This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to share. I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu server. You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished? One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and setup as a god! Where do I begin? 1- you download the iso, burn a cd. But guess what? It is only a small boot setup (about 600mb). The install actually sets up your eth port and then SLOWLY downloads a base set of packages. Then when you are done with your drive set up, you get to pick a package. Then it downloads and installs, asking you a few questions as it does. Then it upgrades itself. About 40 minutes due to the downloads for me... 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not and will not use a basic vid driver install which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is really fun. 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the internet before you can even begin to secure it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too.. 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest OS's (presumably ubuntu). 5- booted up fine. 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it yet. This makes chkconfig and things like that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run, etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror. 7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however install things like virt-install or any other virt software. Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like virsh were installed. Sigh. 8- The firewall and network do not have the scripts folder. You have to build your own firewall file and add scripts to make it over ride the stock one via the eth you want to use it for....wtf? 9- here is the firewall, for a virtual host, that should not have anything but port 22 open as far as the initial install should (at least in my opinion).....Ubuntu starts with this.... (remember, ubuntu forces you to be online to install and this is how it protects your server) I was not blocked on a single port going from my desktop to my server via my router. ALL PORTS were accessible. This is out of the box. Shell 22 was open from all my computers. Not listed in the firewall as open. You can see it is quite different than the centos stock and I think ubuntu is a 'run away' install. There is no bridge set up in the network interface files either. There is no bridge set up. The firewall is looking at virbr0 but there is no such configuration I could find in the etc folder, anywhere. Very odd. # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [84:12492] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [9:626] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9:626] -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p tcp -j MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535 -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p udp -j MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535 -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [3701:295955] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [793:1276008] -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d 192.168.122.0/24 -o virbr0 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -s 192.168.122.0/24 -i virbr0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -o virbr0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -o virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable COMMIT # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat turns around. Maybe scientific linux. Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not cutting edge and very insecure. So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than ubuntu will ever be. I took a shot at paid support. You have to send them a contact mail. I did. After 3 days sent them another. 2 days later, no response from that one either. down to suse or back to centos. One good thing about ubuntu was the bug redhat has for the ati onboard video is not an issue making no errors on boot and no long hang time that centos was causing me.
Bob Hoffman wrote:> This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the > thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model. > Forgive the length, but I had to share. >Thank you, very much, for the details (not that I was planning on going to ubuntu...) Two things: <snip>> 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not > and will not use a basic vid driver install > which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is > really fun.What's wrong with text mode? I certainly prefer it. Oh, and those menus came along 2-3 years later.... <g> <snip>> 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND > ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and > still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it > yet. This makes chkconfig and things like > that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run, > etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and > read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.Yes. Just like the grub ubuntu uses, that is a bloody script, and a .d directory *full* of files, rather than the clean, simple menu with RHEL/CentOS. <snip> I don't want to have to read scripts to find out how to configure something, or make it do something. A README, at the very least, should have that (not "here's the license, go figure out everything else).>From what I've been reading on /., along with gnome 3 and "unity", thatwing of the F/OSS movement, presumably in an effort to go head-to-head with M$ and Apple, are going the same way they are: here's how you do it, don't try to do it any other way, and we'll make it *REALLY* hard to do it any other way. mark
Vreme: 11/10/2011 02:44 PM, Bob Hoffman pi?e:> In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat > turns around. Maybe scientific linux. > Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not > cutting edge and very insecure. > > So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than ubuntu > will ever be.Since 6.1 is close now, I do not expect delays longer then 6 months, and since CR repo exists most of the stuff will come to us much quicker. ElRepo's Mainline kernel (2.6.39-4.rc6.1.el6.elrepo) was completed yesterday, and should pose no problems with CentOS distro. That can, if no other option exists help you with kernel/video problems. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:> This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the > thought of moving from centos > due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to share. > > I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu server. > You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished? > One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and setup > as a god! > > Where do I begin? > > 1- you download the iso, burn a cd. But guess what? It is only a small > boot setup (about 600mb). > The install actually sets up your eth port and then SLOWLY downloads a > base set of packages. > Then when you are done with your drive set up, you get to pick a package. > Then it downloads and installs, asking you a few questions as it does. > Then it upgrades itself. > About 40 minutes due to the downloads for me...---- you can turn off networking or unplug the cable if you you only want a base install and don't want it to install the latest updates out of the box. ----> > 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not > and will not use a basic vid driver install > which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is > really fun.---- ubuntu server is basic (no x) - it's a small footprint install. Most people who do servers prefer this. As for setting up LVM's and such... it's pretty much the same as any RH... just looks different ----> 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the > internet before you can even begin to secure > it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you > see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too.---- again, you don't have to connect to the internet to install ----> 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest > OS's (presumably ubuntu). > > 5- booted up fine. > > 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND > ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and > still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it > yet. This makes chkconfig and things like > that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run, > etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and > read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.---- RHEL v6 (and CentOS 6) use upstart too... life has all sorts of curveballs ----> 7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however > install things like virt-install or any other virt software. > Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like virsh > were installed. Sigh. > > 8- The firewall and network do not have the scripts folder. You have to > build your own firewall file and add scripts > to make it over ride the stock one via the eth you want to use it > for....wtf?---- all sorts of packages for firewall management. apt-cache search firewall | wc -l 152 why be content with the minimal firewall tool when you actually can have a choice? ----> 9- here is the firewall, for a virtual host, that should not have > anything but port 22 open as far as the initial install > should (at least in my opinion).....Ubuntu starts with this.... > (remember, ubuntu forces you to be online to install and this is how it > protects your server)---- nothing like chaining lack of understanding to dramatize ----> I was not blocked on a single port going from my desktop to my server > via my router. ALL PORTS were accessible. > This is out of the box. Shell 22 was open from all my computers. Not > listed in the firewall as open. > You can see it is quite different than the centos stock and I think > ubuntu is a 'run away' install.---- sure - there's a difference but you're chaining again. ----> There is no bridge set up in the network interface files either. There > is no bridge set up. > The firewall is looking at virbr0 but there is no such configuration I > could find in the > etc folder, anywhere. > Very odd. > > # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 > *nat > :PREROUTING ACCEPT [84:12492] > :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [9:626] > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9:626] > -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p tcp -j > MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535 > -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p udp -j > MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535 > -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -j MASQUERADE > COMMIT > # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 > # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 > *filter > :INPUT ACCEPT [3701:295955] > :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [793:1276008] > -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT > -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT > -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT > -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT > -A FORWARD -d 192.168.122.0/24 -o virbr0 -m state --state > RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT > -A FORWARD -s 192.168.122.0/24 -i virbr0 -j ACCEPT > -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -o virbr0 -j ACCEPT > -A FORWARD -o virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable > -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable > COMMIT > # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011 > > > In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat > turns around. Maybe scientific linux. > Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not > cutting edge and very insecure. > > So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than ubuntu > will ever be.---- It's different - not better, not worse (save for the fact that with Ubuntu I have been able to get timely updates this year). Also, I much prefer their packaging of Apache & BIND9 to Red Hat's. I personally love their minimal installation CD, from the text based install to the minimal package install, etc. and think that their minimal approach is vastly superior to Red Hat (and all downstream packagers) installer that is slow and bloated. I can typically get a vm spun up with Ubuntu in about 5 mins and it takes much longer to install a CentOS vm. If your expectation was that you could take your limited knowledge base and apply it equally across all Linux distributions and expect it to behave as a Red Hat derived system, then all other distributions will disappoint you. Seriously Craig
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:33:38 AM Craig White wrote:> [Ubuntu is] different - not better, not worse (save for the fact that with Ubuntu I have been able to get timely updates this year). Also, I much prefer their packaging of Apache & BIND9 to Red Hat's.[snip]> If your expectation was that you could take your limited knowledge base and apply it equally across all Linux distributions and expect it to behave as a Red Hat derived system, then all other distributions will disappoint you.While this is not the CentOS-advocacy list, I do want to mention that if the tradeoff is between a secure (from a firewall and mandatory access control (MAC) standpoint) system and a system with more timely updates, I think I'd rather have the system that is more secure out of the box on the firewall side, SElinux (the upstream-preferred MAC solution) notwithstanding. Too much choice can be worse than sane defaults; and I say this after doing many installs of the following distributions of Linux, and some non-Linux *nix: SLS (go look it up) Red Hat Linux (pre-Enterprise) and derivatives, including Fedora, CentOS, SL, etc. SuSE Caldera OpenServer TurboLinux Gentoo Stage 1 (on Alpha, no less) Debian (multiple toys^H^H^H^Hversions (codename pun), multiple architectures) Ubuntu/Kubuntu of multiple versions, desktop and server, multiple architectures And some minor specialized distributions, including the free and the commercial versions of Smoothwall. OpenBSD, multiple architectures IRIX (6.5.x, Indigo2, O2, and Octane) Apollo DomainOS 10 Solaris 9 and 10 Tandy Xenix, both V7 based and System III, from 8 inch floppies on a Tandy 6000 AT&T/Convergent Unix System V Release 2 on 3B1 4.3BSD on a DEC PDP 11/23 (70MB MFM disk.....) Of the PC things, SLS was probably the most fun to do, but that's primarily because that was so long ago and even Windows 95 was available on floppies.... and it was just so cool to run a *nix on the 386SX box.... the coolness factor has definitely worn off. So I'm in somewhat of a position to comment on what I want and don't want from an install, be it text or GUI. Regardless of ease of install, I very much want/desire/need something that once the initial no-internet-connection install is complete the box comes up with things pretty well locked down by default. CentOS/SL/upstream EL does this, by default, and that is good, updates or no updates. Updates are no more of a panacea than firewalls are. If you doubt the speed at which a non-locked-down system can be exploited, take a 1990s vintage copy of, say, RHL 6.2, go ahead and pre-download the last set of updates for that distribution, do the install on a public IP with no firewall appliance in front of you, and see if you can get the updates installed before you're pwned. This is the world we live in, especially with advanced persistent threats gaining internal network access; firewalling, even on the inside, is no longer optional for a server install. The firewall of course is but one layer in the security of the system; MAC helps immensely, as do proactive NAC/IDS/IPS setups. As the theme song of the USA television series 'Monk' says, it's a jungle out there....
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:16:18 PM Craig White wrote:> I would generally agree with this (brevity is not your strongest trait)That would be correct. As Mark Twain once said, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." And I type (and read) relatively quickly.... But on-topic, hopefully, I would say that there are more similarities between CentOS and Debian Stable than between Ubuntu LTS and CentOS, primarily due to the way security and version upgrades are handled in terms of process, but that's my opinion because my use cases are better served by the CentOS way of doing things, at least for now. And I would add Scientific Linux to the comparison mix partially due to the difference from CentOS in the way SL handles security-only updates even for older point releases. To see a very clear example of SL's way of doing it, please look at the timestamps of the packages in: ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/50/x86_64/updates/security/ which is the security updates directory for SL 5.0. Yes, .0, not .7. There is no perfect Linux distribution, and there never can be, since there are so many differences in the ways users want to use their systems.
----- Original Message -----
| This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
| thought of moving from centos
| due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to
| share.
|
| I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu
| server.
| You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished?
| One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and
| setup
| as a god!
Let me start out by saying that I totally agree with you here. Ubiquity is a
really crappy installer! I've fought with it for many years. However, like
RHEL/CentOS you can use kickstart to install the machine. It's called
kickseed in Ubuntu/Debian and maps a subset of the Kickstart features to the
debian-installer equivalent.
| Where do I begin?
|
| 1- you download the iso, burn a cd. But guess what? It is only a small
| boot setup (about 600mb).
| The install actually sets up your eth port and then SLOWLY downloads a
| base set of packages.
This, like the RHEL/CentOS installer can be changed if you are using kickstart.
If you are are installing from CD it will install packages *that have not been
updated* from the CD. However, the installer does check security.ubuntu.com and
downloads updates during installation for those packages. This would be the
equivalent to including the updates and CR repos during a kickstart.
| Then when you are done with your drive set up, you get to pick a
| package.
| Then it downloads and installs, asking you a few questions as it does.
| Then it upgrades itself.
| About 40 minutes due to the downloads for me...
See above statement. If you are kickstarting, it's no big deal.
| 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does
| not
| and will not use a basic vid driver install
| which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is
| really fun.
Then you downloaded the alternative, netboot or server installer. The desktop
installer is fully graphical, however, is lacking many features such as LVM and
RAID support selections. This is *entirely* different than Anaconda which
actually works the same whether using the text, VNC or standard graphical
install.
| 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the
| internet before you can even begin to secure
| it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til
| you
| see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too..
And during installation of RHEL/CentOS how to do secure the box before
installing? How about applying updates before putting it in production?
Let's be fair here.
| 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest
| OS's (presumably ubuntu).
Would be covered by a kickstart and a virtual host package is the equivalent to
the package group in RH speak
| 5- booted up fine.
|
| 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND
| ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and
| still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on
| it
| yet. This makes chkconfig and things like
| that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run,
| etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and
| read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.
You are arguing that something is misunderstood by you and thereby horrific. As
a person who manages several UNIX & UNIX-like operating systems, I would
agree that it is "horrific" to have to understand the differences
about how to enable / disable services on each platform.
| 7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however
| install things like virt-install or any other virt software.
| Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like
| virsh
| were installed. Sigh.
That is correct, those packages are provided as "extra" tools. They
are not needed for virtualization to work.
|
| 8- The firewall and network do not have the scripts folder. You have
| to
| build your own firewall file and add scripts
| to make it over ride the stock one via the eth you want to use it
| for....wtf?
Is it that you don't understand where they are or that it's just not
possible? There's a difference. Yeah, on RH there is an
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts. On Debian/Ubuntu there is a
/etc/network/interfaces file that controls all. What's wrong with that.
Personally, I can think of lots of things, but it's my opinion. I'm
trying to show that you are making assumptions about how this "should"
be compared to how things are before learning the "why" things are the
way they are.
| 9- here is the firewall, for a virtual host, that should not have
| anything but port 22 open as far as the initial install
| should (at least in my opinion).....Ubuntu starts with this....
| (remember, ubuntu forces you to be online to install and this is how
| it
| protects your server)
|
| I was not blocked on a single port going from my desktop to my server
| via my router. ALL PORTS were accessible.
| This is out of the box. Shell 22 was open from all my computers. Not
| listed in the firewall as open.
| You can see it is quite different than the centos stock and I think
| ubuntu is a 'run away' install.
It is? SSH is open in all stock installs.
| There is no bridge set up in the network interface files either. There
| is no bridge set up.
Yes, but you installed the virtualization package group which set this up for
you. The fact that it isn't there is irrelevant. If you added it you would
be protected.
| The firewall is looking at virbr0 but there is no such configuration I
| could find in the
| etc folder, anywhere.
| Very odd.
|
| # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
| *nat
| :PREROUTING ACCEPT [84:12492]
| :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [9:626]
| :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9:626]
| -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p tcp -j
| MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535
| -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -p udp -j
| MASQUERADE --to-ports 1024-65535
| -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.122.0/24 ! -d 192.168.122.0/24 -j MASQUERADE
| COMMIT
| # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
| # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
| *filter
| :INPUT ACCEPT [3701:295955]
| :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
| :OUTPUT ACCEPT [793:1276008]
| -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
| -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
| -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
| -A INPUT -i virbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
| -A FORWARD -d 192.168.122.0/24 -o virbr0 -m state --state
| RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
| -A FORWARD -s 192.168.122.0/24 -i virbr0 -j ACCEPT
| -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -o virbr0 -j ACCEPT
| -A FORWARD -o virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
| -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
| COMMIT
| # Completed on Mon Nov 7 23:35:47 2011
|
|
| In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat
| turns around. Maybe scientific linux.
| Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is
| not
| cutting edge and very insecure.
|
| So maybe centos, even if a year or two behind, is way better than
| ubuntu
| will ever be.
|
|
| I took a shot at paid support.
| You have to send them a contact mail. I did.
| After 3 days sent them another.
| 2 days later, no response from that one either.
|
| down to suse or back to centos.
|
| One good thing about ubuntu was the bug redhat has for the ati onboard
| video is not an issue making
| no errors on boot and no long hang time that centos was causing me.
I can't believe that I have defended Ubuntu so much in this E-Mail. I
don't even like Ubuntu! I used it for years, but only as a personal desktop
and from that perspective it was a *really* nice platform to work with. It made
installing proprietary drivers and codecs a snap (thereby signing off all my
freedoms ;) ), but if you need to deviate from the "Ubuntu way" or do
*anything* that is remotely complex Ubuntu falls over dead and this is why I
moved away from it.
There was some talk about porting Anaconda to Ubuntu to replace Ubiquity.
I'd welcome that and maybe even start to use it in our department, but there
are still *way* too many "broken" things that stop me from rolling it
out. One of those things just happens to be the insatiable need to just rip out
core parts of the system willy-nilly to get the lasted "cool kid"
code.
--
James A. Peltier
IT Services - Research Computing Group
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone : 778-782-6573
Fax : 778-782-3045
E-Mail : jpeltier at sfu.ca
Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices
http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
I will do the best I can with the talent I have
Hi, Sorry about the top-posting, I'm replying from my blackberry. I've been following this thread for a while and really don't see why people respond so rabidly to criticism. If something bothers/bores me about a thread I just Ignore the thread/user. If no one is interested the thread dies out on its own. However, let if someone has something to say let them. The people who reply/comment *want* to talk about it. No one forces anyone to *read* the thread. Just ignore it. It's that simple. Going as far as threatening to ban a user for commenting negatively or positively or. even "off-topic" (this is relative, e.g., I found the discussion on the strengths & weaknesses of ubuntu/centos/redhat el interesting & in some cases informative as the various issues were debated). I would think that there's nothing wrong with allowing people the freedom to discuss centos-related stuff on the centos list. As I mentioned earlier it's as simple as ignoring a thread if don't like it. There's no need to flame, ban or go on a rant just because someone says something you don't like about your favourite OS has been attacked. For the record I *like* centos & am in the process of replacing some of my fedora & ubuntu server installations *with* centos. Phil ------- The code that is hardest to debug is the code that you know cannot possibly be wrong -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:16:28 To: <centos at centos.org> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu On 11/11/2011 08:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison <jrd at gerdesas.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain P?an wrote: >> >> Seriously.? This is _not_ the list for this.? Readers should not have to >> wade through the morass of this thread or even spend the second or so >> required to thread kill it.? It's off-topic.? This is not an advocacy >> list to debate merits of one distro over another.? If you like Ubuntu, >> fine - we don't need to know about it.? If you don't like CentOS, fine, >> this list, however, isn't the venue to rattle on about it. > > This thread and others like it are not about people not 'liking' > CentOS all of a sudden and everyone know that.? It is about what the > people who expected a reasonably current CentOS to be available may be > forced to use instead. > >> If you are unhappy with CentOS then you need to think that perhaps you >> should be using something else.? And if you _are_ using something else >> why bother taking up my time and that of the thousands of other list >> members complaining about CentOS or expressing your various displeasures >> here? > > We are pretty much all in the same boat here.? If someone can > authoritatively say that CentOS will never be more than a few weeks > (even months, whatever...) behind upstream, then such discussion will > end of its own accord.? Otherwise everyone needs a plan B. What is older than that now if you look at 6.x CR?? The only thing lagging right now is the building of new install media.? But if you install 6.0 and use CR, you are in good shape.? There are even updates in there that are newer than 6.1 (it also contains the updates TO 6.1). I can never say how long it will take to build something that we have not built yet ... if we have to redesign a system from scratch, it will take time.? You are correct, if CentOS does not work for you then move on.? Move on to a new OS and move on to a new list. > >> So I ask you, and all the others, to _please_ consider that the _vast_ >> majority of active readers of this list don't care one way or another >> about opinions of CentOS vs Ubuntu or hearing, yet again, about your >> displeasure with whatever is irritating you today about CentOS. > > Sorry, but I don't believe that there is any such vast majority that > isn't concerned about the situation. This list is for the community to use to get and provide support for CentOS ... not for constant bellyaching and non stop whining.? This list has become non usable because of the trash that it has become. Starting today, I will be banning people from posting on this list.
Hi, Sorry about the top-posting, I'm replying from my blackberry. I've been following this thread for a while and really don't see why people respond so rabidly to criticism. If something bothers/bores me about a thread I just Ignore the thread/user. If no one is interested the thread dies out on its own. However, let if someone has something to say let them. The people who reply/comment *want* to talk about it. No one forces anyone to *read* the thread. Just ignore it. It's that simple. Going as far as threatening to ban a user for commenting negatively or positively or. even "off-topic" (this is relative, e.g., I found the discussion on the strengths & weaknesses of ubuntu/centos/redhat el interesting & in some cases informative as the various issues were debated). I would think that there's nothing wrong with allowing people the freedom to discuss centos-related stuff on the centos list. As I mentioned earlier it's as simple as ignoring a thread if don't like it. There's no need to flame, ban or go on a rant just because someone says something you don't like about your favourite OS has been attacked. For the record I *like* centos & am in the process of replacing some of my fedora & ubuntu server installations *with* centos. Phil ------- The code that is hardest to debug is the code that you know cannot possibly be wrong -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:16:28 To: <centos at centos.org> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu On 11/11/2011 08:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison <jrd at gerdesas.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain P?an wrote: >> >> Seriously.? This is _not_ the list for this.? Readers should not have to >> wade through the morass of this thread or even spend the second or so >> required to thread kill it.? It's off-topic.? This is not an advocacy >> list to debate merits of one distro over another.? If you like Ubuntu, >> fine - we don't need to know about it.? If you don't like CentOS, fine, >> this list, however, isn't the venue to rattle on about it. > > This thread and others like it are not about people not 'liking' > CentOS all of a sudden and everyone know that.? It is about what the > people who expected a reasonably current CentOS to be available may be > forced to use instead. > >> If you are unhappy with CentOS then you need to think that perhaps you >> should be using something else.? And if you _are_ using something else >> why bother taking up my time and that of the thousands of other list >> members complaining about CentOS or expressing your various displeasures >> here? > > We are pretty much all in the same boat here.? If someone can > authoritatively say that CentOS will never be more than a few weeks > (even months, whatever...) behind upstream, then such discussion will > end of its own accord.? Otherwise everyone needs a plan B. What is older than that now if you look at 6.x CR?? The only thing lagging right now is the building of new install media.? But if you install 6.0 and use CR, you are in good shape.? There are even updates in there that are newer than 6.1 (it also contains the updates TO 6.1). I can never say how long it will take to build something that we have not built yet ... if we have to redesign a system from scratch, it will take time.? You are correct, if CentOS does not work for you then move on.? Move on to a new OS and move on to a new list. > >> So I ask you, and all the others, to _please_ consider that the _vast_ >> majority of active readers of this list don't care one way or another >> about opinions of CentOS vs Ubuntu or hearing, yet again, about your >> displeasure with whatever is irritating you today about CentOS. > > Sorry, but I don't believe that there is any such vast majority that > isn't concerned about the situation. This list is for the community to use to get and provide support for CentOS ... not for constant bellyaching and non stop whining.? This list has become non usable because of the trash that it has become. Starting today, I will be banning people from posting on this list.
On 11/10/2011 05:44 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:> I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu server. > You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished? > One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and setup > as a god! >I'm assuming your refering to ubuntu 10.04 LTS. Like every distribution it's got it's quirks. I routinely use both CentOS/Redhat and Ubuntu for different purposes. Both distributions have things that I like and things that I don't like so much. If you've been running Ubuntu or other debian based distribution, you could install CentOS/Redhat and spend quite a bit of time becoming familiar with Redhat. My responses in this message are NOT meant to be an attack on redhat CentOS, but simply to share some of my experiences with Ubuntu.> Where do I begin? > > 1- you download the iso, burn a cd. But guess what? It is only a small > boot setup (about 600mb). > The install actually sets up your eth port and then SLOWLY downloads a > base set of packages. > Then when you are done with your drive set up, you get to pick a package. > Then it downloads and installs, asking you a few questions as it does. > Then it upgrades itself. > About 40 minutes due to the downloads for me...The package management tools in Ubuntu/Debian are small and fast. I've come to like them, though I fought with them at first. I like their handling of dependencies. The package repositories for Ubuntu/Debian are huge. I've rarely had to go outside of the Ubuntu repositories looking for software that I needed to run. I've spent much more time compiling software and messing with outside repositories for CentOS. My understanding is that Linux in general is moving towards a common package management and package format that will be shared by most linux distributions.> 2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not > and will not use a basic vid driver install > which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is > really fun.I believe the standard desktop uses Ubuntu's own installer. The Ubuntu server and the 'alternative' distribution use the debian installer. I fought with it at first, but it is much more flexible than the redhat installer. You can build arbitrary LVM/raid configurations with it and you can also go into the shell from the installer and customize things that you can't with the redhat installer.> 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the > internet before you can even begin to secure > it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you > see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too..I've not experienced any distribution to provide a great default firewall setup. What I do notice about Ubuntu server is there are very few services running in the default install, so if you probe a newly installed machine, it's not very vulnerable. I usually run new installs behind my Internet firewall anyway. I like doing a basic install and then adding the services that I want to enable, rather then a server install that comes up with dozens of services that you may not need and you have to turn them all off to secure the machine.> 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest > OS's (presumably ubuntu).I do like CentOS/Redhat 6 better as a virtualization server. Thing to realize here is that Redhat is leading the development effort for KVM, libvirt etc, so Ubuntu's code lags behind redhat. For the current stable Ubuntu 10.04 LTS release Ubuntu lags behind redhat 6 and since 10.04 LTS is a stable release it doesn't just get arbitrary updates unless they are security fixes. One thing I like about Ubuntu/debian is the /etc/network/interfaces file over /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts /etc/sysconfig/network.> 5- booted up fine. > > 6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND > ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and > still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it > yet. This makes chkconfig and things like > that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run, > etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and > read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.Redhat 6 uses a similar hybrid mess between the old startup format and upstart. Like many things in Linux, finding good documentation is not always easy, but it can be found. It takes a bit of time to master upstart, but it does let you create dependancies in the startup process which is nicer than having to add sleep commands and doing other things to muck with daemons that have dependancy on other services. Upstart is going to be replaced in future Redhat releases. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~upstart-documenters/upstart-cookbook/trunk/revision/30 <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Eupstart-documenters/upstart-cookbook/trunk/revision/30> I do find apparmor a whole lot easier to master than selinux.> 7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however > install things like virt-install or any other virt software. > Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like virsh > were installed. Sigh.apt-get install virtinst> 8- The firewall and network do not have the scripts folder. You have to > build your own firewall file and add scripts > to make it over ride the stock one via the eth you want to use it > for....wtf?Just another flavor of linux. There are various packages that can be installed to do this for you. ufw is one of them. I prefer to use my own scripts though.> I took a shot at paid support. > You have to send them a contact mail. I did. > After 3 days sent them another. > 2 days later, no response from that one either. >That I'm sorry to hear. I've never tried their paid support. They are pretty quick at providing security updates though. Nataraj
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:51:42 AM Craig White wrote:> On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 09:25 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > > ... there is a learning curve to get > > proficient at doing Debian/Ubuntu. > ---- > ... There's only what you know, how you > can adapt what you know and how well you can make it work for you and > how much time you are willing to give to learning something new.If I may expound a tad, and I will endeavor to keep this brief, it goes one step farther than this. It becomes a balance of "how much time and effort will it take to adapt what you know to your task?" against "how steep is the learning curve for something you aren't proficient in, but is already known to do your desired task?" And sometimes, if not most of the time, it's a three-way balance with "what is the cost, monetary or otherwise, to get someone else to do it?" As an example, I have four relatively nice SGI Altix IA64 systems here. I would prefer to run CentOS on them, since I can't afford RHEL for them, nor is RHEL 6 available for them. I have the knowledge to rebuild EL6 on the boxes, but I honestly don't have the time to work through all the details, even though the geek packager in me desperately wants to try. The latest Debian Stable works quite well on the boxen, but my knowledge of Debian is somewhat limited. So, I have a three-way balance between: 1.) Pay the cost of RHEL, with the knowledge that RHEL 5 is the last for IA64; 2.) Maintain my own private or semiprivate rebuild for IA64 of EL 6; 3.) Install Debian and get the boxen doing something (and potentially generating revenue), and climb yet another learning curve. I chose 3 at the moment. It was not an easy choice.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Bob Hoffman <bob at bobhoffman.com> wrote:> This is ?a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the > thought of moving from centos > due to redhats new business model.Can someone fill me in on this new business model? Is there a thread here on the list about it already? -- ?Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV? ? ? ? ?? - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"