Some time ago I installed FC2 at the request of an employer. That contract ended over a year ago, and FC2 is an orphan. I am gradually feeling more pressure to jump from FC2, and do not wish to remain with the Fedora Core Project, as I don't want to make installing and upgrading my machine into a hobby. I already maintain a Debian machine for my girlfriend, but I'm not sure I wish make that big a jump, so I am considering what, if any, of the CentOS distros may be most like what I am now running.
It appears that CentOS 4.x may be the closest, based on the website. I am interested in maintaining a very similar user interface to what I am now accustomed to (Gnome), and wish to have little, if any, modifications to, for example, /mnt (may be /media now, I guess) /etc and similar for my network settings. I am not running LVM, and do not wish to. I am not running a wireless network, and do not wish to. I am not running a web server, nor do I wish to. I am running kernel 2.6.10, and I see that CentOS 4.x is 2.6.9, which I suppose is pretty close. I do not run SELinux, nor do I wish to.
I currently use XP boot manager (I dual boot and have one of those machines which tries to "repair" itself if it sees modifications to the MBR) to load GRUB which then can boot various versions of FC2.
What, if any, other concerns need enter into my decision? Recommendations for gotchas?
Should I just download the disc sets and install on a test machine and see which I feel more comfortable with?
Thanks for your time.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
What, if any, other concerns need enter into my decision? Recommendations for gotchas?
It seems you're describing a very conservative setup. In that case, CentOS 4.4 might be just what you need (CentOS 5 will be released soon and it will contain powerful new features, but you formulated your requirements in terms that leave no doubt you're looking for a conservative, familiar environment above all else). Disable LVM, the web server, etc. if that's what you want. The OS is very customizable, similar to Fedora.
Florin Andrei wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
What, if any, other concerns need enter into my decision? Recommendations for gotchas?
It seems you're describing a very conservative setup. In that case, CentOS 4.4 might be just what you need (CentOS 5 will be released soon and it will contain powerful new features, but you formulated your requirements in terms that leave no doubt you're looking for a conservative, familiar environment above all else). Disable LVM, the web server, etc. if that's what you want. The OS is very customizable, similar to Fedora.
4.4 should be an easy switch. The learning curve to go from FC to CentOS (and vice versa) is minimal.
Cheers,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
It appears that CentOS 4.x may be the closest, based on the website. I am interested in maintaining a very similar user
Yes. CentOS 4.x is ultimately branched from FC3, which wasn't hugely different from FC2.
be /media now, I guess) /etc and similar for my network settings. I am not running LVM, and do not wish to. I am not running a wireless network, and do not wish to. I am not running a web server, nor do I wish to. I am running kernel 2.6.10, and I see that CentOS 4.x is 2.6.9, which I suppose is pretty close. I do not run SELinux, nor do I wish to.
Okay. None of those things you don't wish to do are forced on you by any version of Fedora or CentOS.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
...be /media now, I guess) /etc and similar for my network settings. I am not running LVM, and do not wish to. I am not running a wireless network, and do not wish to. I am not running a web server, nor do I wish to. I am running kernel 2.6.10, and I see that CentOS 4.x is 2.6.9, which I suppose is pretty close. I do not run SELinux, nor do I wish to.
Okay. None of those things you don't wish to do are forced on you by any version of Fedora or CentOS.
well, the CentOS installer will default to partitioning the disk with LVM, so Mike will have to specify that he wants to manually partition, then just create simple partitions.
John R Pierce wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
...be /media now, I guess) /etc and similar for my network settings. I am not running LVM, and do not wish to. I am not running a wireless network, and do not wish to. I am not running a web server, nor do I wish to. I am running kernel 2.6.10, and I see that CentOS 4.x is 2.6.9, which I suppose is pretty close. I do not run SELinux, nor do I wish to.
Okay. None of those things you don't wish to do are forced on you by any version of Fedora or CentOS.
well, the CentOS installer will default to partitioning the disk with LVM, so Mike will have to specify that he wants to manually partition, then just create simple partitions.
That's the kind of "gotcha" I was looking for. One of the reasons I refused to load FC4 on my machine was that I did a test install on another machine, and it didn't even ask whether I wanted to use LVM. I need to know how to disable SELinux as well, I trow.
I'm downloading the CentOS 4.4 LiveCD at the moment, and perhaps one way to test would be to boot with that and see how it looks.
Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:27:18PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I need to know how to disable SELinux as well, I trow.
You will get to choose that during the install procedure.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:52:21AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
well, the CentOS installer will default to partitioning the disk with LVM, so Mike will have to specify that he wants to manually partition, then just create simple partitions.
Although not if he's upgrading.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:52:21AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
well, the CentOS installer will default to partitioning the disk with LVM, so Mike will have to specify that he wants to manually partition, then just create simple partitions.
Although not if he's upgrading.
Does CentOS consider itself an upgrade of FC2? I thought I would have to do a fresh install.
OTOH, I *do* want to preserve my WinXP partitions.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Does CentOS consider itself an upgrade of FC2? I thought I would have to do a fresh install.
OTOH, I *do* want to preserve my WinXP partitions.
You can do a fresh install with CentOS _and_ preserve your XP partitions. Just don't flag those partitions for format.
The custom install option (not server, not workstation, etc) is your friend.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:34:12PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Although not if he's upgrading.
Does CentOS consider itself an upgrade of FC2? I thought I would have to do a fresh install.
It's been a while, but, if it doesn't, it can easily be tricked into thinking so, and once so tricked, all the code needed to make the upgrade work is in the installer.
But doing a fresh install will work too and may present fewer headaches. (Faster, too, since there's less processing to do.)
Matthew Miller wrote:
It's been a while, but, if it doesn't, it can easily be tricked into thinking so, and once so tricked, all the code needed to make the upgrade work is in the installer.
But doing a fresh install will work too and may present fewer headaches. (Faster, too, since there's less processing to do.)
cleaner too, as there won't be any residue left over from FC stuff that didn't get cleaned.
OTOH, a friend of mine recently upgraded a RHL 7.3 box to CentOS3 then 4 mostly via YUM.
-
chrism＠imntv.com -
Florin Andrei -
John R Pierce -
Matthew Miller -
Mike McCarty -
Rodrigo Barbosa