"Enterprise" Linux?

[Carpetsmoker]

So CentOS "Enterprise" Linux has been released:

Upgrading from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5:

We recommend everyone run through a reinstall rather than attempt an
inplace upgrade from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5

The text installer has limited capabilities compared to the GUI installer. Most notably there is no support for configuring partition layout, storage methods or package selection.

The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt succesfully on DVD-R.

So how exactly am I to upgrade my CentOS 5.6 VPS? With no GUI access? An upgrade is apparently not supported and I don't have a GUI so I can't do a decent reinstall. And ff I'd have physical access I'd need to search for a rare DVD-R which almost no one uses anymore ...

If this is Enterprise class quality then I'd rather be using something else ....

hmpf.

</rant>

[vermaden]

Have You tried Scientific Linux?

The also create free RHEL rebuild and they provided 6.0 rebuild far earlier then the CentOS team.

[drhowarddrfine]

That's what you get for using Linux.

[Carpetsmoker]

To be clear, I didn't choose CentOS, and it's not something I can change. It's something I live with. I regularly get surprises like this, and in general the whole thing just stinks of amateurism.

This has been the most stupendously stupid surprise so far though.

Oh, and for the record, the manual doesn't even list any upgrade instructions. Because there is no manual for CentOS 6. The latest manual is for 5.5 (5.6 being released for quite some time already).

[vermaden]

Not so long ago we needed to create RHEL (not CentOS) cluster for the SAP/Oracle DB tandem, the documentation is indeed very poor and very lightly informative, the recommended way for creating the cluster config (/etc/cluster/cluster.conf) is ... a graphical wizard (system-cluster-config).

... and what is even more funny, when You create the fencing part of the config with system-cluster-config, then close the wizard and start it again ... it yels about inproper config and quits

We needed to use ssh -X for that ocnfiguration many times, cause its either system-cluster-config (X11) or vi /etc/cluster/cluster.conf (which we prefer of course).

The configuration about clustered LVM was also very blurry and we managed to achieve what we needed mostly by try to change that and that and check if it works as advertised.

The support is also very doubtful if it comes to more advanced problems as clustering or using storage arrays with multipathing.

We ended many times using the HP-UX documentation (or any other UNIX) on, for example, clustered HA-NFS instance (yes SAP requires NFS exported filesystems .. of local filesystems, but thats another story).

[drhowarddrfine]

Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker

To be clear, I didn't choose CentOS, and it's not something I can change. It's something I live with.

Yeah, I know. I forgot my smiley face.

I regularly get surprises like this, and in general the whole thing just stinks of amateurism.

Not to go off on Linux, or off-topic either, but I've been sensing a lot of that for a couple of years.

[Oko]

Well what is the alternative? Most commercial vendors support only Windows and Linux. Even Solaris is practically dead. If the application is not running on BSDs or if it is too painful to get it work I see no other way but to suck up and just try to make living.

[Carpetsmoker]

The way things are going I think I may actually prefer Windows. At least Windows can be upgraded. Microsoft OS's can be upgraded since MS-DOS 5.

[CyberJet]

Thanks for the heads up!

[shep]

When you speak of documentation are you referring to Centos or RHEL documentation?

Redhat Documentation

Redhat provides the source in the form of srpm's (source rpm). The Centos group removes the Redhat specific branding, logos etc and builds from the srpms. The subsequent Centos release is essentially a Redhat clone and the Redhat documentation should almost be spot on.

[Carpetsmoker]

Hmm, Ok ... So, ehm, what exactly is the point of CentOS ... ? And why does it take them 8+ months to replace a few images and recompile?

[shep]

Carpetsmoker

It is a complex answer.

Basically, Centos is Free for the download. Redhat does not provide binary images and basically justifies the purchase of RHEL with a bundled-in support contract. Since Redhat uses GNU Licensed code they honor the GPL by supplying the source code. At least most of the support code - some of the code required for the builds was left out this time.

More than you probably want to read about the delay here:
Centos Forum

[rocket357]

Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker

why does it take them 8+ months to replace a few images and recompile?

Maybe they should finally retire the 486 build server and shell out the cash for a replacement? =)

All joking aside, 8 months does seem excessively long. I wouldn't put it past RedHat to do as shep said (I've not looked into it to be honest)...

[shep]

A little more infomation about Redhat
Redhat has a very competitive software model. They basically develop their software through the entirely open Fedora project which they support along with H-P, IBM etc. They also provide salaries/grants for key developers such as Linus Torvald, Open Source Lab etc. After the code has been throughly tested it is pulled into RHEL.

Lately, Oracle has started selling support contracts for RHEL and is also releasing a RHEL clone without anywhere near the support for the Fedora community that RedHat invested. The code Redhat withheld is only for the builds - it is not released on the installation media. Although this limits competition from Oracle it had adverse effects on Centos.

There are also other RHEL clones: Scientific Linux and ClearOS which were able to release their clones sooner. Centos claims to have done a much more detailed code review and to be as compatible as possible with The Upstream Vendors (TUV) product.

[Oko]

Originally Posted by shep

There are also other RHEL clones: Scientific Linux and ClearOS which were able to release their clones sooner. Centos claims to have done a much more detailed code review and to be as compatible as possible with The Upstream Vendors (TUS) product.

CentOS people are full of crap. First of there are far more clones of RedHat.
With all due respect I would bet that CentOS is the worst clone of RedHat. I was using Scientific Linux. It is a work of two developers but that is their day job. They work full time in Fermi labs on it. Currently, I am testing PUIAS Linux which stands for Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study Linux

http://puias.math.ias.edu/

How about Rocks Cluster

http://www.rocksclusters.org/wordpress/

or Bull Linux

http://support.bull.com/ols/product/system/linux/bas

Arguably some of the above are focused on scientific computing but
for the Carpetsmoker the most interesting will be StartCom Linux (Israel's server specialized distribution)

http://www.startcom.org/


Unlike CentOS all other derivatives are work of people whose day job is to work on those distributions.

[shep]

Oko:

I think you hit it on the head

Unlike CentOS all other derivatives are work of people whose day job is to work on those distributions.

The Centos developers donate their time. The build servers, repositories and the security updates are all volunteered.

With all due respect I would bet that CentOS is the worst clone of RedHat.

I can't speak to which clone is best but previous versions of centos were widely used. I run a small web site for a local club. We pay $3:30US/month and it runs on Centos.

Arguably some of the above are focused on scientific computing but
for the Carpetsmoker the most interesting will be StartCom Linux (Israel's server specialized distribution)

ClearOS was originally a RHEL derived server but recently expanded to provide desktops - most of their background is in servers
ClearOS/ClearFoundation

[TerryP]

Well, I find it a rather massive change but I'm not surprised. Especially when it's still principally RHEL material involved, I aim not to shoot the (re)packager.


For some reason Vermaden and CS's remarks about the GUI stuff doesn't surprise me either. Why? Hmm, I remember a recent incident in my real world: developers used to working with Linux shells and a system admin more Microsoft's tools than bash; he asked us where the shell (GUI) was :-).

[drhowarddrfine]

Originally Posted by shep

I run a small web site for a local club. We pay $3:30US/month and it runs on Centos.

HostGator runs CentOS.

[fossala]

I think Redhat is pretty crap. If any of you have used it, you probably agree with me that the documentation doesn't match the software and the software can quiet often be broken. In my short time with it the package manager broke (unmet dependencies in there official repos) and their "support" couldn't help me at all. I think people use Redhat not because it's the best UNIX or even the best Linux, It's because it's enterprise and the have someone to sue.

EDIT: This was my experience with the 6.x seriese.

[rocket357]

Originally Posted by fossala

the documentation doesn't match the software and the software can quiet often be broken. In my short time with it the package manager broke (unmet dependencies in there official repos)

The last time I used RedHat Linux was around 2002. Good to know things haven't changed much in the past 9 years heh.