Ned Slider wrote:

Sven wrote:

...

On 8/12/08, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

...

Now the question: is there anyway to get something similar for CentOS ? or is there a process that someone might follow to achieve the same or similar result ?

I am just curious. What is the use case for Wubi based installation of CentOS? IMHO is the CentOS installation process (also the Ubuntu one) very user friendly. The problem for most Windows users is the operation and daily use of Linux. They don't wish to use command line and miss their favorite software (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc).

I agree - I think that whilst features like this may be appealing to the goals of Ubuntu, they do not necessarily match the goals of the CentOS project. Anyone capable of installing that other popular OS should not have any problems with the CentOS installer. New users tend to struggle more with the concepts of disk partitioning, freeing space for the installation (if performing a dual boot install which is presumably the target audience for such an installer) and generally using the software once installed. I think anyone that *needs* a WUBI-type installer is going to struggle to configure and use CentOS once installed.

I think you both are missing the point: Wubi is *not* about installing CentOS (or rather Ubuntu) from Windows, it is installing the linux system *under* Windows into a disk image and then starting from that disk image out of the windows boot manager. No partitioning required and if you want to remove your linux, you just remove the two disk images it creates (and the boot entry).

Kind of like the old SuSE installs into DOS partitions (with syslinux).

JMHO, but I would think other stuff like a ServerCD (or rebuilding FastTrack packages) would be higher on the project's list of priorities.

Same here.

Ralph

Ned Slider wrote:

I agree - I think that whilst features like this may be appealing to the goals of Ubuntu, they do not necessarily match the goals of the CentOS project.

How'd you work that out ?

JMHO, but I would think other stuff like a ServerCD (or rebuilding FastTrack packages) would be higher on the project's list of priorities.

That quite an irrelevant comparison, each of those is an orthogonal issue.

- KB

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Fajar Priyanto fajarpri@cbn.net.id wrote:

I think Ubuntu is targeted for desktop use and less savvy users. That's why they need something like Wubi for easiness. And since Centos is not a desktop distro (cmiiw), the users tend to be somekind of sysadmin which (subjectively) prefer something like vmware-server to do Centos in Windows. (Beside, Wubi is broken in Vista)

Hmm. I use CentOS as my desktop OS, my laptop OS, my workdesk OS and my work is also converting over (sometime RSN) to use CentOS as the base OS for our application.

To repeat what has been said before (right here!): CentOS is just like RHEL, an enterprise Linux distribution, suitable for anything from laptops to desktops to enterprise-wide networked multi-server machines.

I use vmware server to run Windows on CentOS. (I will withhold my personal opinion of using vmware-server to run anything on Windows, or even just run /anything/ on Windows at all, other than that which does not run anywhere else.)

mhr

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Fajar Priyanto fajarpri@cbn.net.id wrote:

In current days of distro like Ubuntu, Opensuse, and Mandriva, being "suitable" is not enough anymore (I think). Try install Centos on a notebook, and we will see that the wifi is not recognized. Sure as sysadmin we can do ndiswrapper, etc. But what will "ordinary" / first-timer say?

You're comparing apples to oranges here. I didn't say it was the best /distro/ for a laptop (or notebook), I just said I use it there. And, yes, wireless was a pain, but that's life in Linux without all the fancy Windows trappings....

My personal view is: As server: Yes, yes, yes As desktop: Simply no (comparing to other distros).

As you said, this is a personal view.

mhr

MHR wrote:

To repeat what has been said before (right here!): CentOS is just like RHEL, an enterprise Linux distribution, suitable for anything from laptops to desktops to enterprise-wide networked multi-server machines.

I don't think RHEL would make a good desktop. I think it would make an ok workstation, or perhaps corporate desktop, where things are tightly controlled. There's just not enough things available for it in the default distribution, and hardware support isn't quite kept up to date. If your standardizing on some platform that supports RHEL (or perhaps just works with RHEL) then great. When I say workstation I mean a replacement for something like an IRIX, Solaris, or HP-UX box that would run specialized software (3D modeling or something).

http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-s...

"It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future."

Of course everyone's ideas are different, these are just mine.

If your adding stuff from all sorts of 3rd party repositories to get your system to your liking, well at least to me it's not really RHEL(or CentOS) anymore (depending on how much you add), it's just based on RHEL (or CentOS). I see a seemingly endless supply of posts of people complaining about how 3rd party repositories have screwed up their systems(most often it's because they haven't configured everything right, but apparently it's not very obvious). If/when RHEL decides to vastly increase the amount of software that they provide/support in their distribution I think it may become a worthwhile system to use on the desktop.

Until then, for me at least, it's Debian on my desktops(when the hardware is supported), or otherwise Ubuntu LTS (I do enable the universe repositories which aren't officially supported but at least seem to seamlessly integrate into the system without issue -- though I haven't used Ubuntu in several months, maybe things have changed).

Debian stable has roughly 18,000 packages.

CentOS 5 seems to have roughly 2400 packages by comparison, fortunately in a server role it(and CentOS 4) provide almost everything I need(I do install about 50 extra packages), though a desktop system needs quite a bit more. The desktop/server I'm writing this on (Debian stable) has 1400 packages installed, my servers get about 850.

I used to think SuSE was pretty slick but haven't looked at it since I started messing with Ubuntu a couple years ago.

Main reasons I like RHEL/CentOS: - kickstart rocks, Debian doesn't really have anything that compares (IMO) - I've come to like src RPMS, they really make building from source easy - long release cycles (which can be bad for laptops/desktops especially from a hardware support perspective, even Ubuntu had trouble with suspend/resume on my last laptop - Toshiba M5, Ubuntu 7.04 worked quite reliably, but when I upgraded to 8, it pretty much stopped working for no apparent reason(even using the older kernel didn't help).

There's certainly potential for a good desktop in RHEL, the software just isn't there yet(I'd be willing to forgive the hardware support, just give me more packages to choose from and provide security updates etc for).

nate

Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Now the question: is there anyway to get something similar for CentOS ? or is there a process that someone might follow to achieve the same or similar result ?

replying to myself really...

While conversation from this thread has gone into various completely nonrelated issues, no-one has actually addressed the issue I raised; which is : What, if any, process might someone use to achieve something similar. I dont care if its WUBI or *, the end result is what would be worth addressing.

Is there a generic system / process / methodology that someone might adopt in order to get a CentOS install going without formatting off / away a windows install. vmware being a fallback option, if there isnt anything better overall.

VMware has the big advantage of leaving all your windows programs available at the same time. If you want have access to the raw devices, a bootable USB drive might be the way to go.