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."
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
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!
Most netbooks are 32-bit x86 (i386.) It's not safe to assume x64 is universal among PC's yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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)
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.