Hello,
I would like to deploy centos on hundreds of client PC (a new setup). Presently, several distros has attract me due to their focus on the desktop, however they only have few months lifetime before a new version released.
Is it advisable using centos on client? what about support for new hardware and several office productivity software like openoffice, did centos always update to the latest version?
Previously i was using RH9 on several hundreds clients and love it, however the update was horrible since it is unsupported, hence I can not install it on the new hardware (ie. sata)
thanks.
--beast
beast wrote:
Hello,
I would like to deploy centos on hundreds of client PC (a new setup). Presently, several distros has attract me due to their focus on the desktop, however they only have few months lifetime before a new version released.
Is it advisable using centos on client? what about support for new hardware and several office productivity software like openoffice, did centos always update to the latest version?
No. Centos follows RHEL. So whatever RHEL gets is what Centos gets. Unless you use the Centos Plus repository of course in which case the latest productivity software is quite likely.
Previously i was using RH9 on several hundreds clients and love it, however the update was horrible since it is unsupported, hence I can not install it on the new hardware (ie. sata)
If you managed with Redhat 9, you should with Centos 4/5....
I would like to deploy centos on hundreds of client PC (a new setup). Presently, several distros has attract me due to their focus on the desktop, however they only have few months lifetime before a new version released.
Is it advisable using centos on client? what about support for new hardware and several office productivity software like openoffice, did centos always update to the latest version?
Previously i was using RH9 on several hundreds clients and love it, however the update was horrible since it is unsupported, hence I can not install it on the new hardware (ie. sata)
I have used CentOS 4 as a desktop OS since the day it was released. I have never had any problems with it. In fact, my parents use it as well, with minimal help from me. CentOS rebuilds source RPMS from RH. RH has a 7 year support cycle. Thus, a CentOS release will be supported for the same period of time. CentOS also has a CentOS plus repository that contains some newer releases of particular software that is not included in RHEL.
You may be interested in using cobbler and koan http://cobbler.et.redhat.com to help manage the build .. or rebuild of your lab.
HTH, Barry
I'm running CentOS on my server and I don't feel it makes a great desktop since several of the major applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) lag behind since it follows RHEL. I prefer to use something more dynamic and current on the desktop.
Thanks, Scott
On 7/24/07, beast beast@ldap.or.id wrote:
Hello,
I would like to deploy centos on hundreds of client PC (a new setup). Presently, several distros has attract me due to their focus on the desktop, however they only have few months lifetime before a new version released.
Is it advisable using centos on client? what about support for new hardware and several office productivity software like openoffice, did centos always update to the latest version?
Previously i was using RH9 on several hundreds clients and love it, however the update was horrible since it is unsupported, hence I can not install it on the new hardware (ie. sata)
thanks.
--beast
Scott Moseman wrote:
I'm running CentOS on my server and I don't feel it makes a great desktop since several of the major applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) lag behind since it follows RHEL. I prefer to use something more dynamic and current on the desktop.
Would you say the same if you had to herd several hundred desktops? I really do see CentOS (especially 5) as a viable alternative there.
Cheers,
Ralph
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:47:17 +0200, Ralph wrote:
Scott Moseman wrote:
I'm running CentOS on my server and I don't feel it makes a great desktop since several of the major applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) lag behind since it follows RHEL. I prefer to use something more dynamic and current on the desktop.
Would you say the same if you had to herd several hundred desktops? I really do see CentOS (especially 5) as a viable alternative there.
I agree. I don't like CentOS on the desktop, but if I had to manage several hundred workstations, CentOS' 5-year update cycle would make it a hands-down winner.
Miark
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Scott Moseman wrote:
I'm running CentOS on my server and I don't feel it makes a great desktop since several of the major applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) lag behind since it follows RHEL. I prefer to use something more dynamic and current on the desktop.
Would you say the same if you had to herd several hundred desktops? I really do see CentOS (especially 5) as a viable alternative there.
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
Best,
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date, perhaps in an alternative repo. And for supporting a large deployment, they need to be a repo, building/installing manually just isn't an option.
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date,
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
/Peter
perhaps in an alternative repo. And for supporting a large deployment, they need to be a repo, building/installing manually just isn't an option.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:27:10 +0200 Peter Kjellstrom cap@nsc.liu.se wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date,
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
/Peter
You are assuming of course that these end users are NOT Windows users. I tried Cent as an alt-desktop for our users. It lacks big time what the end user needs without the IT department getting involved and installing for the end user.
IMHO, what Cent ought to do - is some how get hand on the RHEL Desktop and see what's done there and work along those lines.
Chris wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:27:10 +0200 Peter Kjellstrom cap@nsc.liu.se wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date,
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
/Peter
You are assuming of course that these end users are NOT Windows users. I tried Cent as an alt-desktop for our users. It lacks big time what the end user needs without the IT department getting involved and installing for the end user.
IMHO, what Cent ought to do - is some how get hand on the RHEL Desktop and see what's done there and work along those lines.
UMMMM .... In versions of RHEL that are <= 4 ... RHEL Desktop is a watered down version of RHEL.
CentOS contains all packages that are RHEL proper ... which contains all packages in RHEL Desktop.
=====
In RHEL 5 ... the Client/Workstation version does contain some packages that are not in the server version ===HOWEVER=== CentOS contains all the packages that are in BOTH versions.
Therefore, CentOS does contain all the packages that are in RHEL Desktop.
The only exceptions are packages that are not redistributable .. and those do not come on RHEL CDs, but are only available via RHN ... things like Java, FlashPlayer, etc.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kjellstrom Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:27 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos as a desktop, advisable?
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few
extras that I'd
want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date,
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
Are you saying that you predict users will not need any new compatibility or functionality in their primary desktop office suite for the next 5 years?
I don't think so...
I think the previous poster has the ticket here.
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On 25/07/07 10:38 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
Are you saying that you predict users will not need any new compatibility or functionality in their primary desktop office suite for the next 5 years?
I don't think so...
I think the previous poster has the ticket here.
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
I'm confused here. Suppose in the next 3 year the latest OO version is 3.1.1, today OO in Centos5 is 2.0.4, will it get updated to version 3.x or still using 2.x? or better just upgrade to Centos7 which has OOv3.1?
Learning from my mistake with RH9, its very dificult to get the latest software, even build from source since the dependencies is too much (gcc/lib etc.) I have around 400 RH9 clients and its really a nightmare :(
Thanks.
--beast
beast wrote:
On 25/07/07 10:38 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
They are kept functional and secure. I think that is enough in many cases.
If someone really needs a special app they can always compile it and/or install it in their $HOME.
Are you saying that you predict users will not need any new compatibility or functionality in their primary desktop office suite for the next 5 years?
I don't think so...
I think the previous poster has the ticket here.
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
I'm confused here. Suppose in the next 3 year the latest OO version is 3.1.1, today OO in Centos5 is 2.0.4, will it get updated to version 3.x or still using 2.x? or better just upgrade to Centos7 which has OOv3.1?
Really entirely up to you.
Learning from my mistake with RH9, its very dificult to get the latest software, even build from source since the dependencies is too much (gcc/lib etc.) I have around 400 RH9 clients and its really a nightmare :(
The problem is that you cannot use third-party repos in Redhat 9 (IIRC) besides the problem of Redhat 9 being really old. With Centos/Ubuntu/Debian you get to have the base with certain packages overriden in your own repo which makes a bit more flexible than having to build and manually install tens or hundreds of your own packages. Of course, you might consider using images of the base OS for your 400 workstations instead of relying on yum to manage those desktops.
On 26/07/07 11:21 +0700, beast wrote:
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
I'm confused here. Suppose in the next 3 year the latest OO version is 3.1.1, today OO in Centos5 is 2.0.4, will it get updated to version 3.x or still using 2.x?
It seems not. Updates directory in Centos 3 still contains OOv1.1.2 only. So, what is the meaning of "supported for 5 years"? is it only for bug and security fixes, not features or enhancements?
Suppose in the next year, standard interface for harddisk is WATA (wireless ATA :), will it be added in Centos5?
Sorry for asking such questions, i just reaaly want to know here :)
or better just upgrade to Centos7 which has OOv3.1?
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Thanks!
--beast
beast wrote:
It seems not. Updates directory in Centos 3 still contains OOv1.1.2 only. So, what is the meaning of "supported for 5 years"? is it only for bug and security fixes, not features or enhancements?
Correct. And it is 7 years. Also there are some slight feature enhancements during the first of those years. See the addition of Xen (DomU support) in CentOS 4.5. Or openoffice2 in CentOS 4.5.
Suppose in the next year, standard interface for harddisk is WATA (wireless ATA :), will it be added in Centos5?
Yes, probably. Maybe even in CentOS 4 - but you won't see it in CentOS 3.
Sorry for asking such questions, i just reaaly want to know here :)
CentOS is an "enterprise level linux distribution". We chose stability over newer versions.
An example: The httpd version in CentOS 4.0 was 2.0.52-9.ent.centos-4 - now in 4.5 it is 2.0.52-32.3.ent. The version is still the same (after more than two years), but several patches have flown into the package. Most of those were security fixes.
This is to guarantee that Application Binary Interfaces (ABI) and Application Programming Interfaces (API) never change during the life cycle of a release - when your program works on CentOS 4.0, it will *still* work on CentOS 4.12 (if that ever comes out). This is the only way to guarantee updates without any surprises new versions might give you.
Did that help?
Cheers,
Ralph
beast wrote:
On 26/07/07 11:21 +0700, beast wrote:
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
I'm confused here. Suppose in the next 3 year the latest OO version is 3.1.1, today OO in Centos5 is 2.0.4, will it get updated to version 3.x or still using 2.x?
It seems not. Updates directory in Centos 3 still contains OOv1.1.2 only. So, what is the meaning of "supported for 5 years"? is it only for bug and security fixes, not features or enhancements?
Sometimes you get enhancements and features.
Suppose in the next year, standard interface for harddisk is WATA (wireless ATA :), will it be added in Centos5?
The RHEL4 kernel did get a libata update.
Sorry for asking such questions, i just reaaly want to know here :)
or better just upgrade to Centos7 which has OOv3.1?
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
You really want apt and deb based distros like ubuntu if you want to go this route.
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Use images then if all your 400 workstations are identical.
On 26/07/07 17:57 +0800, Feizhou wrote:
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
You really want apt and deb based distros like ubuntu if you want to go this route.
Are you saying that upgrading Centos is not advisable/reliable path and Ubuntu is better in this area?
(pls, im not trying to start flame, pardon my ignorance :)
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Use images then if all your 400 workstations are identical.
Yes, previously I just clone the HD, but thats ok only for new install, not preserving the data/user settings.
I'm willing to go to every clients at first install if needed, but not every year or so for maintenance. I need setup and forget setup :-p
Thanks!
--beast
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, beast wrote:
On 26/07/07 17:57 +0800, Feizhou wrote:
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
You really want apt and deb based distros like ubuntu if you want to go this route.
Are you saying that upgrading Centos is not advisable/reliable path and Ubuntu is better in this area?
(pls, im not trying to start flame, pardon my ignorance :)
Either you choose a stable operating system, like CentOS, RHEL or Ubuntu LTS.
Or you choose a current distribution that updates every X months, like Fedora, Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.
The first will offer you security updates without the need to upgrade the OS or applications for X years. You have the ability to go to a newer stable release roughly every 2 years.
For CentOS/RHEL: X = 7, for Ubuntu LTS: X = 5 (with the note that Ubuntu LTS has not proven that it can keep up with supporting older releases as there have not been any)
The latter will require you to upgrade every X months, which means all applications are updated to newer versions. With all related consequences.
There really is nothing in between, unless you build and update applications/packages yourself when there is the demand for that.
So if someone says you have to go with Ubuntu, the problem remains. Do you go with Ubuntu LTS (stable, no new versions) or with Ubuntu (always latest and greatest). The difference is that it seems as if Ubuntu offers everything because it is called the same, but you're stuck making the same decision.
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Use images then if all your 400 workstations are identical.
Yes, previously I just clone the HD, but thats ok only for new install, not preserving the data/user settings.
I'm willing to go to every clients at first install if needed, but not every year or so for maintenance. I need setup and forget setup :-p
So you don't want to install the latest and greatest Open Office when it comes out, do you ? Otherwise don't plan to forget ! (people will scream if the new Open Office is different when they come back from vacation)
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of beast Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:25 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: [CentOS] Re: Centos as a desktop, advisable?
On 26/07/07 17:57 +0800, Feizhou wrote:
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using
yum with local
repository? what about existing data/settings/custom
apps/etc? anyone has
real experiences on upgrading OS?
You really want apt and deb based distros like ubuntu if you
want to go
this route.
Are you saying that upgrading Centos is not advisable/reliable path and Ubuntu is better in this area?
(pls, im not trying to start flame, pardon my ignorance :)
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the
fresh one, but its
fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Use images then if all your 400 workstations are identical.
Yes, previously I just clone the HD, but thats ok only for new install, not preserving the data/user settings.
I'm willing to go to every clients at first install if needed, but not every year or so for maintenance. I need setup and forget setup :-p
Thanks!
What I do is automated PXE installs using kickstart.
On a new install I have kickstart create a 128MB 'boot' partition, then an VG out of the rest, then in the VG group I create a 'root' LV, a 'swap' LV and the rest as a 'home' LV.
Then on upgrades I only update the 'boot' and 'root' volumes.
The user ids and stuff all come from NIS maps which are themselves auto-created from winbind from AD. Kerberos handles the passwords.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
beast wrote:
On 26/07/07 17:57 +0800, Feizhou wrote:
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
You really want apt and deb based distros like ubuntu if you want to go this route.
Are you saying that upgrading Centos is not advisable/reliable path and Ubuntu is better in this area?
(pls, im not trying to start flame, pardon my ignorance :)
Debian and apt are very good at packaging. If you want to upgrade from one distribution to a later version, they have done it well before yum was in a position to achieve that. yum in FC5 should be able to dist-upgrade to FC6 and so on...but I have not actually done it.
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Use images then if all your 400 workstations are identical.
Yes, previously I just clone the HD, but thats ok only for new install, not preserving the data/user settings.
That is what partitioning or networked home directories do. Preserve user data and settings.
I'm willing to go to every clients at first install if needed, but not every year or so for maintenance. I need setup and forget setup :-p
Well perhaps you can take a proper look at it then. I do not see why / and /usr concerns your users at all. Using images to get what you want out there in a flash is fire and forget. Of course, you need to do some work on your staging box but when that is complete, you just toss your new image to all 400 workstations and either wait for them to be rebooted or have them reboot right away as you may choose.
beast spake the following on 7/26/2007 2:39 AM:
On 26/07/07 11:21 +0700, beast wrote:
CentOS 5.0 as the base, but OpenOffice repo, Firefox repo and possibly Gnome or KDE repo to keep primary office applications current.
I'm confused here. Suppose in the next 3 year the latest OO version is 3.1.1, today OO in Centos5 is 2.0.4, will it get updated to version 3.x or still using 2.x?
It seems not. Updates directory in Centos 3 still contains OOv1.1.2 only. So, what is the meaning of "supported for 5 years"? is it only for bug and security fixes, not features or enhancements?
Suppose in the next year, standard interface for harddisk is WATA (wireless ATA :), will it be added in Centos5?
Sorry for asking such questions, i just reaaly want to know here :)
or better just upgrade to Centos7 which has OOv3.1?
If I choose this path, can it be automatically done using yum with local repository? what about existing data/settings/custom apps/etc? anyone has real experiences on upgrading OS?
Personally, I never upgrade the OS. I simply install the fresh one, but its fine on my laptop, not for my clients.
Thanks!
--beast
You can keep copies of existing data on a server, or better yet, store the data on NFS mounted home directories. If the systems are set up properly, you can get almost everything auto loaded to a new machine/distro just by who logs in. Custom software adds a headache, but can be done if scripted properly. If you have custom software on more than 2 or 3 machines, but those machines are the same, you can have multiple images.
Hi, I have a server linux whith a system storage DS300. The server run ok, transfer file no problem. My problem is than when i restart the DS300 this begin to syncronizing again, but the data not is lost. I can work whith the DS300 while this is syncronizing. Is this normal?. Thanks
____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
mario salcedo wrote:
Hi, I have a server linux whith a system storage DS300. The server run ok, transfer file no problem. My problem is than when i restart the DS300 this begin to syncronizing again, but the data not is lost. I can work whith the DS300 while this is syncronizing. Is this normal?. Thanks
Please do NOT hijack threads. This confuses others and messes up the archives. Start a new thread.
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 08:45 -0700, mario salcedo wrote:
Hi, I have a server linux whith a system storage DS300. The server run ok, transfer file no problem. My problem is than when i restart the DS300 this begin to syncronizing again, but the data not is lost. I can work whith the DS300 while this is syncronizing. Is this normal?. Thanks
Can you give us more details ? Which CentOS flavor (3,4,5) ? Because IBM DS300 is an iScsi target SAN, are you using iscsi-initiator-utils on the CentOS side (software method) or a real iScsi HBA ? What is the error message that you're receiving on the CentOS side ? If you only see sync message occuring on the ds300 side, this is a normal behaviour : it will sync after each reboot (btw, it's a shared storage so it's supposed to be always up and running ....)
Hi again. I have Centos 5 and use iscsi-initiator-utils to see the DS300. I thinked the syncronicing no is normal, but how you say than this is a normal behaviour, then no problem. I thinked my data is lost for the syncronicing. Sorry for my English. I am not write English good. Thanks
--- Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 08:45 -0700, mario salcedo wrote:
Hi, I have a server linux whith a system storage DS300. The server run ok, transfer file no
problem.
My problem is than when i restart the DS300 this
begin
to syncronizing again, but the data not is lost. I
can
work whith the DS300 while this is syncronizing. Is this normal?. Thanks
Can you give us more details ? Which CentOS flavor (3,4,5) ? Because IBM DS300 is an iScsi target SAN, are you using iscsi-initiator-utils on the CentOS side (software method) or a real iScsi HBA ? What is the error message that you're receiving on the CentOS side ? If you only see sync message occuring on the ds300 side, this is a normal behaviour : it will sync after each reboot (btw, it's a shared storage so it's supposed to be always up and running ....)
-- Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net Solution ? echo
'16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq'
| dc
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real showstoppers that would prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are a few extras that I'd want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't beat the cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have some validity though. It would be far more useful if certain key apps (e.g. FireFox and OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key app" list) were kept up-to-date, perhaps in an alternative repo. And for supporting a large deployment, they need to be a repo, building/installing manually just isn't an option.
Man, you have the Centos plus repo, and if that does not make you happy, you have all the tools you need to roll your own repo. What is this about building/installing manually?
--- Feizhou feizhou@graffiti.net wrote:
Dave K wrote:
On 7/25/07, Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com
wrote:
I agree completely. I don't see any real
showstoppers that would
prevent it from being a fine desktop. There are
a few extras that I'd
want to grab from the Fedora repos, but you can't
beat the
cost/stability/speedy updates/7 year EOL with a
stick.
I agree, but I think the earlier comments have
some validity though.
It would be far more useful if certain key apps
(e.g. FireFox and
OpenOffice, I'm sure each of us has their own "key
app" list) were
kept up-to-date, perhaps in an alternative repo.
And for supporting a
large deployment, they need to be a repo,
building/installing manually
just isn't an option.
Man, you have the Centos plus repo, and if that does not make you happy, you have all the tools you need to roll your own repo. What is this about building/installing manually? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
hello,
i am not sure if this is a concern, but if you are running x86_64 desktop systems then i would suggest putting the 32 bit centos. this will make life a lot more pleasant for you when installing firefox and other apps. if it is x86 then carry on :)
my .02 cents
Steven
Get your Art Supplies @ www.littleartstore.com
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 11:21 -0700, Steven Vishoot wrote:
hello,
i am not sure if this is a concern, but if you are running x86_64 desktop systems then i would suggest putting the 32 bit centos. this will make life a lot more pleasant for you when installing firefox and other apps. if it is x86 then carry on :)
my .02 cents
Steven
I have not run into any problems using 64bit as my desktop (I run Firefox as 32bit to get flash to work, but that is the only "modification"). I do this both at home and at work. Granted, I use Fedora 7 on both of them, but there is no reason why you couldn't get the same functionality using CentOS. I'm not afraid of compiling or rebuilding RPMs though. Between Karanbir's RPM repository ( http://centos.karan.org ) and EPEL ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL ) I imagine that you could have a fairly complete desktop OS (I just prefer more bleeding-edge software/features).
--- Timothy Selivanow timothys@easystreet.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 11:21 -0700, Steven Vishoot wrote:
hello,
i am not sure if this is a concern, but if you are running x86_64 desktop systems then i would
suggest
putting the 32 bit centos. this will make life a
lot
more pleasant for you when installing firefox and other apps. if it is x86 then carry on :)
my .02 cents
Steven
I have not run into any problems using 64bit as my desktop (I run Firefox as 32bit to get flash to work, but that is the only "modification"). I do this both at home and at work. Granted, I use Fedora 7 on both of them, but there is no reason why you couldn't get the same functionality using CentOS. I'm not afraid of compiling or rebuilding RPMs though. Between Karanbir's RPM repository ( http://centos.karan.org ) and EPEL ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL ) I imagine that you could have a fairly complete desktop OS (I just prefer more bleeding-edge software/features).
-- Timothy Selivanow timothys@easystreet.com Linux System Administrator EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. http://www.easystreet.com
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
hello timothy,
i understand what your saying with only having a few desktops you can do that with little troubles. the original poster has a lot (hundreds) to deploy and i was only suggesting that for ease of support. as i have seen a few post on the list about the trouble of using 64 bit on desktop. that is why i suggested that version.
Steven
Get your Art Supplies @ www.littleartstore.com
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Scott Moseman Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:24 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos as a desktop, advisable?
I'm running CentOS on my server and I don't feel it makes a great desktop since several of the major applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) lag behind since it follows RHEL. I prefer to use something more dynamic and current on the desktop.
<snip>
I too feel that while CentOS is fantastic on my servers, it lags behind a little too much for my desktop needs.
Here I use Fedora Core 6 on my desktops which has fully matured, and I suspect when it reaches end-of-life then Fedora Core 7 will have fully matured.
I use rapid software deployment, PXE/RIS, to deploy my OS and perform a staggered install of a portion of my desktops Windows/Linux every year. Since moving to Windows terminal servers for 2/3 of my Windows users though I have not had to do that much on the Windows side.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-
Barry Brimer -
beast -
Chris -
Chris Mauritz -
Dag Wieers -
Dave K -
Devin Henderson -
Fabian Arrotin -
Feizhou -
Johnny Hughes -
mario salcedo -
Miark -
Peter Kjellstrom -
Ralph Angenendt -
Ross S. W. Walker -
Scott Moseman -
Scott Silva -
Steven Vishoot -
Timothy Selivanow