Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version of Gnome. But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother with it. Preston
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:31:39AM -0700, Preston Crawford wrote:> Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read > the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just > wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically > hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any > piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to > consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is > just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I > thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version > of Gnome. > > But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. > Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the > days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. > Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting > that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother > with it.Well, I can mention some of the things that I found worth notice. - - Openoffice 2 - - Exim 4.63 (even thou anyone seriously into exim setups will tell you that 4.64 is MUCH MUCH better, due to the acl variable changes, which means I'll still be rolling my own packages) - - kernel 2.6.18 - - gnupg 1.4.5 - - bind 9.3 - - bluez 3.7 - - ghostscript 8 - - qt 4 is avaliable (qt4 package family) - - samba 2.0.23c (this is VERY important, specially due to an excel related fix. Today I have to roll my own packages) - - spamassassin 3.1 - - tetex 3 - - tomcat (version 5) - - wpa_supplicant - - xorg-x11 7.1 - - yum 3 Some things I'm still missing: - - Mutt is still 1.4 (I have rolled my own 1.5 packages for personal use) - - Firefox is still not version 2 - - openoffice is still not 2.2 Things that might give you some extra work (not bad, just somewhat different, but usually a good thing): - - gcc 4 - - glibc 2.5 - - apache 2.2.3 - - mysql 5 - - postgresql 8.1 - - php 5 There are other changes as well, of course, but these are the ones I think are worth noticing (at least for me). Of course, I have before me at least 3 weeks of testing and adapting procedures before I start using CentOS 5 in prodution around here, but the simple fact that I'll be able to stop rolling custom packages for most software is enough to make me happy. Specially samba (PITA). Best Regards, - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGBsBLpdyWzQ5b5ckRAvNyAJ9O7TK+qV8N1M+vhRIpxoJxiwGoNwCgkEUd hrj9Qw3BFv+L5WZ/PW2MoLk=PSte -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Preston Crawford wrote:> Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read > the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just > wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically > hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any > piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to > consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is > just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I > thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version > of Gnome. > > But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. > Anyone know?Not for those happy with what they've got. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Please do not reply off-list
One nice thing in new CentOS would be perhaps growisofs version 7, which is much better in my configuration (actually I took source RPM from Fedora Core 6 and recompiled on CentOS 4.4) - it has double buffering giving consistent recording speed and even supports setting recording speed for DVD+R(W), something not possible in version 6 of growisofs. Wojtek
> But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. > Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the > days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. > Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting > that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother > with it.If your server/s are running solid, there is zero reason to upgrade to a beta. Don't tamper with something that's working flawlessly. Only reason for me to upgrade is newer versions of Apache, PHP and MySQL. I could use some of the features in PHP5. But not right now. I'll wait six months for the suckers... err users, to iron out the distro bugs, then I might consider it.
Don't forget the major squid upgrade. ____________________________ John Moylan <john.moylan at rte.ie> RTE Publishing Tel: 00 353 1 2083564 | www.rte.ie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070326/a657db23/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- *********************************************************** The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that emails to, from and within RT? may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and may be liable to disclosure. ************************************************************
On 3/26/07, John Moylan <john at rte.ie> wrote:> > Don't forget the major squid upgrade.There's also the newer gnome/kde so it'll run more modern versions of software like gnucash 2.x. Then there's xen for virtualization, apache 2.2, mysql5, and php5 in the base os. Mostly it's got newer versions of almost everything. For some this will be a compelling reason, for others it won't. For them, centos4 will continue to be supported for a long time to come. Oops, I forgot the squid update. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
> Message: 60 > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:26:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Joe Pruett <joey at clean.q7.com> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Any compelling reasons to upgrade to 5 > To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703260725240.19356 at q7.q7.com> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > I typically buy a new drive, install the newer OS to that, and set up > > a vmware instance pointed at the raw disks with the old install on it, > > so I can boot up the old system at the same time as the new one if > > necessary. Often I get a newer/faster CPU at the same time, so the > > old system still works about as well as it ever did even under > > virtualization (sometimes it even gets faster). > > > > I'm looking forward to finding out whether Xen makes this possible in > > CentOS 5 without VMware. > > i think i read that rhel4u5 will have xen in it as well. i can't recall > where i saw it. might have been someone getting confused between u5 and > rhel5... > >I saw that too, it is quite specific, try: http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3663126 "In addition to the new virtualization feature, update five includes a long list of updated packages that fix bugs and security issues for RHEL 4. The final release of update 4.5 is expected sometime after March 21, 2007." If this was true I would have expected to see some Centos activity before now.