FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Bob Hoffman
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote
--------------------------------

Vreme: 11/10/2011 02:44 PM, Bob Hoffman pis(e:
>/ In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat
/>/ turns around. Maybe scientific linux.
/>/ Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not
/>/ cutting edge and very insecure.
/>/
/>/ So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than ubuntu
/>/ will ever be.
/
Since 6.1 is close now, I do not expect delays longer then 6 months, and
since CR repo exists most of the stuff will come to us much quicker.

ElRepo's Mainline kernel (2.6.39-4.rc6.1.el6.elrepo) was completed
yesterday, and should pose no problems with CentOS distro. That can, if
no other option exists help you with kernel/video problems.


--------------------------------

My only real concern was where red hat was going with this clone war (just a yoda line )
I decided to try out some non red hat versions.
I really was excited about ubu and getting somewhat newer packages of things and trying them out.
Turns out my experience is very disappointing with ubu.
It makes centos look light years ahead of them in all ways.
One just wishes redhat had a realistic upgrade of some packages (like php) during the life.

Where is this CR repo listed at? I did not see it on centos.org.

I may just go with it.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 01:44 PM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

Vreme: 11/10/2011 03:36 PM, Bob Hoffman piše:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote
>
> My only real concern was where red hat was going with this clone war (just a yoda line )
> I decided to try out some non red hat versions.
> I really was excited about ubu and getting somewhat newer packages of things and trying them out.
> Turns out my experience is very disappointing with ubu.
> It makes centos look light years ahead of them in all ways.
> One just wishes redhat had a realistic upgrade of some packages (like php) during the life.

Remi's repository has those, but is 3rd party repo.
http://rpms.famillecollet.com/

>
> Where is this CR repo listed at? I did not see it on centos.org.
>
> I may just go with it.

http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR


--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 02:30 PM
Scott Robbins
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:18:43AM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> Bob Hoffman wrote:


> > This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
> > thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model.
> > Forgive the length, but I had to share.
> >
> Thank you, very much, for the details (not that I was planning on going to
> ubuntu...)
>
I want to add my thanks as well--we have a few, non-firewalled, Ubuntu
servers that we're working with--the people who do the stuff these
servers do are more experienced with it, and we left it to them.



> Two things:
> <snip>
> > 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not
> > and will not use a basic vid driver install
> > which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is
> > really fun.
>
> What's wrong with text mode? I certainly prefer it. Oh, and those menus
> came along 2-3 years later.... <g>

Yeah, all kidding aside, I think the whole crippling of the RH text
installer was a step in the wrong direction. A text installer is
smaller, faster, and doesn't suddenly, as has happened to me with
various video card monitor combos, stop working or have the buttons off
the screen and no way to reach them save to tab, enter, and hope you're
on the right one.


> <snip>
> > 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND
> > ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and
> > still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it
> > yet. This makes chkconfig and things like
> > that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run,
> > etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and
> > read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.

Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.


> Yes. Just like the grub ubuntu uses, that is a bloody script, and a .d
> directory *full* of files, rather than the clean, simple menu with
> RHEL/CentOS.
> <snip>
>
Enjoy it while you can. (Sorry, not being funny here, everyone is going
to grub2 with its 200 plus files in the /boot/grub2 directory.)


> I don't want to have to read scripts to find out how to configure
> something, or make it do something. A README, at the very least, should
> have that (not "here's the license, go figure out everything else).

Sorry, but this sounds like RH to me. I came to CentOS from the BSDs,
where if there was a service running, you could type man <name> and get
an idea of what it was doing. My first day on this job, I'd type man
<some extra service that RH thought I should have> and no clue what it
did only to find, eventually, that there was nothing but a document
telling me it's free software in /usr/share/doc. (Granted, this is my
memory speaking, and like an old flame one hasn't seen in many years,
the difference between BSD and RH docs probably aren't as drastic as I
remember, but shucks, complaining is FUN!).

>
> >>From what I've been reading on /., along with gnome 3 and "unity", that
> wing of the F/OSS movement, presumably in an effort to go head-to-head
> with M$ and Apple, are going the same way they are: here's how you do it,
> don't try to do it any other way, and we'll make it *REALLY* hard to do it
> any other way.

Yes, and I greatly fear that RH will follow Fedora along much of that
path.

--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

Buffy: Look, I know this new guy's a dork,
but... Well, I have nothing to follow that. He's
pretty much just a dork.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 02:33 PM
Craig White
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:

> This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
> thought of moving from centos
> due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to share.
>
> I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu server.
> You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished?
> One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and setup
> as a god!
>
> Where do I begin?
>
> 1- you download the iso, burn a cd. But guess what? It is only a small
> boot setup (about 600mb).
> The install actually sets up your eth port and then SLOWLY downloads a
> base set of packages.
> Then when you are done with your drive set up, you get to pick a package.
> Then it downloads and installs, asking you a few questions as it does.
> Then it upgrades itself.
> About 40 minutes due to the downloads for me...
----
you can turn off networking or unplug the cable if you you only want a base install and don't want it to install the latest updates out of the box.
----
>
> 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not
> and will not use a basic vid driver install
> which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is
> really fun.
----
ubuntu server is basic (no x) - it's a small footprint install. Most people who do servers prefer this.

As for setting up LVM's and such... it's pretty much the same as any RH... just looks different
----
> 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the
> internet before you can even begin to secure
> it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you
> see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too.
----
again, you don't have to connect to the internet to install
----
> 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest
> OS's (presumably ubuntu).
>
> 5- booted up fine.
>
> 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND
> ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and
> still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it
> yet. This makes chkconfig and things like
> that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run,
> etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and
> read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.
----
RHEL v6 (and CentOS 6) use upstart too... life has all sorts of curveballs
----
> 7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however
> install things like virt-install or any other virt software.
> Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like virsh
> were installed. Sigh.
>
> 8- The firewall and network do not have the scripts folder. You have to
> build your own firewall file and add scripts
> to make it over ride the stock one via the eth you want to use it
> for....wtf?
----
all sorts of packages for firewall management.

apt-cache search firewall | wc -l
152

why be content with the minimal firewall tool when you actually can have a choice?
----
> 9- here is the firewall, for a virtual host, that should not have
> anything but port 22 open as far as the initial install
> should (at least in my opinion).....Ubuntu starts with this....
> (remember, ubuntu forces you to be online to install and this is how it
> protects your server)
----
nothing like chaining lack of understanding to dramatize
----
> I was not blocked on a single port going from my desktop to my server
> via my router. ALL PORTS were accessible.
> This is out of the box. Shell 22 was open from all my computers. Not
> listed in the firewall as open.
> You can see it is quite different than the centos stock and I think
> ubuntu is a 'run away' install.
----
sure - there's a difference but you're chaining again.
----
> There is no bridge set up in the network interface files either. There
> is no bridge set up.
> The firewall is looking at virbr0 but there is no such configuration I
> could find in the
> etc folder, anywhere.
> Very odd.
>
> # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
> *nat
> :PREROUTING ACCEPT [84:12492]
> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [9:626]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9:626]
> -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p tcp -j
> MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535
> -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p udp -j
> MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535
> -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -j MASQUERADE
> COMMIT
> # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
> # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
> *filter
> :INPUT ACCEPT [3701:295955]
> :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [793:1276008]
> -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -d 192.168.122.0/24 -o virbr0 -m state --state
> RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -s 192.168.122.0/24 -i virbr0 -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -o virbr0 -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -o virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
> -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
> COMMIT
> # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
>
>
> In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat
> turns around. Maybe scientific linux.
> Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not
> cutting edge and very insecure.
>
> So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than ubuntu
> will ever be.
----
It's different - not better, not worse (save for the fact that with Ubuntu I have been able to get timely updates this year). Also, I much prefer their packaging of Apache & BIND9 to Red Hat's.

I personally love their minimal installation CD, from the text based install to the minimal package install, etc. and think that their minimal approach is vastly superior to Red Hat (and all downstream packagers) installer that is slow and bloated. I can typically get a vm spun up with Ubuntu in about 5 mins and it takes much longer to install a CentOS vm.

If your expectation was that you could take your limited knowledge base and apply it equally across all Linux distributions and expect it to behave as a Red Hat derived system, then all other distributions will disappoint you.

Seriously

Craig


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 02:37 PM
John Hodrien
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Scott Robbins wrote:

> Yeah, all kidding aside, I think the whole crippling of the RH text
> installer was a step in the wrong direction. A text installer is
> smaller, faster, and doesn't suddenly, as has happened to me with
> various video card monitor combos, stop working or have the buttons off
> the screen and no way to reach them save to tab, enter, and hope you're
> on the right one.

I don't entirely disagree, but it didn't make sense to maintain two code
bases. Even with EL5 there were differences in what you could do in text vs
graphical (can't remember the details but there was something missing RAID/LVM
related). If you're doing a one off install either you've normally got
functional network to another computer and so can use VNC, or you've got a
usable graphics setup. It's not *that* often you've not got either. For
non-one offs then you're installing with kickstart so it doesn't really
matter.

> Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
> desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
> important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.

upstart/systemd both should both offer more than we're used to. Having a
service marked as 'should be on' such that it gets kicked back into life if it
crashes isn't necessarily a bad thing.

jh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 02:40 PM
John Hodrien
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Craig White wrote:

> I personally love their minimal installation CD, from the text based install
> to the minimal package install, etc. and think that their minimal approach
> is vastly superior to Red Hat (and all downstream packagers) installer that
> is slow and bloated. I can typically get a vm spun up with Ubuntu in about 5
> mins and it takes much longer to install a CentOS vm.

I'd argue that's not entirely true. I've been doing some testing with
Spacewalk and CentOS 6 VMs on VMWare so did quite a lot of installs. 5
minutes was pretty much bang on how long it was taking to do a
boot/partition/install/register to spacewalk with a fairly minimal server
setup across a gigabit network.

jh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 03:07 PM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

Vreme: 11/10/2011 04:30 PM, Scott Robbins piše:
> Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
> desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
> important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.

systemd will be much much more once it is done.

From http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html :

A central part of a system that starts up and maintains services should
be process babysitting: it should watch services. Restart them if they
shut down. If they crash it should collect information about them, and
keep it around for the administrator, and cross-link that information
with what is available from crash dump systems such as abrt, and in
logging systems like syslog or the audit system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Status

All the features listed above are already implemented. Right now systemd
can already be used as a drop-in replacement for Upstart and sysvinit
(at least as long as there aren't too many native upstart services yet.
Thankfully most distributions don't carry too many native Upstart
services yet.)

However, testing has been minimal, our version number is currently at an
impressive 0. Expect breakage if you run this in its current state. That
said, overall it should be quite stable and some of us already boot
their normal development systems with systemd (in contrast to VMs only).
YMMV, especially if you try this on distributions we developers don't use.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So it is not only booting, but also unifying and better controlling
entire environment.

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 03:22 PM
"Warriner, Benjamin"
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

I just want to say that this is the stupidest conversation I have ever had heard - Screw this I am going back to FreeBSD.


Benjamin Warriner
Technology Specialist
Region 7 Education Service Center
1909 North Longview Street
Kilgore, Texas 75662
Phone: (903) 988-6949
Fax: (903) 988-6965

"Region 7 Education Service Center is committed to student success by providing quality programs and services that meet or exceed our customers' expectations."


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email & attached documents may contain confidential information. All information is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to read, disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on the information and any action other than immediate delivery to the named recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, do not read the information and please immediately notify sender by telephone to arrange for a return of the original documents. If you are the named recipient you are not authorized to reveal any of this information to any other unauthorized person. If you did not receive all pages listed or if pages are not legible, please immediately notify sender by phone.


[ESC7]<http://www.esc7.net/>

Please Think Before You Print.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 03:27 PM
Dhivan Djaganu
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Warriner, Benjamin <bwarriner@esc7.net> wrote:
> I just want to say that this is the stupidest conversation I have ever had heard - Screw this I am going back to FreeBSD.

Thank you, yuou made my Friday
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-10-2011, 03:37 PM
Thomas Johansson
 
Default Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu

On 2011-11-10 17:07, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 11/10/2011 04:30 PM, Scott Robbins piše:
>> Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
>> desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
>> important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.
>
> systemd will be much much more once it is done.
>
> From http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html :
>
> A central part of a system that starts up and maintains services should
> be process babysitting: it should watch services. Restart them if they
> shut down. If they crash it should collect information about them, and
> keep it around for the administrator, and cross-link that information
> with what is available from crash dump systems such as abrt, and in
> logging systems like syslog or the audit system.
>

Compare systemd to Solaris Service Management Facility. Solaris SMF is a very nice and useful part of Solaris.
A lot of similarities between systemd and SMF. Solaris is mainly a server OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org