CentOS 5.9 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 17, 2013 @04:04AM from the for-all-your-white-box-needs dept.

kthreadd writes "The Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 derivative CentOS version 5.9 has been released just 10 days after its upstream provider. According to the release notes a number of changes have been made. New packages available in CentOS 5.9 includes for example OpenJDK 7 and Rsyslog 5. Several drivers have also been updated in the kernel which has been updated to version 2.6.18-348, including support for Microsoft's virtualization environment Hyper-V." CentOS has been plugging away now for nearly 10 years.

96 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

awesome comeback by CentOS by rubycodez · 2013-01-17 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

after a period of sluggishness, it's awesome the CentOS team has pulled together again after difficulties and management problems.
1. Re:awesome comeback by CentOS by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-01-17 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  I would hope CentOS could keep up with a minor version update. CentOS was sluggish getting a major update out the door (6.0) which was understandable at the time.
  I would much rather have them get it right than them get it first.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
2. Re:awesome comeback by CentOS by jythie · 2013-01-17 12:13 · Score: 2
  
  That is one of the reasons I have stuck with CentOS over the years. I have found they strike a good balance between being reasonably up to date while still being pretty conservative and thus stable.
3. Re:awesome comeback by CentOS by rubycodez · 2013-01-18 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  do you have any idea how much changes in a "minor version update" for redhat? that's not a trivial task.
Re:Who cares? by Revotron · 2013-01-17 04:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Your troll is bad, and you should feel bad!
Centos is awesome! by Openstandards.net · 2013-01-17 04:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm proud to say that we host all of our servers on Centos! It is the best free server OS out there, IMHO.

--

Open Standards Portal
1. Re:Centos is awesome! by jpschaaf · 2013-01-17 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  Nah, Scientific Linux is better :-) And don't forget Oracle's Linux.
2. Re:Centos is awesome! by Hatta · 2013-01-17 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  How does it surpass Debian?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:Centos is awesome! by goblinspy · 2013-01-17 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  We do the same too.
4. Re:Centos is awesome! by drinkypoo · 2013-01-17 04:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Debian is relatively atomic (though the minimal install has grown somewhat recently) and very easy to use. Redhat has scads of management tools and they maintain 'em themselves, and many of them are a bear to get running on anything but Redhat because they don't care, so if you want to use them that's a good reason to run Centos.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Centos is awesome! by fazey · 2013-01-17 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  cp -Rf / /mnt/sdb2 find /mnt/sdb2 -name '*.jpg' | xargs -l rm -f echo "Oracle Linux" > /etc/redhat-release Yeaaa oracle linux man....
6. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Oracle's big features are their 'Unbreakable' kernel (okay, I don't really know what that means) and they support kernel upgrades w/o a reboot.
7. Re:Centos is awesome! by jez9999 · 2013-01-17 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  On the other hand, loads of free software is a PITA to get running on a Redhat-based distro and most tutorials tend to have Debian install instructions but not Redhat ones. I'm pretty glad I switched to Debian.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
8. Re:Centos is awesome! by drinkypoo · 2013-01-17 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of arguments for each, which is why I'm glad that we have so many Linux distributions. These days it's not too horrible to run another Linux in a virtual machine, either, to catch those cases where it's just too much pain to get software running right on your machine.
  I run Ubuntu on my desktop for the same reason (availability of instructions) because while I do sometimes enjoy figuring things out, I also often enjoy it when someone else has done it for me. But Debian has numerous places around my house, mostly in low-power devices like my Dockstar.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Centos is awesome! by h4rr4r · 2013-01-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  Too bad it is from Oracle and you then are dealing with their support staff.
  I would rather reboot everyday than deal with that.
10. Re:Centos is awesome! by morcego · 2013-01-17 05:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  How does it surpass Debian?
  It doesn't. But Debian doesn't surpass CentOS either. They are on two completely different categories.
  Debian is geared to the enthusiast and developers. Your comparison would be Fedora, not CentOS/RHEN.
  CentOS, RHEN (and other Enterprise distributions) are geared toward enterprise. So you will never find the latest version of softwares (CentOS 5.9 has PHP 5.1.6, apache 2.2.3 etc), but instead you get more stable version and, specially, no API changes. So from 5.0 to 5.XXX, there will be no API or ABI incompatibilities (this usually means a lot of backports to fix bugs). The flip side is that you won't be able to run a lot of the newer stuff that requires newer versions of libs and stuff.
  It is a tradeoff, and you really can't compare the two.
  
  --
  morcego
11. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, last year with a 6.x release, SL could not install on my Dell Optiplex 760 - seemed to "lose" the installation source after a certain point during the initial installation configuration, and I tried lots of variations (including DVD and USB installation sources), with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. CentOS went right through the whole installation process in my first go - "no problems". SL is on my non-starter list now.
  YMMV
12. Re:Centos is awesome! by Lumpy · 2013-01-17 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Debian rocks for Desktops.
  But RH really owns the enterprise server side. all server software is available as a brain dead easy install under RHS or CentOS
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
13. Re:Centos is awesome! by kthreadd · 2013-01-17 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Red Hat actually updates a few packages to newer version. Typical things are certain desktop software like Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice. You will occationally also get complele new packages, like OpenJDK 7 in this release.
  Debian on the other hand has a hard policy of updating as little as possible, which is actually sometimes problematic on desktops. We have a lot Debian desktops deployed in our organization; currently running on the latest stable release, squeeze from about two years ago. It's actually a problem for us when we want to buy new hardware because the squeeze kernel may not completely support it, and we don't really want to run testing in a production environment. In comparison Red Hat backports a ton of drivers which means that even something as old as RHEL 5 may work just fine on relatively modern hardware.
14. Re:Centos is awesome! by morcego · 2013-01-17 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The philosophy is completely different, to a point there is simply no way to compare. Which one is best? My answer is always "For what?".
  Anyway, RH is not really worried about the version numbers. They are more worried about compatibility and certifications, which makes sense since they are a commercial distribution, and vendor (software and hardware) certifications are a big part of it.
  
  --
  morcego
15. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  If I'm using software that is certified to be used on RHEL, I can usually get away with CentOS / Scientific Linux. It wouldn't fly on Debian.
  Other than that, personal choice.
16. Re:Centos is awesome! by Hatta · 2013-01-17 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  So you will never find the latest version of softwares (CentOS 5.9 has PHP 5.1.6, apache 2.2.3 etc), but instead you get more stable version and, specially, no API changes.
  So it's like Debian Stable then?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
17. Re:Centos is awesome! by morcego · 2013-01-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  So you will never find the latest version of softwares (CentOS 5.9 has PHP 5.1.6, apache 2.2.3 etc), but instead you get more stable version and, specially, no API changes.
  So it's like Debian Stable then?
  No, not really. There are already a few others posts on this thread on the subject.
  
  --
  morcego
18. Re:Centos is awesome! by Patch86 · 2013-01-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  We have a lot Debian desktops deployed in our organization; currently running on the latest stable release, squeeze from about two years ago. It's actually a problem for us when we want to buy new hardware because the squeeze kernel may not completely support it, and we don't really want to run testing in a production environment.
  
  Just out of interest, but why use Debian on a desktop if those are your problems? Ubuntu LTS is Debian derived (obviously) and fully supported, but is based on (I believe) a mix of Debian Testing and Unstable packages. More or less every Debian compatible package is also ported to Ubuntu.
  Debian Stable is great for long-term investment server and terminal hardware precisely because it's stable and doesn't change- you know if it worked when you installed it, it'll work forever. For top user experience on end user desktops, either it's got to be one of the non-Stable releases or a distro with a different philosophy.
19. Re:Centos is awesome! by kthreadd · 2013-01-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  There are good and bad things with every distribution and overall we are very happy with the quality of Debian. Apart from the kernel we have very few issues with it. Ubuntu is an interesting alternative and we have used it occasionally. One of the things that Ubuntu does better is that they backport the kernel for each successive release back to the LTS, so you can get new drivers even if you want to stay on that branch. Right now it's not a serious problem for us and we're not looking into switching away from Debian due to that any time soon.
20. Re:Centos is awesome! by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-01-17 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I use Scientific Linux but recommend both.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
21. Re:Centos is awesome! by emblemparade · 2013-01-17 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  You just compared the two, and did it well, too. ;)
22. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  What crack are you smoking? Debian is much more stable in versions and back-porting fixes to keep the same version etc. Fedora is like a testing ground and the comparison to Debian is very off track.
23. Re:Centos is awesome! by tywjohn · 2013-01-17 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds exactly like Debian Stable
24. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  You need to check out ThinkPenguin. The company is the only one which understands how to properly support Linux and free software operating systems. They have hardware that works out of the box with long term support releases and won't ship hardware dependent on proprietary drivers/firmware. Every other company “supporting” Linux has been a disappointment. Ie: stuff stopped working because of some proprietary driver bull shit or similar type of issue. I'm looking at you ZaReason, System76, EmperorLinux, Lexmark, Broadcom, etc. (yea I am on the support end of the stick where I work).
25. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  Debian has a special repository for backports and it contains newer versions of Linux:
  http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeeze-backports&keywords=linux-image-3
  http://backports-master.debian.org/Instructions/
26. Re:Centos is awesome! by dbIII · 2013-01-17 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  How does it surpass Debian?
  Some commercial software providers with very limited testing will be aware that it exists and won't instantly blame your choice of OS when you have problems with their software. Otherwise it doesn't. Yum versus apt-get is as silly as a vi versus emacs argument.
27. Re:Centos is awesome! by kthreadd · 2013-01-17 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  They do, but we have found that it's unfortunately not as well maintained as the stable kernel. So we try to be more selective about which hardware we buy.
28. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  My guess is you've never got to try out a server with ZFS snapshotting and proper jails.
29. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  That's not Oracle's big feature, it's a feature they bought from a company and that applies to much more than one OS.
30. Re:Centos is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  You should be doing that rm with an -exec from find instead with xargs. Or at the very least -print0 on the find and -0 on the xargs.
Isn't CentOS on a higher version? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:38 · Score: 1

I'm currently running (according to 'cat /etc/centos-release') - CentOS Release 6.3 (Final)
So - 5.9 would be quite a bit backwards. In fact, the server it's running on was running 6.0 for the first few months of building and shaking it out before I put it on the web, and that was right around January 2012 - over a year ago.
1. Re:Isn't CentOS on a higher version? by h4rr4r · 2013-01-17 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Centos 5 is still getting updates. It is a previous version.
  You should probably know that if you are running more than one of these machines.
2. Re:Isn't CentOS on a higher version? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that something was wrong.
  I like CentOS fine. It works. Its stable.
  Sometimes I wish I had NeuroDebian though. http://neuro.debian.net/
  Because so many neuroscience software packages are installable through the package management system.
3. Re:Isn't CentOS on a higher version? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  NeuroDebian is just a chroot away.
Any progress on the file system front? by JDG1980 · 2013-01-17 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

IMO, one of the drawbacks of Linux (including CentOS) as a server OS compared to FreeBSD is the lack of a good file system. FreeBSD (and Solaris) have ZFS which has robust checksum and parity features, while Linux has nothing of the kind, at least not yet. Has any progress been made on this front?
1. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Btrfs is coming along, but is not yet there unforetuneately. But it will probably be somwhat usable in production in a couple of years or so.
  One of the solutions that we're thinking of right now is to run Zfs-On-Linux on Ubuntu. The license terms of ZFS basically means that we can't ship ZFS and Linux together as one composed system; however nothing prevents you from installing it yourself.
2. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I've been using ZFS on Linux for around a year now. Works just fine. I'd say your information is a few years out of date.
3. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  [W]e can't ship ZFS and Linux together as one composed system; however nothing prevents you from installing it yourself.
  And that is where Gentoo starts looking really nice, as nothing else is shipped in any "composed" manner either. Makes it all blend in nicely!
4. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  IMO, one of the drawbacks of Linux (including CentOS) as a server OS compared to FreeBSD is the lack of a good file system. FreeBSD (and Solaris) have ZFS which has robust checksum and parity features, while Linux has nothing of the kind, at least not yet. Has any progress been made on this front?
  suggest you check this http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-list/2006-June/msg03623.html
5. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's pathetically easy to do compilation on a dedicated distributed machine, so all your servers don't have to waste any time unrolling loops. But why are you doing upgrades so often on a server anyway? Your only upgrades should be when a security/stability fix is released for the kernel or whatever service you're running.
6. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by buchner.johannes · 2013-01-17 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  You can compile on another server (e.g. the testing system). Look at the BINHOST documentation.
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
7. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-17 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  lmgtfy
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-17 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  We want our servers to spend CPU time on delivering web pages and handling transactions; not recompiling the system.
  I don't use Gentoo on web servers (only embedded) but if I did, the time it takes to compile a package at 2AM wouldn't be my concern (assuming I wasn't using the Gentoo binary distribution). It's not 1995 anymore.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Sulphur · 2013-01-17 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  We want our servers to spend CPU time on delivering web pages and handling transactions; not recompiling the system. I guess Gentoo is good if you're not actually using your systems for anything.
  If you are installing on a number of machines, Gentoo has quickpkg which makes tarballs with the configure scripts that install rapidly.
10. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by 0123456 · 2013-01-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I tried ZFS after mdraid decided to flag the good disk in my RAID as bad and the bad disk as good, but I couldn't get NFS exports to work because it's a user-space file system.
11. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  They work fine for me, using the normal nfs-kernel-server/samba packages. Don't use the ZFS nfs/smb options though, not sure if that is even supported.
12. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by devman · 2013-01-17 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  You need to use ZFS On Linux, which runs as a kernel module. ZFS-FUSE is the other Linux implementation which runs in user-space.
13. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by JDG1980 · 2013-01-17 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  That article is almost entirely political bullshit, and says very little about the actual merits of ZFS as a filesystem (which are now well-verified, even if that wasn't the case in 2006).
14. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-01-17 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or when sun/oracle decided to open source solaris they should of licensed it under an existing license rather than make up there own.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
15. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well the result is pretty clear, ZFS is included in BSD-licensed operating systems while it is not in GPL-restricted operating systems.
16. Re:Any progress on the file system front? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but quickpkg is a sub-optimal solution for you to use when you didn't plan ahead. It's better to use the normal --buildpkg switch to emerge in the first place, due to reasons. And stuff.
CentOS is awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been using it at work for a few years now.
I used to dislike it because the packages were a bit older than everything I'd be able to install on a personal Linux machine running something different.
But there is definitely something to be said about having a stable ABI. Anything I build on my CentOS 6 VM I can run on another CentOS 6 machine. Not sure if the same can be said for other distributions if one of the systems has had upgrades to some of its libraries at some point.
Big thanks to the CentOS team for all their hard work.
Now, RedHat, please do not include GNOME 3 in RHEL 7. Use MATE or something. But please, for the sake of people who use your platform as a TOOL and not a TOY, keep GNOME 3 out!!
1. Re:CentOS is awesome by xorro · 2013-01-17 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Who would use Gnome in an enterprise distribution like RHEL? If you want an user interface for your work, just go with consumer distributions like Mint or Ubuntu
2. Re:CentOS is awesome by fnj · 2013-01-17 05:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Now, RedHat, please do not include GNOME 3 in RHEL 7. Use MATE or something. But please, for the sake of people who use your platform as a TOOL and not a TOY, keep GNOME 3 out!!
  Bad news for you. It is well known that RHEL 7 *will* use Gnome 3 for the default supported desktop. Unless they really break with tradition, KDE will also be an option. Beyond that, you'll have to resort to third party repos.
  And it's hardly a surprise. Good god, man, Red Hat is the prime force *behind* Gnome 3. Oh yeah, another piece of crap news: the systemd abortion is going to be in there, too.
  When RHEL 6 reached EOL, I sure as hell am going to be looking very seriously at bsd for my servers.
3. Re:CentOS is awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone with a need for a stable desktop experience that doesn't break every six months.
4. Re:CentOS is awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  What do the other guys use - guys like OEL, SL? And why wait for RHEL 6 to go EOL - why not start building an FBSD 9.1 infrastructure now, so that once it's up, everything on RHEL 6 can slowly be migrated?
5. Re:CentOS is awesome by fnj · 2013-01-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure what the question is, but CentOS ver x, Scientific Linux ver x, PUIAS ver x, Fermi ver x are for all practical purposes each IDENTICAL to RHEL ver x. Not quite as sure about ClearOS and Oracle EL
  RHEL 6 will have:
  * full security patches, bug fixes, streamed minor releases, new hardware support, and some software enhancement up to the middle of the 6th year;
  * full security patches and bug fixes through the end of the 10th year
  So there is absolutely no reason to sweat it until at least 2016 and possible 2020. I do keep my hand into FreeBSD a bit to monitor progress and keep an eye out for any signs of the creeping crud that is starting to hit linux distros hard. At some point I will make an informed decision on whether to jump ship based on overall merits and demerits.
6. Re:CentOS is awesome by prefect42 · 2013-01-17 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Systemd isn't enough of a reason to jump distro, and gnome3 is no reason at all for servers. I'll be sticking with RHEL because they seem to employ bloody good developers who provide ace support to users of their software, and I don't just mean paying users.
  
  --
  jh
7. Re:CentOS is awesome by unixisc · 2013-01-17 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  How is Mageia, since that is Mandriva, but w/ KDE as the default, instead of GNOME (which is still available)? Clear OS has no default, while OEL goes w/ GNOME (or else, they may have changed the UX of Solaris as well). That would be very similar, except for the use of the urpmi variation to RPM
8. Re:CentOS is awesome by fnj · 2013-01-17 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Mandrake's urpmi paralleled yum, not rpm. Just like SUSE's yast. Both used the same bottom layer as Redhat: rpm. The layer running above rpm is the one that does automatic dependency handling. It's like apt vs dpkg on Debian, Ubuntu, et al.
  I was very impressed with boxed Mandrake (later Mandriva, later Mageia) quite a few years ago when it was still a French product built by people who knew what they were doing. I liked it largely because of urpmi (I don't think Redhat even had yum back then) and a good centralized GUI system for config. I then found boxed SUSE impressive a bit later when it was still a German product built by people who knew what they were doing. Again the package manager (yast) and centralized GUI system for config was ahead of everybody else. They both seem really shaky today in their present non commercial form.
9. Re:CentOS is awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Kernel has stable ABI. In fact, people come to me as Gentoo user who's running insultingly bleeding edge even by Gentoo standards for builds for their obsolete systems they don't want to update. Not CentOS/RHEL obsolete but still, anything built on Gentoo is ABI compatible with Linux 2.6.16 and had been 2.6.9 for a long time before that, in fact, I was sure file would say my binaries were built for 2.6.9 so this comes as a surprise.
  If you want true ABI stability, see Windows where 7 had bugs specific to XP because 7 has to ship binaries of XP with those same known to be buggy and exploitable ABIs because of backwards compatibility. If you think your "a bit" (yeah, just 10 years old versions!!) old RHEL/CentOS is any better, you are delusional. Also most of us want something more advanced than the state of the art of 2002. Like an H.264 decoder with multi-threading, PulseAudio with all the cool features and OpenGL 3. And I really wonder how well these super stale distros evens support my hardware some of which is from, *gasp*, this decade.
10. Re:CentOS is awesome by xorro · 2013-01-18 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  You say that but "stable" on desktop also means outdated and lack of features. In addition, stable desktop applications does not mean bug-free, they always have unimplemented features and stubbed functions. Just look at ProjectCenter from GNUstep. It's stable (as there are only bufixes and no new features), but you can't even change the editor's font, at least in debian stable, where I tested it.
11. Re:CentOS is awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-19 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  It depends on what you want out of your desktop experience. My workstation is running CentOS 5 with a GNOME 2.16. It doesn't have more features than it had when I installed the machine many years ago, but it has absolutely received bug fixes. It has the features I need for what I do. Stable means that I can count on my workstation working the same way in a couple of years as it does now. It won't change for the sake of change.
What am I missing? by inject_hotmail.com · 2013-01-17 04:41 · Score: 1

CentOS 5.0 release: April 2007
CentOS 6.0 release: July 2012
CentOS 5.9 release: January 2013...wait, what?

Did I miss something?

At least they're not cutting off update support for an older version...that's kinda nice to see...I don't think many people were waiting on the edge of their seat for it though...

(I use CentOS exclusively on my hosting servers/as guest OSes and think it's great)
1. Re:What am I missing? by CannonballHead · 2013-01-17 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Don't they fork RHEL? RHEL 5.9 came out relatively recently. RHEL still provides updates to 5x and 6x, so it makes sense that CentOS would also still be putting out CentOS 5x in tandem with 6x.
2. Re:What am I missing? by bsDaemon · 2013-01-17 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  6.0 broke off around 5.4, but had a lot of newer stuff in the base. However, security updates and maintenance patches are still released for the 5.x series because, frankly, getting what you need on the system you already have is a lot easier than changing a whole lot just to get something you might want. Sure, on the privacy of your own workstation or non-production server, jumping major versions is no big deal, but on a production server, it can often times be more trouble than its worth.
  Essentially, if you don't know why you should be interested in 5.9, you're not the target market for 5.9.
3. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  RHEL 5.x has not reached its EOL.
  RHEL5 EOL extended to March 31, 2017
4. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  6.0 broke off around 5.4, but had a lot of newer stuff in the base.
  No, RHEL6 is based off of Fedora 12 or Fedora 13, not RHEL 5.4
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_to_free_and_community_distributions
5. Re:What am I missing? by idontgno · 2013-01-17 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  And more to the specific technical point, there's no easy, supported migration path from 5.x to 6.x.. The Centos Wiki howto page states with discouraging repetetiveness "A fresh install is generally strongly preferred over an upgrade. "
  This, plus a host of not-very-specific "gotcha" warnings, and the entire guide ending with "Good luck", pretty much guarantees only the masochistic or the suicidally brave will undertake an upgrade-in-place to 6.x, rather than just staying with 5.x and picking up the point updates for security and reliability updates.
  For myself, I'm running 5.x on my household server, and I'll be yum-updating to pick up 5.9. I'll migrate to 6.x when I do a full server hardware refresh, in which case it'll be a turnkey replacement with the possibility of limited parallel ops and fallback if it all goes sideways.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
6. Re:What am I missing? by Rob_Bryerton · 2013-01-17 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  They are 2 separate, currently supported distros; RHEL 5.x runs kernel 2.6.18-x and RHEL 6.x runs kernel 2.30.x IIRC (please correct me...haven't looked at RH6.x in several months).
  
  Anyway, think of it like say Windows Server 2003 & Windows Server 2012 as 5.0 and 6.0, and the 5.1, 5.2..5.9/6.1..6.3 as service packs. Similar concept really.
7. Re:What am I missing? by bsDaemon · 2013-01-17 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say that it was based off 5.4, although I see how it sounded like that. The use of Fedora has a technical staging ground is in large part why there is no simple upgrade path to 6.x from 5.x.
8. Re:What am I missing? by Rob_Bryerton · 2013-01-17 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Crap, I meant RH6.x runs kernel 2.6.30-x...
9. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  RHEL 6 uses kernel 2.6.32 + patches. The patches are important becuase the kernel Red Hat provide has diverged quite a lot from the stock 2.618 and 2.6.32 on kernel.org, primarily due to changes made to backported drivers. For example, RHEL 5 supports the ext4 file system; despite that ext4 wasn't included in that original release.
10. Re:What am I missing? by greg1104 · 2013-01-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  My 5.x -> 6.x migration is hosting the 6.x one in a VM. When that works perfectly, I'll extract the image over the existing root disks (after a backup of course).
11. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  CentOS not a fork. It is a recompilation (and minor change) of RHEL. RHEL 5 & 6 are both releasing updates https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/. They will continue to do so for 10 years after their original release.
  I believe a fork seeks to update and maintain code independant of the original (OpenOffice.org forked as LibreOffice). CentOS does not do this long-term, and for each RHEL release they re-base their distribution.
12. Re:What am I missing? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-01-17 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  "And more to the specific technical point, there's no easy, supported migration path from 5.x to 6.x.. The Centos Wiki howto page states with discouraging repetetiveness "A fresh install is generally strongly preferred over an upgrade. "
  So in other words, we're talking here about major versions (5.x and 6.x), while minor versions (the .x) are still being upgraded for 5, so you don't have to start over with 6.
13. Re:What am I missing? by idontgno · 2013-01-18 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  And that's a great plan, but in truth, the hardware refresh is the major point. The old server is an ancient 32-bit beige box that's probably tottering on its last legs, and power-hungry to boot. As an example of how ancient, your VM idea wouldn't work too well, since the CPU doesn't have any virtualization hardware features. With this creaking hardware, the native OS runs slowly enough as it is. A VM would be correspondingly sluggish.
  So, yeah, I'm doing a HW refresh, and the OS refresh is just a convenience afforded by that.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
backdated announcments by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 05:18 · Score: 1

Their rpm announcements were all back dated.
They didn't release any of the 5.9 rpms on the dates they are making public.
1. Re:backdated announcments by dustwun · 2013-01-17 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Their rpm announcements were all back dated.
  They didn't release any of the 5.9 rpms on the dates they are making public.
  You mean the packages that were released prior to the 5.9 install media in the Continuous Release repo? Perhaps you should review this page - http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR
2. Re:backdated announcments by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  They were in the CR repository then ...
  http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR
OL by freshlimesoda · 2013-01-17 06:33 · Score: 1

Oracle Linux 5.9 release too a day before.. whatever significance that may or may not carry ..cheers!!

--
I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.
That's why CentOS is so important. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 10:22 · Score: 0

The support the old versions for years and years.
Why use 5.9 when 6.3 is available? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 17:35 · Score: 0

cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.3 (Final)
I dunno. Just sayin...........
1. Re:Why use 5.9 when 6.3 is available? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-17 17:46 · Score: 0
  
  We're using 5.x ecause it has proved to be a very stable OS. We will upgrade in a few years, but there's no hurry since we're barely through half of the 5.x support cycle.
2. Re:Why use 5.9 when 6.3 is available? by rklrkl · 2013-01-31 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Because you have servers you installed 5.X on a few years back and are still in service. Hence, 5.9 is most welcome for those and a lot easier and less risky than trying any sort of upgrade to 6.X. In fact, Red Hat/CentOS specifically warn *against* trying any sort of warm upgrade between major OS releases because of the high likelihood of borkage.
  Probably the best way to upgrade to 6.X is to get new boxes, set them up like the old 5.X boxes (import any data from the old boxes obviously) but with 6.X instead of 5.X and test it like crazy until you're happy it can take over the old 5.X box. You might well have to do this as a "big bang" upgrade of your dev, staging and live environments in turn (i.e. all completed in a fairly short period - but long enough to be certain things are working in 6.X) if active development is taking place on the old 5.X setup.
  Once 6.X is all bedded in and working, the old 5.X boxes can either be retired or if they're still in warranty, re-purposed for another project using 6.X (i.e. you'd wipe them and put 6.X on them), though be warned that they will fall out of warranty much faster, so I wouldn't recommend anything critical on the re-purposed boxes.