by epe · 2011-07-10 11:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
9. Re:Why it took so long by inKubus · 2011-07-10 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Cool! Amazing Toys.
10. Re:Why it took so long by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  you are talking out of your ass, there has been no interruptions in the security updates for Centos 5.x
11. Re:Why it took so long by inKubus · 2011-07-10 13:18 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Cool! Amazing Toys.
12. Re:Why it took so long by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  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?
13. Re:Why it took so long by tdknox · 2011-07-10 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  Did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?
14. Re:Why it took so long by evilviper · 2011-07-10 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  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...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
15. Re:Why it took so long by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:Why it took so long by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2011-07-10 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  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,
17. Re:Why it took so long by greg1104 · 2011-07-10 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  I wrote a blog entry on The rise and fall of CentOS that talks at some length (including long into the discussions) about why CentOS has failed to prosper specifically because they are not an open, growing community, and about how they might emulate more successful open-source projects instead.
18. Re:Why it took so long by javanree · 2011-07-10 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed; even the most basic 5.6 security updated were delayed way too long; this to me is a much bigger issue than delaying the X.0 release. I don't mind waiting for a week after release by RedHat, but months is way too long! And the way the CentOS dev's behaved on the mailing list didn't boost confidence much either...
  Any .0 release needs serious testing and usually a patch round before it's production suitable anyway (at least both 4.0 and 5.0 weren't good enough to use in a production environment...)
  I've been deploying only SL machines lately (which suit me just fine; I hardly use anything but the supplied RPM's and a few home-baked so no compatibility issues), but I'm left with one CentOS5 server and am seriously considering a migration... but I'll wait with that depending on how the 5.7 release plays out given the work and risks.
19. Re:Why it took so long by LizardKing · 2011-07-10 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't any mod points, so I'll just reply to add some detail to your very important points about the build system. RedHat made changes that obscured the build process somewhat, and which may have been aimed at Oracle but ended up affecting CentOS as well. Most notably, builds of some RPM's are made with kernel versions that are only available internally at RedHat - these kernel versions contain patches that may have been released in other kernel SRPM's, but it's not possible to correlate them with the unknown spec file for the unreleased kernel build.
20. Re:Why it took so long by Figec · 2011-07-10 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  While the length of time it took to get 5.6 and 6.0 out the door was a little troubling, CentOS still fills a very important and specific need for large enterprises such as for which I'm responsible. I agree with Digimer that CentOS is the closest thing to RHEL, and that is extremely important in an enterprise. Having 100% ABI/API compatibility in-between releases is what truly defines an enterprise distribution and that, along with 100% compatibility with RHEL, is what CentOS has not failed to deliver for our organization. Scientific Linux, while polished, may not be able to do this (we're still looking at it with a critical eye).
  Ensuring our developers that their code will work between CentOS and RHEL saves a lot of man power (read: MONEY). Not that it doesn't mean we don't perform due-diligence, but it means that due-diligence is not unnecessarily weighed down by FUD.
  My only concern at this point is getting security errata out of CentOS in a timely fashion. It hasn't been a show stopper yet, but it is something I've been watching.
21. Re:Why it took so long by IceNinjaNine · 2011-07-11 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and a meteor might hit the planet. Whatever.. shit happens. We'll adapt.
  
  The bottom line is the unprofessional behavior from certain entities in the past has warranted moving away from them at my shop, and on my consulting gigs they're not even a blip on the radar. You seem to like them (and if not, I apologize for putting words in your mouth), and if they work for you go with them. One of the reasons I love linux is the freedom of choice.
22. Re:Why it took so long by VolciMaster · 2011-07-11 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Lots of opensource projects are managed by a "small, closed group" - are they ALL unnerving?
  
  --
  antipaucity
23. Re:Why it took so long by MoralHazard · 2011-07-11 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Both have gotten to the same point within a few weeks of each other.
  Ummm... No. SL6 was released waaay back at the beginning of March: https://www.scientificlinux.org/news/sl60, that's March 3 to July 10. CentOS is slightly more than THREE MONTHS behind.
  And as for 6.1, here's a tip about the long shot: the SL6.1 is starting beta, this week.
24. Re:Why it took so long by rubycodez · 2011-07-11 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  RedHat thought so
25. Re:Why it took so long by hierofalcon · 2011-07-11 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  My comment simply meant that each distribution has successfully gotten to the point of having both 5.6 and 6.0 shipped within weeks of each other (6/21 vs. 7/10). The order they elected to do this was reversed. Centos did 5.6 then 6.0. SL did 6.0 and then 5.6.
  CentOS has also announced they will be issuing some updates to advance the 6.0 released code base to 6.1 before an official 6.1 release is rolled out by them.
26. Re:Why it took so long by JImbob0i0 · 2011-07-11 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  In addition if you read the release notes the RHEL6.1 security updates will be 'backported' to C6.0 until 6.1 is out in a few weeks... now they have the build environment sorted it will be much quicker to build stuff...
  Indeed in the C6 /updates/ repo there are already backported packages from rhel6.1 .... look for the 0.5 dist tag ... it's 0.5 so that when 6.1 gets released the formal 6.1 package will replace it....
  So there isn't a security issue to using C6.0 right now really... and the 6.1 update will be more a feature event (like snapshotted lvm mirrors, the IPA tech preview etc).
i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 10:28 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:i386 by the+linux+geek · 2011-07-10 10:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Most netbooks are 32-bit x86 (i386.) It's not safe to assume x64 is universal among PC's yet.
2. Re:i386 by siride · 2011-07-10 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.?
3. Re:i386 by siride · 2011-07-10 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:i386 by hedwards · 2011-07-10 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:i386 by whoever57 · 2011-07-10 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  32-bit x86 != i386.
  Heck, the original Pentium was i586, with Pentium II as i686. Why not target i686?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
6. Re:i386 by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-10 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:i386 by siride · 2011-07-10 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt anyone is running CentOS, or any other modern mainstream Linux distro for that matter, on an actual 386.
8. Re:i386 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:i386 by ameoba · 2011-07-10 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody's been putting them in PCs for two decades - those 386s have been for embedded and industrial applications.
  
  --
  my sig's at the bottom of the page.
10. Re:i386 by IceNinjaNine · 2011-07-10 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
11. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  As was pointed out above, this is about i386 vs. something more modern like i686, not x64.
13. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:i386 by nirik · 2011-07-10 11:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In this case the 'i386' refers to "the "i386" architecture" ie,
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-32
  The 32bit rpms you may note are .i686 and will not run on 386, 486 or 586 processors.
15. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  The "i386" architecture is the one in the 80386 processor. The architecture in general is "x86".
16. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-10 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if it is actually compiled for i686, then calling it "i386" is just plain wrong.
17. Re:i386 by Nimey · 2011-07-10 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
18. Re:i386 by siride · 2011-07-10 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
19. Re:i386 by evilviper · 2011-07-10 14:28 · Score: 2
  
  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...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
20. Re:i386 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
21. Re:i386 by yuhong · 2011-07-10 16:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
22. Re:i386 by IrquiM · 2011-07-10 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm running Slackware 13.37 on 486 DX4 - because I can!
  
  --
  This is blinging
23. Re:i386 by Heretic2 · 2011-07-10 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you're running CentOS in an embedded system, you're doing it all wrong.
24. Re:i386 by rjch · 2011-07-10 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Most netbooks are 32-bit x86 (i386.) It's not safe to assume x64 is universal among PC's yet.
  It's pretty close to entirely safe to assume these processors are at least 486 or 586 based - if not 686. After all, the first processors to support the i686 instruction set were released in November 1995!
25. Re:i386 by fnj · 2011-07-10 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  And x86_32 just makes too much sense?
26. Re:i386 by Soruk · 2011-07-10 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they don't kill off i586 support - that would lock out those extremely low-power Geode CPUs.
  
  --
  -- Soruk
27. Re:i386 by John+Bresnahan · 2011-07-10 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Many embedded systems use < x686.
  Of course, they should probably not be using a "mainstream" distribution.
28. Re:i386 by CronoCloud · 2011-07-11 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Fedora 32-bit packages are i686.
29. Re:i386 by m50d · 2011-07-11 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  As a cousin post pointed out, the AMD Geode used in some netbooks (including mine) is only i586.
  
  --
  I am trolling
30. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-11 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  i386 has, forever, been the name used to denote the 32-bit, Intel-compatible, CPU architecture.
  Well, no. It has been the name used to denote 32-bit, Intel-compatible, 386-compatible code.
31. Re:i386 by jroysdon · 2011-07-11 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Except in this case the EL6 distro is not i386, i486, or even i586 compatible. It requires i686 with PAE.
32. Re:i386 by Goaway · 2011-07-11 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  And thus, again, the name is wrong.
Re:What is the kernel version number? by woboyle · 2011-07-10 10:58 · Score: 2

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.

--
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
What I want to know is. . . by kimvette · 2011-07-10 11:04 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:What I want to know is. . . by epe · 2011-07-10 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  I just installed centos-6 as a domU... the kernel package includes xen. But RedHat will support xen only as a domU.
Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world by The+O+Rly+Factor · 2011-07-10 11:16 · Score: 3

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.
1. Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world by Nimey · 2011-07-10 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because he's used to Linux-style userland and /dev and partitioning?
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
2. Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world by atomicbutterfly · 2011-07-10 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world by kolbe · 2011-07-10 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Hurray for some stable Linux left in this world by Kakao · 2011-07-11 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Gnome 2: Move the pointer to the top left. Click once on the appllications menu. Click once on the sub-menu and lastly click on the application laucher. New Gnome 3 Shell: Move the pointer to the top left corner. Move it to the Application link. Click once or more until you hit that link. Now wait... Just a bit more... Once the applications menu appear move the cursor to the right edge of the screen. Click on the menu item once or more until you hit it. Now if you are lucky there will be few items to choose from. Else take a long look at the icons list to find the one you want. If it is not there just scroll down and keep searching.
  
  --
  2011. The year Gnome decided Linux will never be on the desktop.
But Debian! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 11:26 · Score: 1

Debian has already released version 6.0 months ago!
no PPC? by Osgeld · 2011-07-10 12:02 · Score: 1

you don't exist!!!!!
1. Re:no PPC? by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  You either buy Redhat, or go with Debian, Gentoo, or Ubuntu (which I have on mac ibook https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCDownloads )
  
  Or forget Linux and go with OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or NetBSD
2. Re:no PPC? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Dont buy RH, they are dropping PPC and Itanium too, choosing a dead end is stupid.
3. Re:no PPC? by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  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
4. Re:no PPC? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:no PPC? by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:no PPC? by antime · 2011-07-10 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yellow Dog still exists.
7. Re:no PPC? by Osgeld · 2011-07-11 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I have debian on my (upgraded) 9600
8. Re:no PPC? by Osgeld · 2011-07-11 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  only for new world machines
What a waste of time .... by Jagungal · 2011-07-10 12:57 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:What a waste of time .... by inKubus · 2011-07-10 13:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Cool! Amazing Toys.
2. Re:What a waste of time .... by rrohbeck · 2011-07-10 14:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
3. Re:What a waste of time .... by jjohnson · 2011-07-10 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Scientific Linux is specifically not binary compatible with RHEL. That's why they were able to move so fast getting 6.0 out.
  
  --
  Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
4. Re:What a waste of time .... by evilviper · 2011-07-10 14:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
5. Re:What a waste of time .... by Gumbercules!! · 2011-07-10 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  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?
6. Re:What a waste of time .... by mcrbids · 2011-07-10 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
7. Re:What a waste of time .... by Heretic2 · 2011-07-10 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what is not binary compatible in SL6? SL6 even ships with extra YUM repos, of which I've installed MANY things. The only problem I had was with the Remi repos, where I had to modify the remi.repo file to hard to version to "6" instead of "6.0" but no binary incompatibilities anywhere.
  Perhaps you have a ready example to illustrate your point? I was actually beginning to think CentOS was dead it took them so long to release CentOS6, meanwhile, I've been using SL6 with much success for months.
  And you've left out the most obvious Enterprise support option: get 1 RHEL license on a "support server" for reproducing bugs, and then create your own Yum repos to serve the RHEL6 RPMs. Hella simple, being doing it in big Enterprising since RHEL4 when I had to manually install Yum to replace up2date. Anyway, methinks you're wrong.
8. Re:What a waste of time .... by Snowhare · 2011-07-10 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  1) That report is a year old (July 2010). The current numbers are revealing.
  2) Installed base is not the same as trend. There are more installed Windows XP systems in the world than Windows 7 systems. That doesn't mean XP is 'winning' the desktop OS.
  3) W3Techs shows CentOS's market share hit its peak at about 10 or 11% of web sites, not 30%. The 30% number was the fraction of Linux web servers, not all web servers.
  4) Since about Oct. 2010 CentOS has lost market share (dropped to circa 9%).
  5) Ubuntu is growing much faster than anyone else is.
9. Re:What a waste of time .... by fnj · 2011-07-10 22:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  CentOS jumped the shark quite a while ago. I'd say 2009. Lance Davis, the founder, flew the coop (just literally went AWOL) and no one thought to get control of the centos.org domain from him for a year. Meantime you couldn't contribute to the project using PayPal. Then the developers got an unenviable reputation for arrogance and supercilious unfriendliness to the desires of mere users. Finally there was the extremely long delay for 6.0. The release of 5.6, which wasn't all that rapid either, brought to the surface a disturbing problem with security updates for 5.5 not being forthcoming while 5.6 was being worked on.
  Many of these problems have been addressed; some haven't, at least not fully. Most anyone who had a serious need to be in the right technology DECADE this year has already jumped ship to Redhat, Scientific Linux, or PUIAS. I can't say enough good thing about PUIAS. They have 6.1 already. They are no johnny come latelies, as they have been around longer than CentOS.
10. Re:What a waste of time .... by fnj · 2011-07-10 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually, it's not patently (i.e., obviously on its face) false. It may well be true, or false, depending on, as you say, actual statistical findings.
  And there is a large subset of users who couldn't care less about exact binary compatibility, though yes, for some users it is critical. You don't even specify exactly what you mean by binary compatibility. As far as I am aware[*], Scientific Linux (and presumably PUIAS) is binary compatible at the userspace level, which is the only level most users should be caring about.
  Ubuntu is hardly CentOS' competition. Ubuntu's idea of long term support is as little as 3 years. Try Scientific Linux or even PUIAS. Or Debian stable.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~
  [*] See, for example, RhelSlSlcDifferences
11. Re:What a waste of time .... by fnj · 2011-07-10 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  CentOS however goes on to claim that the rolling release branch is not what most users should be using.
12. Re:What a waste of time .... by fnj · 2011-07-11 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Care to provide a citation, since this states otherwise RhelSlSlcDifferences ?
13. Re:What a waste of time .... by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2011-07-11 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Don't bother. CentOS is alive and well despite the old grannies with their wet panties.
14. Re:What a waste of time .... by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2011-07-11 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Who's most people? Can you provide some stats to support your statement besides a vague cock-wave? I agree though that the CentOS team could do a better job, especially on the PR side, but the project is alive and well.
15. Re:What a waste of time .... by carlosap · 2011-07-11 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile Enterprise users are happy with the release centos 6.0. I mean thats the beauty about open source, and diversity of distributions, if you are not happy you can use wathever distro you want. But its just wrong talk about the "majority of people" if you dont have a source of what your are saying. This distro is not intended for developers that want the lastest distro, its for Enterprise users that want stability, vendor support, and long term support.
16. Re:What a waste of time .... by inKubus · 2011-07-11 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Right, Debian Stable, that's the one. But again, there's no RedHat out there getting it on Dell servers or getting companies to port their applications to it. And JBoss is close to the best application server for any price. And distro provided clustering is good and seamless. And there's RedHat directory, which is also good. I see RedHat making money--actual profits--with Linux and then plowing it back into the most important aspects of a business Linux and really doing more than any company to promote Open Source Linux at a corporate level. Anyone who was on CentOS and needed 6.0 sooner is either on RHEL paying for it or they didn't need it. I just didn't get the "most people using CentOs have moved on" comment.. I mean, I have 30-40 servers running version 5.2 through 5.6 and I'm not "moving on". They just sit there and run, year after year, with all the security updates backported by RedHat and the community.
  All that being said, if I was to use it on the desktop, which I don't because I'm kinda happy with Mac 10.6 (we'll see if that happiness stays in the next release...), I would probably have gone to Ubuntu for the newer Kernel and windowing packages. That's not to say you can't just grab an FC kernel and jam it into Centos but who has time for that. If I wanted something to play around with, that's what I'd do. If I was going to replace the desktops in my company with Linux, I would stay with CentOS to avoid the hassles of newish stuff.
  
  --
  Cool! Amazing Toys.
17. Re:What a waste of time .... by inKubus · 2011-07-11 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Also, I want to add that I'm not against Scientific Linux. I think it's a great product. I think they tend to rush to the newer releases because they are more likely to be running HPC and other projects needing stuff. I feel like as far as QA, CentOS emphasizes what I need it for, which is stable application servers and database servers. I need a stable OS that I can build my applications and servers on. I don't really depend on Redhat or CentOS for application packages, just the core OS. I find that when I purchase an application for RHEL, it works on CentOS. SL, on the other hand, has much better QA around the HPC clustering, experimental filesystems, math stuff (duh) and some of the graphical environments. So, if I was a scientist doing research, I would definitely want to be in a community with lots of scientists doing QA. Instead, I'm in the cheap businessman community (Non-profit) who can't afford RHEL, thus CentOS. I know they both try to be as close to RHEL as possible, and I'm sure in the vast majority of cases they are identical, but I feel the communities differ and that's what I have based my choice on.
  
  --
  Cool! Amazing Toys.
18. Re:What a waste of time .... by columbus · 2011-07-13 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. I had never heard of PUIAS. I had to go look it up.
  It's not listed in distrowatch (that's weird; the only other distro I know that is not listed there is the Ubuntu Satanic Edition; distrowatch didn't want to list them for fear of pissing off the Christians).
  A google search found their webpage pretty quick
  http://puias.math.ias.edu/
  Princeton University Institute for Advanced Study Linux.
  Custom Red Hat distribution pre-dating CentOS.
  The computational repositories look promising.
  Thanks for mentioning them.
  
  --
  friends don't let friends teleport drunk
irresponsible by rubycodez · 2011-07-10 13:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!
1. Re:irresponsible by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-10 13:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:irresponsible by fnj · 2011-07-10 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  You do understand, though, that new servers are being purchased and put online all the time, and that for precisely the reason you mention, one hesitates to load them on day one with a FOUR YEAR OUT OF DATE operating system (and one whose support ends in less than 3 years from now). Also, RHEL and clones are not only suited for servers. RHEL is not even marketed only for servers; there are Desktop and Workstation licenses. And guess what. Support for Sandy Bridge video found in new desktops and laptops didn't even appear until 6.1.
  6.1 makes an absolutely dandy platform for practically any linux user, whether using oldish hardware, or today's current hardware. There is a category of enthusiast who gets off on reinstalling every 6 months or 1 year, but for most linux users, they would be well served with something that will be supported for the next 6 years!
3. Re:irresponsible by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-11 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  You do understand, though, that new servers are being purchased and put online all the time, and that for precisely the reason you mention, one hesitates to load them on day one with a FOUR YEAR OUT OF DATE operating system (and one whose support ends in less than 3 years from now).
  Red Hat's end of life for the 5.x series is in three years. However, RHEL 6.0 was released in November 2010, and RHEL 5.6 was released in January 2011, so describing CentOS 5.6 as four years out of date doesn't seem accurate. Also, Red Hat ends support for RHEL 5.x in three years, but if an enterprise is using CentOS on its servers, it's obviously foregoing direct support from Red Hat.
  The point is that if you're choosing an enterprise edition of Linux, it's presumably because having the latest point release of everything is not your highest priority. There are differences between RHEL 5.6 and 6.0, such that for some applications, it may make sense to choose 5.6 over 6.0. I doubt the differences between 5.6 and 6.0 are as great as the differences between RHEL and CentOS on the one hand and Debian on the other, so the claim that lots of enterprises are switching to different distributions because CentOS 6.0 was delayed seems dubious.
  
  Also, RHEL and clones are not only suited for servers. RHEL is not even marketed only for servers; there are Desktop and Workstation licenses. And guess what. Support for Sandy Bridge video found in new desktops and laptops didn't even appear until 6.1.
  6.1 makes an absolutely dandy platform for practically any linux user, whether using oldish hardware, or today's current hardware. There is a category of enthusiast who gets off on reinstalling every 6 months or 1 year, but for most linux users, they would be well served with something that will be supported for the next 6 years!
  Of course you can set up a workstation or a laptop with CentOS or RHEL, and that would be the better choice in some cases. However, many Linux users do choose a more volatile distribution for personal use, and there are good reasons to make that choice, but the assumptions one makes about managing updates for a volatile Linux distribution on a personal computer do not apply to a more conservative distribution on a mission-critical server -- in particular, you don't immediately update to the latest point release of an application without testing, and you may not update at all unless there were security flaws or bugs that actually caused problems in practice.
Re:nt by dragonturtle69 · 2011-07-10 14:12 · Score: 1

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
Re:nt by shentino · 2011-07-10 14:44 · Score: 1

It helps when you get subscriber perks.
OK, so I cheated :)
Tracker down? by rrohbeck · 2011-07-10 14:56 · Score: 1

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

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Complicated Situation by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-10 18:43 · Score: 3, Informative

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)
1. Re:Complicated Situation by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-11 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  Considering that CentOS already has a significant amount of the Linux marketshare I think it's safe to say that the competition has been "helped" significantly as-is.
  To be clear, the understood quid-pro-quo seems to be that CentOS doesn't come out before Unbreakable Linux does, or at least Oracle doesn't get any help from the CentOS process (which is to figure out Redhat's convoluted, probably intentionally so, build process). It's implied that CentOS gets some unofficial support from Redhat but the first rule of CentOS is that they don't talk about Redhat.
  Granted it's understandable why Red Hat would not appreciate "freeloaders" who use CentOS, but really Red Hat's business model of repackaging OSS doesn't give it much recourse to stop it.
  Some percentage of CentOS users tend to trade-up to RHEL as their businesses grow. This is beneficial to Redhat, and CentOS's existence is mutually beneficial. Oracle users typically don't trade up, so their nature is seen as more parasitic (Redhat must have a business model to fund all the great work they do). I don't find myself disagreeing, while still believing that an open process is ultimately better for all.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And I've only been using SL6 since March... by Heretic2 · 2011-07-10 19:52 · Score: 1

Scientific Linux 6 FTW! Took the CentOS guys long enough! Surprised they didn't skip to 6.1.
congrats to Centos Team by kokoko1 · 2011-07-10 20:02 · Score: 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/
Why not Fedora? by assertation · 2011-07-11 01:13 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Why not Fedora? by amiskell · 2011-07-11 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  Fedora is basically the development branch of RHEL. Fedora is cutting edge (sometimes unstable) packages and new technologies to test and work out bugs.
2. Re:Why not Fedora? by Anomalyst · 2011-07-11 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  As noted in another reply, Fedora is a short-term development distribution. Don't count on reliable support much past 6 months for past releases unless you can reproduce the issue in the current release. Pevious posts have established the puporse and desirablility of CentOS.
  1. Free distributoion
  2. Binary compatabilty
  2. Free updates.
  Build & tweak your deployment with your in-house resources. If you have difficult to resolve issues, move the (binary compatible) applications to a RHEL lab environment in which you have purchased support and reproduce them there and get RH assistance. I can see the value of RH support, but it quickly loses that value when you have to pay that support premium on 26 interdependent locations. You don't have to be a suited bean counter to see the advantage of as FOSS deployment backed by support lab.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Try ClearOS Core by pr0f3550r · 2011-07-11 01:57 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Try ClearOS Core by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-11 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks - I found this blog post essential for understanding the project(s).
  To summarize in one phrase: ClearOS Core ~= CentOS, but with an open development process. There are then additional add-ons also available for functionality that does not exist in RHEL or CentOS, under the ClearOS umbrella.
  (correct me if that's wrong)
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Linux Mint. by walterbyrd · 2011-07-11 02:55 · Score: 1

The reason that this is a BFD, is because RHEL is very popular for enterprise use, and CentOS is basically the free version of RHEL.
For people looking to move expensive servers from RHEL to CentOS, this is a big deal. Also, for people studying to get an RHCE, this is a big deal.
FWIW: I went back to using Ubuntu 10.10, because I did not like Ubuntu 11.04; I am thinking about moving to Mint. But, if I ever decide to get my RHCE, I will CentOS. I think Redhat should create a student version of RHEL, but I doubt that will happen.
Re:Upgrading from Centos 5.X - 6X by trollebolle · 2011-07-11 03:19 · Score: 1

This is exactly what Red Hat says too. While it is possible to upgrade RHEL5->RHEL6, it is highly recommended that you reinstall instead. Red Hat won't even give support for systems that are upgraded rather than reinstalled. RHEL and CentOS users should be used to this by now.
Too much complaining about nothing by jdc18 · 2011-07-11 10:35 · Score: 1

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.