 www.centos.org Forum Index CentOS 5 - X86_64, s390(x) and PowerPC Support  Review of CentOS 5.4 system
|
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
|
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Threaded
Newest First| Poster | Thread |
|---|
|
Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #1 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Peeking in the Member Window
 
Joined: 2009/4/15
From
Posts: 12
|
CentOS'ers:
I have been using CentOS since about oh say, version 4.0 or so, and have been very pleased with it (thank you to all whom make it possible). The forgoing notwithstanding, I have an installation that runs under VMware, and it runs in a "64 bit" mode under VMware, however, I notice that many of the RPMs as they were updated (I did a yum update) were installed as both i386 and x86_64 variants. Does this make sense? Ought I not only have the x86_64 variants installed, why both? If I plan to run strictly in x86_64 mode, can I just uninstall all the i386 variants? Note: I have been doing updates/upgrades for some time, and I do not think I have done a fresh install in a long time. I am preferential to not having to do so, but am curious if doing updates has caused this or if a setting is wrong or what. Thanks, Stuart P.S. - I recently took a look at Ubuntu, and as a friend remarked, he calls it "Upuntu" because he punted it after trying it. I have to agree, it is a nice distribution but far from standard in terms of Linux (they redacted the standard "SYSV init" levels for example, default to ext4 despite ext4 not being supported by a lot of other software and stuff like that yet). Not at all useful for commercial implementaton, but, its "cute". |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/6 4:05
  |
 |
||
stuartbh
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Moderator
Joined: 2006/12/13
From Tidewater Virginia, North America
Posts: 3404
|
Quote:
Many people like a pure x86_64 system for servers, including some of the CentOS developers; however CentOS follows what Red Hat does, so 32-bit packages get installed by default. This seems to be a FAQ - perhaps I'll add one to the list. Here's a post on the subject from one of our leading contributors to the fora. https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=22403&forum=38&post_id=86552#forumpost86552 Edit: - see the shiny new FAQ entry. Quote:
"Upuntu" - cute. That seems to be a religious argument. My Ubuntu friends claim Red Hat is the violator of standards.  I keep installing versions of Ubuntu and Fedora to check out what they are up to, but always end up back on CentOS for both desktop/laptop and server use. |
||
|
_________________
Phil Required reading: FAQ & Readme first ; Search hint: google "your topic site:centos.org"; Smart Questions |
|||
Posted on: 2009/11/6 13:22
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #3 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Peeking in the Member Window
Joined: 2009/4/15
From
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
Most assuredly, I did review those FAQs in precedence to penning this reply (per your recommendation), though I had not realized that the RedHat methodology was to install both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of the RPMs when deploying the 64-bit version of RedHat. Given that is the case, I am entirely interested to be compliant with doing things just like RedHat does, and do not wish to deviate. I surely hope the developers will continue along this path, such that we can all be assured to have as purist a RedHat clone as we can. I suppose that it is quite reasonable to do that, given the overall aggregate of applications has not entirely become available as 64-bit applications. I do thank you for pointing that out, it clarifies things for me most helpfully. I was less concerned about being "pure 64" than if I had perhaps upgraded or something in some manner where I had some residual RPMs to clean out, now I realize this is not the case, and their existence is entirely by design. Quote:
Well I learned that the Upuntu online chat rooms (on the irc for example) seem to be chalk full of people that are sworn followers of the "ignorance is bliss" engineering methodology (I am being generous here), which, while I can appreciate why they want to believe in it, they seem to attempt to profess from a position of condescension and arrogance to know what they are talking about. Clearly not, as one person pontificated in the chat room I was in recently, "Only MacOS users call it (referring to what Ubuntu calls "Recovery Mode") single user mode! That is a non-standard naming nomenclature for recovery mode." When I told him every other Unix in the world calls it single user mode or maintenance mode, he briskly quipped, "Oh no, you are just making that up, it simply is not true." Innocently, I attempted to bring Upuntu into single user mode using the "init 1" or "telinit 1" commands, only to observe Upuntu sitting their unchanged and entirely agnostic to the fact those commands had been executed. Upon attempting to query folks in the chat room about this issue, I was told "those are commands (referencing init and telinit) for working with SYSV init, we do not use that, the industry has deprecated SYSV init". I was like, WHOA!?! Deprecated when, in the last 5 minutes? Another nitwit in their forums pontificated that "upstart" (their apparent replacement for init, which may or may not be better, I have not studied or review it as yet) was standard and every other Unix was non-standard. When I pressed the person and remarked, "If every other Unix is not using upstart would that not be indicative of upstart's not being the standard?" towit, he replied, "No, It's Ubuntu that is standard." Thus, I can entirely sympothise with your comment of their outlook being "religious" in nature, as it certainly it is not logical, measured, sensible, or even truthful in the slightist at all. I realize that any amalgamated group of technical folks has its share of twits and nincompoops, but, clearly in the case of Upuntu the weighting is statistically favorable to the nitwit/nincompoop category of users. I will give the folks whom developed Upuntu one pat on the back, as it was easy to install and use. One major feature that the debian/Ubuntu types have going on is huge repositories of precompiled applications that can be easily be installed. For example, Hercules, xtrs, asterisk, x3270, basilisk2, all seemed to be very easily installable, whereby with CentOS I have not heard of such repositories for that kind of thing being available (I am not saying they are not, just if so, I am unaware of them). Mind you, I don't mind compiling from source, but their repositories are quite nice and very up to date. Have a blessed day! Stuart |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/6 18:01
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Jr Board Member
Joined: 2009/1/18
From Planet Earth
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's relieving to find out I'm not the only one with those same feelings for "Upuntu"  I mean, WTF, whatever happened the 'service httpd restart'? Why do I have to type '/etc/init.d/apache restart' instead? Besides all this and the things you mentioned yourself Stuart (repos with copious amounts of binary packages), I personally don't see any particular advantage Ubuntu has over CentOS. In fact, my belief is that the situation is other way 'round. Let me point out a phrase regarding Linux I read recently: 'CentOS IS user friendly, it's just choosy who it's friends are' If memory serves me well, RHEL based distros are more closely related to System V Unix, unlike Ubuntu (Debian based) which is more closely related to BSD, which I never laid my eyes on BTW. It's possible I've mistaken somewhere, so please feel free to correct me if I said something wrong here. Since this is a CentOS forum, I believe this won't turn into a flame war, which was of course NOT my intention. Regards, |
||
|
_________________
RHCT 605008720421478 |
|||
Posted on: 2009/11/7 16:43
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #5 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Moderator
Joined: 2006/9/3
From California, US
Posts: 4234
|
Quote:
Precisely for this type of conversation, we have CentOS Social. https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=14 |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/7 19:24
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #6 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Jr Board Member
Joined: 2009/9/23
From
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
I agree I personally hate ubuntu and everytime I boot my netbook I cringe cuz I have not gotten the time to install something better yet. hasn't it always been /etc/init.d? I don't ever remember typeing service x restart in the last 15 or so years the first time I saw some one do service x restart I was like what is that. I wanna know whats the deal with updstart??? Im finally getting the hang of chkconfig but still prefer to write my own init.d scripts and rcd S and K's maybee im just old =( |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/10 0:57
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #7 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined: 2009/11/14
From
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
I have been using it less than a week and am already fed up with it. I will continue to experiment some, but so far I see nothing to recommend it whatsoever other than it's Gnu/FOSS. I have also been using RHEL for the past 13 months and am less than pleased with it...and it's "support". Contrary to what many have recommended, I am currently in the process of testing server functions on Fedora F12. What got me involved with all of this originally was experimenting with F10, which I was VERY pleased with...and may go back to. Quote:
Um, if you own a Ford with a V-8 engine, why would you want to run it on only 4 of its cylinders? (gas savings notwithstanding, of course) Quote:
See Above. Quote:
Sure...if you were running Ubuntu. CentOS? Don't make me laugh...you can't even uninstall x86_64 packages without breaking the system...what makes you think you could uninstall i386's? Quote:
One would think that server uptime would be a priority, wouldn't one? Quote:
Um, what's standard about non-standard? Oh wait...how about less than 6 hours of downtime in 2 years? Oh...sorry, this is CentOS...I'm not sure I've had 6 hours total of UPtime in the past 4 days, to say nothing of what the record would look like 2 years from now. I'm not sure, but I don't believe I've ever seen DELL or any other major maker offering CentOS-equipped systems off-the-rack to the consumer...something about that poor ole non-standard Ubuntu must be doing something right, huh? Now, now that I've had my rant, let me qualify it with a few things. First, the guys and gals who put CentOS together are obviously a bunch of talented and giving people. As a general rule, the concept of a community oriented around a Free and Open Source Enterprise-level system is unique and required tons of time, planning, thought, and attention. I only wish those same very-talented people didn't tout CentOS as being just like RHEL, only free. It's not. The kernel may be the same and the package manager may be the same, but that's about as far as it goes. One thing I DO like better about CentOS is the way server operations are handled...I don't like certain things about iptables and how they conflict with Firestarter or some of the other firewall programs out there, and SELinux seems to be a joke to me, but those are just pedantic args at this point. I'm off to try an F12 Server install and see what happens. Hopefully it goes well...As capable as Ubuntu is in both the DTE and Server realm, I'm going to be frustrated with myself if I can't make this work for me. ~Cheers [Moderator edit - fix improperly nested quotes.] |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/19 3:06
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #8 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Professional Board Member
Joined: 2007/9/3
From NYC
Posts: 666
|
Ubuntu, and Mr. Shuttleworth, have done a great deal towards the acceptance of Linux. The downside is that the lowering of the bar brings in many who would possibly be happier with MS/Apple. As someone once said, (and to those who like Ubuntu, it's a joke, so don't get mad) Ubuntu is African for, "I can't configure Debian."
That being said, Fedora, you'll find, is heavily aimed at the desktop user. Slashdot readers have probably already heard about the latest absurdity, that the GUI package manager will allow any logged in user to install a package without an administrative password. The developer of the GUI package manager simply states that he doesn't particularly care how Unix works. <shrug>. It slipped under the radar because most of the developers and others who probably should have stopped it use yum, and didn't realize it. There's a lot of heated discussion, and it will probably revert to previous behavior. Fedora and Ubuntu, IMAO (a as in arrogant) are really not all that dissimilar for the GUI user. Both, using later versions (e.g., not fully tested) packages will frequently break upon upgrades and really have, as their target audience, the desktop user. In contrast, though CentOS will have older versions of packages, (for example, I believe chromium browser won't work due to older versions of gcc) it is aimed at not violating POLA (Princple of Least Astonishment) and giving you a stable platform upon which to run your applications, almost a set it and forget it type of thing. For example, if you are running a mail server, it's trouble enough, without worrying about the platform that it uses. So, this gives you a nice stable O/S, and you can worry about sendmail or postfix instead of what supports it. That's an oversimplification of course, but the thing is, CentOS really does come close to a set it and forget it base. |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/19 11:11
|
|
||
|
Re: Review of CentOS 5.4 system | #9 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Professional Board Member
Joined: 2007/12/11
From
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
stuartbh wrote: For comparison, a 32-bit Windows contains a 16-bit subsystem, and a 64-bit Windows has a 32-bit subsystem. And there you would have no chance to "become pure". I think the default policy could be either way: (1) Install only pure 64 by default and allow addition of 32-bit support later. Nice, if default install is all you need. (2) Include the 32-bit support layer by default, assuming the user will install third party applications that could be 32-bit. Upstream documentation (and installer package selections) could naturally be more expressive about the options. |
||
Posted on: 2009/11/19 14:18
|
|
||
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.