Did we nail it? The desktop formula? Maybe. Here's an enthusiastic, thorough and fun review of CentOS 7.2 Xfce on a Lenovo G50 laptop with UEFI, Secure Boot, 16 partitions, and a multi-boot setup with Windows 10 and numerous Linux distributions, covering a post-install Xfce and MATE desktop environment setup, networking - Wireless, Bluetooth, Samba sharing and printing, smartphone support - iPhone, Windows Phone, and Ubuntu Phone, applications, webcam, resource usage, performance, responsiveness, battery life, hardware compatibility, suspend & resume, look & feel, customization, various tweaks and problems, other considerations, and more. Enjoy. Really. http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/lenovo-g50-centos-xfce.html Cheers, Mrk
Informative, but why convert a server build distro to an end user distro when there so many distro's available? Looks like a great achievement to an outsider, but for what purpose?
Because all other distros ... for the lack of a better word ... suck. No consistency or stability. This one actually offers that, as weird as it sounds. Mrk
And this from a distro where you had to manually install a wireless driver and where you need additional repositories and where you need a tutorial to install a NVIDIA driver... But it's consistent and stable.. hum, I'll give it a 3/10 and that's because I'm in a good mood, nuff said.
I expect you want a response, so let's have it. Selective quoting is golden. You glossed over the last part of the article, where it says: Why bother doing this when Ubuntu and Mint and such do this out of the box? And then I answer myself, because things remain put. Fix once and forget. This is not the case with the other distros. Not only can you not fix once, things breaks, new and old. You also did not quote where I said: I would not use this in production. You also did not quote where I said: my production setup includes Windows and Trusty. And so forth ... I would love to be able to use the latest LTS and whatnot, alas the things that worked BEFORE no longer do. That's the WHOLE point. Things break and/or cannot be fixed. With CentOS, fixes are needed - but they stay there FOREVER. Mrk
I wasn't trying to criticize your article (I did read the whole) or your point of view, the critic was to the distro itself, but rereading my post I see it gives the wrong impression; please accept my apologies.
No need for apologies. We just need to be clear with our message. Because Linux won't get better if we ignore the issues. All good man! Mrk
Mrk will be a CentOS freak until the day he dies! Alas, I remember him back during his SUSE phase. Yes, I remember it well...he was unbearable! . I assume there's still the problem in CentOS of conflicting repos and the hell that causes. Or is that a thing of the past now? I never had any kind of problems like that with Ubuntu or Debian so guess that's why I prefer them. No "what the heck am I going to do now that everything is screwed up because of these conflicting repo packages" type of thing. But, to each his own. Nice write up, as usual, Mrk. . Later... Bob
If you enable too many repos, yes. The bare minimum set I use works fine and without any conflicts. Mrk
CentOS as a primary/production machine: is your concern about safety/security? I am planning to upgrade from F23 to either F24 or CentOS in a few weeks and that is gonna be my production machine..
@Mrkvonic (Igor) I was impressed and puzzled why you took a server oriented distro and made it shine like a desktop distro. After having read about that CentOS is a Red Hat clone, I wondered why you did not used Oracle Linux (professional Distro which follows RedHat)? regards Kees
I took it because there's a significant return on investment - you tweak (waste time) but then you get a fire & forget solution for many years. And stability and predictability. Oracle Linux is less accessible so to speak, so it is not a good choice here. Mrk
