On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 Mark LaPierre wrote:> The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3.Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, and my desktops don't look or work any different today than they did under Centos 6. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 > Mark LaPierre wrote: > > > The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I > > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. > > Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, > and my desktops don't look or work any different today than they did > under Centos 6. >Trouble is that when you go from 6 to 7, you also have the delights of systemd and grub 2 to contend with. I'm also still using CentOS 6, and currently have no desire to "upgrade". I'm still in shock after trying to upgrade to Red Hat 7 at work, and after the upgrade (apart from being faced with the gnome3 craziness) finding that many of the admin commands either didn't work, or only worked partially via a wrapper. (And the added insult that when I shut down the box, it gave a message something like: "shutdown status asserted" and then hung, so that it had to be power-cycled. Then when it came back up, it went through all the fs checks as though it had shut down ungracefully.) I allowed some of the senior developers to try the box themselves for a while, and based on their findings, it was decided to switch to Ubuntu (which (at least then) didn't use systemd,) together with Mate and XFCE. Similarly with others who have commented, I simply cannot understand why the maintainers of crucial components in linux have this thing about making vast changes which impact (usually adversely) on users and admins, without (apparently) any general discussion or review of the proposed changes. What happened to RFCs? Maybe it's a power thing - we can do it, so we're gonna do it, and if ya don't like it, tough! It would be very interesting to know how many other users are still on CentOS/Red Hat 6 as a result of reluctance to enjoy all the - erm - improvements in 7. Maybe it's time to fork CentOS 6 and make it look and behave like 7 without systemd (or even better, with some way of selecting the init methodology at install-time and afterwards), and with gnome2 (or a clear choice between 2 and 3). Call it DeCentOS.
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 16:45 +0000, Peter Duffy wrote:> It would be very interesting to know how many other users are still on > CentOS/Red Hat 6 as a result of reluctance to enjoy all the - erm - > improvements in 7.Every new system I implement goes on C6. Hearing others' problems on C7 convinces me C7 is too much time consuming aggro. Everything I do works well on C5 and C6.> Maybe it's time to fork CentOS 6 and make it look and > behave like 7 without systemd (or even better, with some way of > selecting the init methodology at install-time and afterwards), and with > gnome2 (or a clear choice between 2 and 3). Call it DeCentOS.Interesting idea :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
On Sun, January 24, 2016 10:45 am, Peter Duffy wrote:> On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 >> Mark LaPierre wrote: >> >> > The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because >> I >> > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. >> >> Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, >> and my desktops don't look or work any different today than they did >> under Centos 6. >> > > Trouble is that when you go from 6 to 7, you also have the delights of > systemd and grub 2 to contend with. > > I'm also still using CentOS 6, and currently have no desire to > "upgrade". I'm still in shock after trying to upgrade to Red Hat 7 at > work, and after the upgrade (apart from being faced with the gnome3 > craziness) finding that many of the admin commands either didn't work, > or only worked partially via a wrapper. (And the added insult that when > I shut down the box, it gave a message something like: "shutdown status > asserted" and then hung, so that it had to be power-cycled. Then when it > came back up, it went through all the fs checks as though it had shut > down ungracefully.) I allowed some of the senior developers to try the > box themselves for a while, and based on their findings, it was decided > to switch to Ubuntu (which (at least then) didn't use systemd,) together > with Mate and XFCE. > > Similarly with others who have commented, I simply cannot understand why > the maintainers of crucial components in linux have this thing about > making vast changes which impact (usually adversely) on users and > admins, without (apparently) any general discussion or review of the > proposed changes. What happened to RFCs? Maybe it's a power thing - we > can do it, so we're gonna do it, and if ya don't like it, tough! > > It would be very interesting to know how many other users are still on > CentOS/Red Hat 6 as a result of reluctance to enjoy all the - erm - > improvements in 7.Good idea. You can set up voting site at some free place (surveymonkey comes to my mind). And then disseminate it, say through this list.> Maybe it's time to fork CentOS 6This is something that will never happen. By the definition of CentOS project (which I'm not affiliated with, but I do appreciate greatly what they do!) it is "binary replica" of RedHat Enterprise. Any step away from this will scare me much more than wrong (IMHO) steps of RedHat itself. I do prefer what I use to be "enterprise-ish", that is more or less predictable.> and make it look and > behave like 7 without systemd (or even better, with some way of > selecting the init methodology at install-time and afterwards), and with > gnome2 (or a clear choice between 2 and 3). Call it DeCentOS.Well, there is Linux distribution which is systemd-free. And that distribution I predict will live for decently long time. It is "Devuan" - a fork of Debian, stripped off systemd and friends... well, I should have said: composed without systemd and friends. Devuan was forked off ebian because of systemd. Once Ubuntu was mentioned, which is a replica of Debian (the last _is_ systemd...), then Devuan should be pretty close to yours Ubuntu experience. You, however, may also be tired of often reboots (which all Linuxes in my observation suffer from: every on average 45 days there is either kernel or glibc security update requiring reboot... no, I do know that ksplice and similar exist, but there are few things I will not do on servers). If that is the case you may look around and find some UNIX system to use for some of your boxes (Open Solaris, BSD derivatives like FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, PC-BSD come first to my mind). Search, try, and something will fill the bill. Number Crunchers, clusters, even workstations I set up for my users are still staying Linux, CentOS to be precise, even though servers are migrated away. I hope, this helps. Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> On 24 Jan 2016, at 17:45, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 >> Mark LaPierre wrote: >> >>> The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I >>> don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. >> >> Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, >> and my desktops don't look or work any different today than they did >> under Centos 6. >> > > Trouble is that when you go from 6 to 7, you also have the delights of > systemd and grub 2 to contend with. > > I'm also still using CentOS 6, and currently have no desire to > "upgrade". I'm still in shock after trying to upgrade to Red Hat 7 at > work, and after the upgrade (apart from being faced with the gnome3 > craziness) finding that many of the admin commands either didn't work, > or only worked partially via a wrapper. (And the added insult that when > I shut down the box, it gave a message something like: "shutdown status > asserted" and then hung, so that it had to be power-cycled. Then when it > came back up, it went through all the fs checks as though it had shut > down ungracefully.) I allowed some of the senior developers to try the > box themselves for a while, and based on their findings, it was decided > to switch to Ubuntu (which (at least then) didn't use systemd,) together > with Mate and XFCE. > > Similarly with others who have commented, I simply cannot understand why > the maintainers of crucial components in linux have this thing about > making vast changes which impact (usually adversely) on users and > admins, without (apparently) any general discussion or review of the > proposed changes. What happened to RFCs? Maybe it's a power thing - we > can do it, so we're gonna do it, and if ya don't like it, tough! > > It would be very interesting to know how many other users are still on > CentOS/Red Hat 6 as a result of reluctance to enjoy all the - erm - > improvements in 7. Maybe it's time to fork CentOS 6 and make it look and > behave like 7 without systemd (or even better, with some way of > selecting the init methodology at install-time and afterwards), and with > gnome2 (or a clear choice between 2 and 3). Call it DeCentOS. > >I'm still on 6.7 and have no plans to upgrade my 20+ servers running it. KVM runs fine, all my services runs fine. Everything is stable, fast enough and I can find my way around a CentOS 6.x system like the palm of my hand. I tried installing CentOS 7 when it was released without knowing about all the changes. I spent about an hour trying to understand what had happened and where things where located. And with "trying" I mean searching, googling and just feeling really frustrated. I then realised that it was simply not for me - lots of (IMHO unnecessary) changes had been made and I guess when the time comes to really upgrade my servers I will go with Ubuntu, FreeBSD or whatever seems to be the the best option. I'm sure there are technical reasons to upgrade to CentOS 7, I'm yet to be bothered to find out though since it's damn near impossible to actually get work done with it installed. A fork of CentOS 6 would be very, very, very interesting to run from my point of view. Joacim
On 01/24/2016 10:45 AM, Peter Duffy wrote:> It would be very interesting to know how many other users are still on > CentOS/Red Hat 6 as a result of reluctance to enjoy all the - erm - > improvements in 7.That's were I am, CentOS 6.7 with a 3.18 LTS kernel from the Xen4CentOS repo on machines with hardware too new for a 2.6 kernel. I plan to stay there until CentOS 6 goes EOL (and if my past history is any guide, probably quite a while beyond that -- I'd been running a patched-up Fedora 12 until late 2014, 4 years past its EOL). -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.