CentOS 5.5 Released

Me, I could care less but some here like CentOS for some reason. Here's the release announcement...

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2010-May/016638.html

BTW, I found this info at DistroWatch just a few seconds ago.

Later....

 

Thanks for that Trespasser. Will update my 5.4 soon.

 

I downloaded CentOS 5.5 DVD (3.9 gigabytes) 32 bit overnight using the torrent method. I'm gonna give it one more try to understand this devotion some hold (Ocky and others) for CentOS. At least to me, using it is like stepping into a timewarp and suddenly you're back in 2005 with its dated kernel and interface. Maybe the "magic" will hit me with the CentOS DVD instead of the Scientific Linux DVD.

Later...

 

Im looking forward to Centos 6
most of the lovely features from fedora 11-12
the problem is after awhile it will be dated just like the 5 version currently is.
I thought debian were slow at getting new releases out but redhat is even slower.

 

Slow here means tried, tested, stable and thats what the target user of Cent OS, RH etc. is intended for, rest have cutting edge six months Ubuntu, even more cutting edge sidux or Fedora to play with.

 

I spent the last couple of days, off and on, trying out CentOS 5.5 on my old Sony VGN-S360 laptop and my opinion really hasn't changed much. I did eventually get everything working, like my Intel 2200 b/g wireless card. The odd thing was when I test drove Scientific Linux 5.4 it had a driver for this card, but with CentOS 5.5 I had to first track one down (on another computer) and then install it. Another point of frustration for me...Network Manager was not automatically loading. I eventually found that it was NOT enabled in Services (which thus prevented my wireless from working). I did find a little script that in conjunction with pam_keyring allowed me to avoid entering my user password just to connect to my home wireless network each time I reached Desktop. Adding RPMForge to the repos list really helped with installing preferred applications like VLC, Wine, cabextract, and Abiword though they were rather old versions. I will say that once you reach Desktop applications were very snappy in opening (big plus). Setting up themes, fonts, and icons was not too much of a problem either. Bootup and shutdown were extremely, EXTREMELY slow (big negative). Vixie-cron was very easy to use once I learned how to set it up. I did try to compile AbiWord 2.8.4 (most recent version...can open and save in .docx format) from source but the dependencies were totally unattainable. I had to settle on 2.6.4 instead from RPMForge.

I have since re-imaged Ubuntu Karmic (via CloneZilla) back onto my old Sony. If stability is CentOS's big selling point then, IMO, Karmic is just as stable, if not more so. Thus ends my venture into the magical world of CentOS-land...at least for now....

Later....

 

Karmic? As stable as CentOS? Ha ha ha!

No seriously, CentOS is for servers that have to run nonstop without a hitch for months on end, and stuff like that. It makes a great desktop OS on compatible hardware though, despite the outdated apps.

Re NetworkManager being disabled by default, that's because most servers don't need it.

Personally, I love CentOS and Scientific Linux, and though they're not great distros for laptops and netbooks I would not hesitate to use one of them on a desktop.

 

Laugh if you must but I have yet to experience a crash with Karmic so thus I find it just as stable as CentOS. Odd, though, that Network Manager was enabled on Scientific Linux yet not on CentOS. Also, like I stated previously, Scientific Linux had the wireless driver for my Intel 2200 b/g card yet, again, CentOS did not. I guess we're all entitled to our own opinion and mine is CentOS is highly overrated. Though, again, I did get everything working eventually so it was not all bad. .

Later...

 

Had few crashes in Intrepid but that was mostly on the system with intel graphics, with Jaunty, I haven't experienced a single crash or lock up using a cheap nvidia, Lucid is same.

 

I really don't understand how some of you compare a server installation with a desktop one.

 

i also wait for cent 6 as well of Scientific Linux i guss its build on fedora 13 because redhat 6 is expected to based on that release also at last we gonna see new gnome 2.30 or 2.28 atleast

+ 3 years support what else you want

 

That's easy enough to answer...I set my install up as a client not a server. The release announcement for CentOS 5.5 over at Distrowatch...

Karanbir Singh has announced the release of CentOS 5.5, a distribution created by compiling the source packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.5: "We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CentOS 5.5 for i386 and x86_64 architectures. CentOS 5.5 is based on the upstream release 5.5 and includes packages from all variants including Server and Client. All upstream repositories have been combined into one, to make it easier for end users to work with. Live CDs for CentOS 5.5 on i386 and x86_64 are being released at the same time as the main distro. The live CDs are meant to be used to run a CentOS 5.5 environment or to start a network-based install. The live CDs are set up to allow running from either optical media like CDs and DVDs or from USB keys and other portable media."

I did like during the install the option to pick and choose what I would like installed. This allowed me the opportunity to uncheck applications that I either didn't want or would never use. Don't get me wrong, I like CentOS. It has a certain kind of retro thing going that has its appeal. Also, a struggle that you succeed at does leave you with a sense of accomplishment. So, there was some good in my experience.

Later...

 

Since my last post I've looked into RHEL 6 beta (to my understanding due to be released in September) and its package list. Very impressive. Kernel 2.6.32. Firefox 3.5.3. Not bad. So, I to will be looking forward to the release of CentOS 6 shortly afterwards. I think I'll download RHEL 6 beta overnight and give it a spin tomorrow.

Wonder when Mrk will publish a review of RHEL 6 beta? I'm sure he's already downloaded it.

Later...

 

From the pond:

Ya
If we go by past releases, Scientific6 might be here first.

Dun it.
Nice, smooth, no issues for simple user.

 

Discovered one downside to RHEL 6 beta right from the get go....it requires a PAE CPU before the install will continue. Scratch one Sony S360 laptop with a Pentium M 1.7 ghz processor with one gig of ram.

I'll try it on my Lenovo next after I save the current image.

Later....