Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com)
Linux.com has a review of
CentOS 5. "Last week, two years since its last major release, the
CentOS project released version 5 of its enterprise-focused Linux
distribution. I downloaded it and put it to the test, and found that CentOS
5 has maintained its tradition of robustness and reliability while adding
new features like virtualization."
(Log in to post comments)
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 18, 2007 19:08 UTC (Wed) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] It's just like RHAS5, but the author is fanning awesome on CentOS and only makes a passing mention that it's a straight recompile of RHAS5. The summary seems to even hint attribution of effort to CentOS for adding new features like Virtualization, when in fact it just happens to be in RHAS now.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 18, 2007 19:43 UTC (Wed) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link] Yes, it looks like the review is clone too :-)They just replaced RHEL for CENTOS in the text.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 18, 2007 23:21 UTC (Wed) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link] In fairness to the CentOS people though... they did do quite a bit of work beyond just compiling the bits.
They redid ALL of the artwork. They got rid of the key based system install (or whatever the proper term for it is) and it is easy to pick Virtualization, Clustering, and Cluster Storage. While it is true that Red Hat releases all of the SRPMs, the CentOS project did have to make their own build system... and they tested release 5 quite a bit before declaring it done.
In CentOS 4 they added yum.
For most releases, the CentOS folks have released a DVD image which Red Hat has been promising to do for some time but hasn't (last I checked).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bad mouth Red Hat... I'm just saying that CentOS is a valuable part of the community and they do much more than turn SRPMs into RPMs.
I'll also go so far as to claim that CentOS is an unspoken part of Red Hat's strategy. CentOS does Red Hat a service by keeping people in the Red Hat fold who probably would have gone somewhere else if it weren't for CentOS... and the CentOS project does it totally for free... whereas a few other of the RH clones charge for timely updates. Red Hat makes a fantastic distribution and contributes to the kernel, as well as gcc and several other maker pieces... but their target audience are those with deep pockets... and CentOS serves those without deep pockets.
CentOS was started as part of the greater chaOS project (I think that was the name of it) with the goal of making a totally free, community enterprise Linux distribution... something United Linux was founded for several years ago... but disappeared.
Another thing to consider is just how many other projects base their work on top of CentOS. SME Server, XenSource's product line, and even... yes... Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 18, 2007 23:33 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] And by the way, problems reported by RedHat users can be reproduced, debugged and fixed on CentOS.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 19, 2007 0:52 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I'll also go so far as to claim that CentOS is an unspoken part of Red Hat's strategy. CentOS does Red Hat a service by keeping people in the Red Hat fold who probably would have gone somewhere else if it weren't for CentOS... and the CentOS project does it totally for free... whereas a few other of the RH clones charge for timely updates. Red Hat makes a fantastic distribution and contributes to the kernel, as well as gcc and several other maker pieces... but their target audience are those with deep pockets... and CentOS serves those without deep pockets.
Absolutely!
In the days Fedora was started, there was a lot of "panic" as to what are all the Red Hat flavoured shops were going to run, given that Fedora was to be a fast moving distro. There was a bit of vacuum for a while (at which point many jumped ship), but distros like White Box Enterprise Linux and then finally CentOS filled that vacuum very successfully after a while. And it is just like you said - it is CentOS that keeps Red Hat software within reach of those who want a stable, slow moving distro, but can't afford or don't want to pay support fees.
Of course, when these folks change jobs or their company grows to the point where they can afford to pay for support, it is Red Hat that gets the business.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 1:12 UTC (Fri) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] It's hard to see how anyone can be blamed for this situation. Redhat themselves go to great lengths to prohibit CentOS from even mentioning Redhat's name, let alone give them credit. Given the zeal with which Redhat restricts usage of the Redhat name, I am not in the least bit surprised that some reviewers will be unaware of the heritage of CentOS. In fact, I would be surprised if they were aware.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 8:34 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] The problem there is that trademark law REQUIRES Red Hat to do that.
"Use it or lose it", as the law says ...
Cheers,
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 10:47 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] Not quite; trademark law requires Red Hat to enforce their trademark, or to licence it in a controlled fashion. For example, Red Hat could choose to licence their trademark to CentOS such that CentOS could have a message like "Welcome to CentOS, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivative" in the installer, but no further mention of Red Hat.Whether or not CentOS would take advantage of such a licence is a different matter, but it is important to remember that trademark law would allow Red Hat to give someone a no-fee licence to the trademark without affecting their ability to enforce the trademark against third parties.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 22, 2007 6:19 UTC (Sun) by jhs (subscriber, #12429) [Link] For CentOS to be free software, then you or I should be able to download it and distribute it with no obligations to change the code to remove licensed bits. Maybe that is why Red Hat won't or can't license to CentOS. The situation between Mozilla Firefox and Debian is similar, if I understand correctly.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 17:29 UTC (Fri) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Your observation does not in any way affect my point that such confusion on the part of the reviewer was inevitable.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 19, 2007 2:59 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] I installed RHEL5 and the login screen lacks the system name (and the system time). That pretty much sucks when you have four RHEL5 systems on a KVM and can't tell which is which just by looking at the login screen.
Has CentOS5 fixed this glaring annoyance? If it has, I'd like to know before I spend the time to download it.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 19, 2007 9:12 UTC (Thu) by tobor (guest, #36736) [Link] > I installed RHEL5 and the login screen lacks the system name (and the> system time). That pretty much sucks when you have four RHEL5 systems on a > KVM and can't tell which is which just by looking at the login screen.
I think that's not a bug, you can achieve this by editing /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net ("man issue" / "man issue.net" / "man mingetty")
Ciao,
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 0:14 UTC (Fri) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] I was, in fact, referring to the GDM screen after X starts.
CentOS 5 is a solid enterprise OS (Linux.com) Posted Apr 20, 2007 6:32 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Have you tried running gdmsetup? There could be options to turn that on...
Crass! Posted Apr 19, 2007 14:13 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link] While I appreciate the effort that goes into CentOS I think theauthor of this "review" does the CentOS a greate disservice.
The phrase about ... "two years since its last major release," is
I would prefer to have seen an article on CentOS by someone who has
Such and article could start with something like: "Within a month
... and then it could go on to describe how CentOS5 deals with things
JimD
Crass! Posted Apr 19, 2007 15:03 UTC (Thu) by miah (guest, #639) [Link] "I would prefer to have seen an article on CentOS by someone who hassome perspective on the Linux community at large"
Realize that this article was posted on linux.com. Unfortunately, none of the authors there have any perspective on the Linux community at large. I and it seems many others avoid articles from that site as they are usually trash.
Crass! Posted Apr 20, 2007 0:12 UTC (Fri) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] You can install RHEL5 without entering the "entitlement" key. AFAICT, it only tells RHN which subchannels to subscribe you to so that you don't miss a security update.
|
|||||||||||