Centos Mailing List,
Hello. I have just recently installed CentOS on my home computer, and just joined this mailing list. I have a lot of questions so I will have quite a few postings in the next few days. I was using Fedora Core 4 for a few weeks, but it was unstable and had trouble reading some of my DVD drives and other issues. So, I decided to switch to another distribution. I saw on one site that the three distros being nominated for best distribution by user's vote were Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora Core. I tried Ubuntu, but the installer kept failing. So I went to CentOS.
Anyway, long story short, CentOS looks and feels just like Fedora (which I like), and it reads all my DVD drives normally, so I think I could be happy with it. But... When I tried to install Xine, using yum, it said it could not find it. And then I went looking for an RPM for Xine, and they're all for Red Hat or Fedora. I tried installing an RPM for Fedora anyway, reasoning that maybe they were the same in more than just looks, but no dice. As I looked around the net, it seems that applications all seem to have specific builds for Red Hat, Fedora, a couple of Debian builds... but no CentOS. Going by the amount of available information and support, Fedora is the primary Linux distribution, and CentOS hardly even exists. Can't I have it all? Stability, the ability to read my DVD drives, *and* a variety of applications?
Is there any kind of resource for instructions on installing CentOS like there is this one for Fedora: http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_4_installation_notes.html
Dave
Dave Gutteridge wrote:
Centos Mailing List,
Hello. I have just recently installed CentOS on my home computer, and just joined this mailing list. I have a lot of questions so I will have quite a few postings in the next few days. I was using Fedora Core 4 for a few weeks, but it was unstable and had trouble reading some of my DVD drives and other issues. So, I decided to switch to another distribution. I saw on one site that the three distros being nominated for best distribution by user's vote were Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora Core. I tried Ubuntu, but the installer kept failing. So I went to CentOS.
Anyway, long story short, CentOS looks and feels just like Fedora (which I like), and it reads all my DVD drives normally, so I think I could be happy with it. But... When I tried to install Xine, using yum, it said it could not find it. And then I went looking for an RPM for Xine, and they're all for Red Hat or Fedora. I tried installing an RPM for Fedora anyway, reasoning that maybe they were the same in more than just looks, but no dice. As I looked around the net, it seems that applications all seem to have specific builds for Red Hat, Fedora, a couple of Debian builds... but no CentOS. Going by the amount of available information and support, Fedora is the primary Linux distribution, and CentOS hardly even exists. Can't I have it all? Stability, the ability to read my DVD drives, *and* a variety of applications?
You can add different yum/apt/rpm repositories...
http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/
There are others, but be warned, there might be some incompatibilities.
http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/FAQ.php#D2
Is there any kind of resource for instructions on installing CentOS like there is this one for Fedora: http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_4_installation_notes.html
Dave
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 09:34 -0400, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
I was using Fedora Core 4 for a few weeks, but it was unstable and had trouble reading some of my DVD drives and other issues.
Consider sticking with Fedora Core 3.
I'm holding off on Fedora Core 4 adoption, just like I did Fedora Core 2. I really wish Red Hat would go back to the revisioning model for the community Linux, so people are "warned" when you basically get a ".0" release.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 09:34 -0400, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
I was using Fedora Core 4 for a few weeks, but it was unstable and had trouble reading some of my DVD drives and other issues.
Consider sticking with Fedora Core 3.
Whats wrong with CentOS4 that he has just installed ? The orignal post was about sources/ repositories for CentOS4, and not whats wrong with FC4.
Can we atleast try and keep some sort of thread sanity here ? If you have nothing to say about the issues raied in the original post, please dont. If you have an opinion on something that might be related from an outside angle - feel free to start a new thread ( so that people with no interest can safely ignore it ).
I'm holding off on Fedora Core 4 adoption, just like I did Fedora Core 2. I really wish Red Hat would go back to the revisioning model for the community Linux, so people are "warned" when you basically get a ".0" release.
Thats why CentOS exists. If you dont want a bleeding edge, faster moving distro : you have a choice. Use CentOS. Feel free to download from any of the mirrors listed at :
http://www.centos.org/mirrors/
- KB
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
Whats wrong with CentOS4 that he has just installed ?
_Nothing_.
The orignal post was about sources/ repositories for CentOS4, and not whats wrong with FC4.
But he brought up getting packages from FC4.
I was trying to convey ... 1) FC4 is the next ".0" revision, and 2) FC3 is the ".1" revision that _maps_to_ RHEL4
People who tap FC packages for RHEL4 (or CentOS4) need to be _aware_ of this! There is not a day that goes by that people think FC4 -> RHEL4. It is FC3 -> RHEL4!
[ Now I blame Red Hat for that, but that's another story. ]
Can we atleast try and keep some sort of thread sanity here ? If you have nothing to say about the issues raied in the original post, please dont. If you have an opinion on something that might be related from an outside angle -
feel
free to start a new thread ( so that people with no
interest
can safely ignore it ).
He went to Fedora Core 3 to get a package for CentOS.
Knowing that FC4 is a new ".0" release and uses GCC 4 is very, very pretinent to why you're going to have build issues on RHEL4 (and CentOS4)! And that's why he needs to stick with FC3 if he's going to attempt to use packages from Fedora for CentOS4!
He went to Fedora Core 3 to get a package for CentOS.
Knowing that FC4 is a new ".0" release and uses GCC 4 is very, very pretinent to why you're going to have build issues on RHEL4 (and CentOS4)! And that's why he needs to stick with FC3 if he's going to attempt to use packages from Fedora for CentOS4!
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no "sticking" with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.
So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most recent, not realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge experimental version.
On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit. While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating.
This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion about versions and compatibility. Ditto for Mac. I've been experimenting with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs. I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian builds over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Dave Gutteridge wrote:
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no "sticking" with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.
Fedora is by-design a faster moving distro, and issues that are inherited from this state-of-mind, are things you live with, if you are a Fedora user.
On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit. While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating.
If you can be more specific, maybe we can help ? Which repository are you looking at / facing problems with ?
If you need a more 'real time' help situation try dropping into the #centos irc channel at irc.freenode.net, usually people are friendly and helpful, more so if you ask nicely.
This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion about versions and compatibility. Ditto for Mac. I've been experimenting
Maybe you wont miss Windows that much, when you realise that a few months down the road - the machine is still stable, you dont have to worry about virus' and things-just-work, once you know how. And they just keep on working.
Just today we had to shutdown a machine that had uptime since 22nd of Nov 2001, and handled major data traffic each day.
with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs. I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian builds over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way.
Which distro you chose, is something that you decide on. I am not going to go in with pitching for and against any distro. Each has its own issues / benefits.
But, any issues you face with CentOS, we'll try and help with.
- KB
}I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no "sticking" with FC3. I }only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, }and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own }site, so I assumed it was the current one. } }So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most recent, not }realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge experimental version. } }On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. }But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit. While Karanbir's }posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up }repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating. } }This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm }missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion }about versions and compatibility. Ditto for Mac. I've been experimenting }with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which }distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs. I have }no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian builds over Red Hat }builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all }that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way. } }Dave
Dave
Please don't give up.
Focus on the install, the import of the "key" and then the resultant "yum update"
Once you are installed and updated, then I suggest focusing on the "yum" command and a good "yum" configuration that allows command line toggle of snagging packages you want from certain special repositories or whatever they are called...
Dave, please forgive me if you know all of this this already (it is not my intent to talk down to anyone if they are advanced players) yet half the battle is getting installed and config'd/updated and then getting comfy with where everything is at including more config/update as necessary.
I started with Linux when is was like 0.99 or something and back then an install was totally on faith via floppy and unless you knew exactly what you were doing and having done it many times it just too _time_ and patience.
;-)
Anyways, you are in the right place and CentOS can dance and sing if you so desire.
Have an awesome day!
- rh
Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no
"sticking"
with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago,
And I can appreciate that. That's why I tried to explain this. I had _0_ issue with explaining this. In fact, I blame Red Hat for the issue of not using revisions anymore -- something that causes many innocent people to assume that a FC4 package will build on RHEL4 (and CentOS 4).
My problem here is that someone else keeps jumping all over me anytime I try to explain something. I guess I shouldn't be on this list then? I thought the explaination was pertinent, given your post. And based on this follow-up, I believe I was indeed correct in that assertion.
and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.
Actually, Red Hat makes all distros since mid-RHL7 available on its site. This includes all Fedora Core versions, 1-4. Again, I don't blame you one bit here. And I continue to chastize Red Hat for not using a revision model.
So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most recent, not realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge experimental version.
Correct. And you were quite innocent in that, because Red Hat does a poor job of revisioning Fedora Core. That's my #1 complaint with them.
On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit.
CentOS is an excellent distro, and probably the best fit for you now.
While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating.
The added CentOS repositories and DAG's go a long way to helping.
This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion about versions and compatibility.
You obviously didn't run Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 then. ;-> Microsoft has a similar history on their "enterprise" release too.
Plus you have the "trojan horse" issue in the Windows world of software. That's virtually unheard of in the UNIX/Linux world.
Ditto for Mac.
MacOS X rules. If you have it, just stick with it. Use "fink" and get all the Freedomware you want.
I've been experimenting with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs.
They all work. They all meet needs.
The problem is familiarity. UNIX and Windows are completely different beasts. It takes a while to "deprogram" yourself from the Windows world into the UNIX one.
I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian
builds
over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way.
Choice is the problem.
Ironically, you had it in the Windows world too, you just didn't know about it because Microsoft does all it can to get you to only buy its own or core partner's products.
No one can mandate what Linux is, unlike Microsoft in the Windows world.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no
"sticking"
with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago,
And I can appreciate that. That's why I tried to explain this. I had _0_ issue with explaining this. In fact, I blame Red Hat for the issue of not using revisions anymore -- something that causes many innocent people to assume that a FC4 package will build on RHEL4 (and CentOS 4).
My problem here is that someone else keeps jumping all over me anytime I try to explain something. I guess I shouldn't be on this list then? I thought the explaination was pertinent, given your post. And based on this follow-up, I believe I was indeed correct in that assertion.
The particular paragraph you chose to answer completely changes the context of the answer Bryan.
That paragraph was about Dave USING FC4 the distro and you went in there and said 'stick with FC3'. Anybody will draw the conclusion then that you mean use FC3 the distro especially with your next line about FC4 adoption.
and you say this in spite of the fact that Dave has already said he is using Centos 4. What kind of response do you think you are going to get even if that was not your intention?
Dave Gutteridge wrote:
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no "sticking" with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.
So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most recent, not realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge experimental version.
On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit. While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating.
This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion about versions and compatibility. Ditto for Mac. I've been experimenting with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs. I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian builds over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way.
Dave
this is the contents of my /etc/yum.conf, paste it in yours run yum update hope it helps
[main] cachedir=/var/cache/yum debuglevel=2 logfile=/var/log/yum.log pkgpolicy=newest distroverpkg=redhat-release exclude=webmin installonlypkgs=kernel* #kernel-smp kernel-hugemem kernel-enterprise kernel-debug kernel-unsupported kernel-smp-unsupported kernel-hugemem-unsupported tolerant=1 exactarch=1
[dag] name=Dag RPM Repository for Red Hat Enterprise Linux baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearch/dag
[base] name=CentOS-$releasever - Base baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/ #baseurl=http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/caosity/centos-4/$releasever/os/$basearch... #baseurl=http://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/cAos/centos-4/$releasever/os/$basearch/ gpgcheck=1
#released updates [update] name=CentOS-$releasever - Updates baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/ #baseurl=http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/caosity/centos-4/$releasever/updates/$bas... #baseurl=http://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/cAos/centos-4/$releasever/updates/$basear... gpgcheck=1
#packages used/produced in the build but not released [addons] name=CentOS-$releasever - Addons baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/addons/$basearch/ #baseurl=http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/caosity/centos-4/$releasever/addons/$base... #baseurl=http://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/cAos/centos-4/$releasever/addons/$basearc... gpgcheck=1
#additional packages that may be useful [extras] name=CentOS-$releasever - Extras baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/extras/$basearch/ #baseurl=http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/caosity/centos-4/$releasever/extras/$base... #baseurl=http://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/cAos/centos-4/$releasever/extras/$basearc... gpgcheck=1
#packages in testing #[testing] #name=CentOS-$releasever - Testing #baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/testing/$basearch/ #gpgcheck=1
On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Tom wrote:
this is the contents of my /etc/yum.conf, paste it in yours
corollary advice (that will remain valid for a while, no matter what Linux/BSD/whatever you're playing with):
when Some Guy On The Internet sends you a chunk of text and tells you to paste it into a config file and run some command, BEFORE you do so you should take a look at the chunk of text and make sure you have a pretty good idea what it does and why.
some commands that may help:
$ man yum.conf (that's the file he suggests you edit)
$ man yum (that's the program configured by yum.conf)
-steve
p.s. in addition, when you're looking for CentOS-specific build/ installation instructions, you'll have the best luck if you try instructions that are designed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as that's the commodity distro on which CentOS is based. i'd recommend staying away from Fedora packages as a general rule.
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
--- If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
Steve Huff wrote:
On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Tom wrote:
this is the contents of my /etc/yum.conf, paste it in yours
corollary advice (that will remain valid for a while, no matter what Linux/BSD/whatever you're playing with):
when Some Guy On The Internet sends you a chunk of text and tells you to paste it into a config file and run some command, BEFORE you do so you should take a look at the chunk of text and make sure you have a pretty good idea what it does and why.
some commands that may help:
$ man yum.conf (that's the file he suggests you edit)
$ man yum (that's the program configured by yum.conf)
-steve
p.s. in addition, when you're looking for CentOS-specific build/ installation instructions, you'll have the best luck if you try instructions that are designed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as that's the commodity distro on which CentOS is based. i'd recommend staying away from Fedora packages as a general rule.
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
he seems to have a good understanding of what he's doing, even after only 3 weeks but you're right, check what people tell you :D
I was getting sick of the bickering, good thing for a newbie to see isn't it???
I run kde on centos 3 & 4 on P4's and it does everything and more, even usb voip phone works :)
Some Guy
tom
On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Tom wrote:
he seems to have a good understanding of what he's doing, even after only 3 weeks but you're right, check what people tell you :D
it's not that i thought you would give him the wrong advice; the point is more that even when somebody gives you good advice, it's critical to know what you're doing to your system because otherwise you'll reach a point where you're unable to make any changes.
I was getting sick of the bickering, good thing for a newbie to see isn't it???
heh, the sooner the better - the open source world is *all about* bickering (and i say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek).
-steve
--- If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
Steve Huff wrote:
snip<
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
I have Linux running on a Desktop machine, and 2 laptops. Installing, updating and using Linux on them has been great and not at all a"painful and laborious experience".
For the technically savvy, and those who aren't afraid to learn, Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:36, ryan wrote:
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
I have Linux running on a Desktop machine, and 2 laptops. Installing, updating and using Linux on them has been great and not at all a"painful and laborious experience".
For the technically savvy, and those who aren't afraid to learn, Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
Yes, but for many things you take for granted under commercial OS's like playing music and videos you'll have to do some non-obvious and legally questionable things to do the same on Linux.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:55 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:36, ryan wrote:
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
I have Linux running on a Desktop machine, and 2 laptops. Installing, updating and using Linux on them has been great and not at all a"painful and laborious experience".
For the technically savvy, and those who aren't afraid to learn, Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
Yes, but for many things you take for granted under commercial OS's like playing music and videos you'll have to do some non-obvious and legally questionable things to do the same on Linux.
---- 'legally questionable' is in my opinion overly dramatic. The fact is that there is restrictive licensing issues which packagers don't distribute with GPL and similar licensed packages.
Perhaps a better way of looking at these things is that the open standards are supported out of the box and the non-open standards have to be added after original installation for those that wish to use proprietary and restrictive licensed software.
Craig
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 19:32, Craig White wrote:
Yes, but for many things you take for granted under commercial OS's like playing music and videos you'll have to do some non-obvious and legally questionable things to do the same on Linux.
'legally questionable' is in my opinion overly dramatic. The fact is that there is restrictive licensing issues which packagers don't distribute with GPL and similar licensed packages.
Which means that if you obtain them from the places that do distribute them you may be violating the law. That sounds just appropriately dramatic in my opinion.
Perhaps a better way of looking at these things is that the open standards are supported out of the box and the non-open standards have to be added after original installation for those that wish to use proprietary and restrictive licensed software.
Adding proprietary and restrictively licensed software isn't a problem by itself if some company is handling the required license fees. I assume this would be the case for Real's MP3 player, but where do you find a strictly-legal DVD player even if you are willing to pay for it?
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:36, ryan wrote:
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
I have Linux running on a Desktop machine, and 2 laptops. Installing, updating and using Linux on them has been great and not at all a"painful and laborious experience".
For the technically savvy, and those who aren't afraid to learn, Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
Yes, but for many things you take for granted under commercial OS's like playing music and videos you'll have to do some non-obvious and legally questionable things to do the same on Linux.
The legal argument is a sword that cuts both ways. Commercial OS's have issues I never need to deal with on Linux. On Windows, if I run MS Anti-spyware running while I have Kazaa installed, I am violating the agreement I made when I installed Kazaa!*
Another example is WPA support, which, was not available until mac OS 10.3 (jaguar only had WEP). If you were an early adopter of OS 10.2 (some buyers got credits for OS 10.3 later on), you had to pay for an upgrade to 10.3 just for WPA support for the WiFi card. Paying for a security upgrade. ACK!**
I don't think that downloading RPMs is very non-obvious. You may have to read the README on some packages, but that goes back to my "for those who aren't afraid to learn" ;-)
Many Linux distros include mp3, .wmv, etc support built in.
* http://www.kazaa.com/us/terms2.htm "you will not take any action, including downloading other software which modifies, is intended to modify or permits others to modify registry or other settings on your computer to, disable, remove, block, prevent the functioning of, or otherwise interfere with any of the Embedded Third Party Software."
** http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/G.Wilford/WiFi.html "You need Panther (Mac OSX 10.3), it's not supported on Jaguar (10.2)"
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 22:00 -0500, ryan wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:36, ryan wrote:
i infer from some of your previous comments that you're looking to run CentOS on your desktop machine (since you're talking about DVD drives and Xine and so forth). if you want a pleasant desktop experience where things Just Work, i'd recommend you buy a Mac like Bryan said. running Linux on the desktop is a painful and laborious experience, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future. it's a different story when you're talking about server applications, though...
I have Linux running on a Desktop machine, and 2 laptops. Installing, updating and using Linux on them has been great and not at all a"painful and laborious experience".
For the technically savvy, and those who aren't afraid to learn, Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
Yes, but for many things you take for granted under commercial OS's like playing music and videos you'll have to do some non-obvious and legally questionable things to do the same on Linux.
The legal argument is a sword that cuts both ways. Commercial OS's have issues I never need to deal with on Linux. On Windows, if I run MS Anti-spyware running while I have Kazaa installed, I am violating the agreement I made when I installed Kazaa!*
I don't think Kazaa's legalese will withstand any challenge, particularly when it comes to the question of informed consent. That is, the makers of Kazaa would have to demonstrate they gave you ample information before, during or after the installation of their product that it included other components that captured and shared personal information, that despite much publicity about the security issues in their product they neglected to provide methods for removing the security vulnerabilities, etc.
"you will not take any action, including downloading other software which modifies, is intended to modify or permits others to modify registry or other settings on your computer to, disable, remove, block, prevent the functioning of, or otherwise interfere with any of the Embedded Third Party Software."
</snicker> This looks like they're digging their own hole deeper by asserting ownership over your assets but not providing adequate methods for protection of your assets.
Bill
Most people on this thread do seem to get where I'm coming from. I am looking for a stable enough build, with a large community of support. That may yet still exist with CentOS, so long as I can get it up and running.
For those who are questioning if Linux is an appropriate choice for me, as I once explained on the Fedora list (Hi, Phil!), for the last year or so the applications I have been running on Windows are primarily open source. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and others. The only thing keeping me on Windows was Windows itself, and I've never really liked it. So all I'm looking for in a Linux distro is the stability to run the open source software that is already stable in Windows and have native builds for Linux. Surely that's not an unreasonable expectation of Linux?
I may have given the impression that I'm really looking for Multimedia. But actually, when I was saying that DVDs didn't work under FC4, I meant data DVDs which contained back up files. I would like to play multimedia, and I was using Xine as an example of an applcation I couldn't get running. But really my aspirations as a home computer user are a little less ambitious.
Thank you all for the whirlwind of information. As I see the situation now, I should probably try to stick with CentOS for a bit and see if I can get it configured properly.
To that end, I tried going to the "dag" repository but the suggestions for what to copy into my yum.conf file simply didn't work. As in, I put them into the conf file, then tried to isntall Xine, and it just came back saying "nothing to do".
Anyway, I copied the text that Tom gave me into my yum.conf file, and ran yum -y update, and eventually ot stopped on some public key error. (4/7): kdelibs-3.3.1-3.11 100% |=========================| 15 MB 00:42 (5/7): freetype-devel-2.1 100% |=========================| 521 kB 00:02 (6/7): freetype-2.1.9-1.2 100% |=========================| 774 kB 00:02 (7/7): xmms-1.2.10-11.1.2 100% |=========================| 2.0 MB 00:06 warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 6b8d79e6 public key not available for rsync-2.6.5-1.2.el4.rf.i386.rpm
One last note about information and being a newbie. People seem to be debating which information I need and which I don't. As a newbie, let me put it this way: there is no such thing as bad information, it just has to be priorized. Bryan can write the longest posting in the world, and it's fine so long as it goes something like in this order: Here's what to do ro make things just work. Here's how it works. Here's why it works like that. Here's the philosophy behind it's construction. Here's the reasons why the alternate methods don't work.
All too often, those who know how things work are more concerned with explaining things from how they understand it that they lose sight that the first prority of any newbie is to just get it working. Someone on this list said it was critical to know what was happening when someone gives you a bunch of text that goes into the yum.conf file. Yes, it's good to know what is happening. But *after* I've copied the text in and made it work. I was glad that someone just said "Here, put this here, and then do this, and see if that works."
Dave
Quick follow up:
I tried to install a "key", and here's how it went:
[root@localhost ~]# rpm --import http://dag.wieers.com/packages/RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages [root@localhost ~]# rpm --import /home/dave/Desktop/RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages
*sigh*
I'll give Fedora this much: The first command I ran after installing was yum -y update, and it just worked.
Dave
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:31 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:
Quick follow up: I tried to install a "key", and here's how it went: [root@localhost ~]# rpm --import http://dag.wieers.com/packages/RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages [root@localhost ~]# rpm --import /home/dave/Desktop/RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages *sigh*
Something else is using the RPM database. It's just preventing multiple write access.
Do you have up2date running? Or any other updater/program?
Bryan,
I hope my comments about information gathering were not taken personally. I did not mean to be accusatory or anything. I appreciate the advice you were giving, and merely offering an opinion how maybe your wealth of knowledge could be made more accessible to a newbie such as myself.
Something else is using the RPM database. It's just preventing multiple write access. Do you have up2date running?
Yes, that turned out to be the case. Thanks for suggesting this. The up2date icon was indicating something needed to be downloaded. So I went through the up2date process and completed it, and then re-ran the public key install, and it worked. I now have also successfully installed Xine.
Okay, now I'm over that obstacle, now I am curious. Why did Fedora seem to be able to install things through yum immediately after install, and CentOS had to do this key installation stuff?
Dave
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:58 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:
Bryan,
I hope my comments about information gathering were not takenpersonally. I did not mean to be accusatory or anything. I appreciate the advice you were giving, and merely offering an opinion how maybe your wealth of knowledge could be made more accessible to a newbie such as myself.
Something else is using the RPM database. It's just preventing multiple write access. Do you have up2date running?
Yes, that turned out to be the case. Thanks for suggesting this. The up2date icon was indicating something needed to be downloaded. So I went through the up2date process and completed it, and then re-ran the public key install, and it worked. I now have also successfully installed Xine.
Okay, now I'm over that obstacle, now I am curious. Why did Fedora seem to be able to install things through yum immediately after install, and CentOS had to do this key installation stuff?
Dave-
I think the issue stems from the content of the /etc/yum.conf and /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo. I am guessing that either the Fedora was setup with gpgcheck=0 out of the box (I overwrite the stock yum.conf, so I haven't looked at in a while), or the yum server stanzas include the following bit of magic
gpgkey=http://<servername>/path/to/GPG-KEY
You can add this and if you do a yum -y update, yum will slurp the key into the rpmdb. It's a very nice feature. One thing is that it was added to yum at a particular version, and some of the centos versions of yum may predate it. From man yum.conf
gpgkey A URL pointing to the ASCII-armoured GPG key file for the repository. This option is used if yum needs a public key to verify a package and the required key hasn’t been imported into the RPM database. If this option is set, yum will automatically import the key from the specified URL. You will be prompted before the key is installed unless the assumeyes option is set.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 22:18 -0700, Sean O'Connell wrote:
I am guessing that either the Fedora was setup with gpgcheck=0 out of the box (I overwrite the stock yum.conf, so I haven't looked at in a while),
Hmmm, on FC3, it's gpgcheck=1 out-of-the-box. Anyone got FC4 to check (?).
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:58 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:
Bryan, I hope my comments about information gathering were not taken personally.
Why would they be? Any comments I made were directed to people _other_ than yourself. ;->
Yes, that turned out to be the case. Thanks for suggesting this.
No problem.
The RPM database uses Berkeley Sleepycat DB, and it's implementation as the RPM database is not setup to allow more than program to have write access into it.
Okay, now I'm over that obstacle, now I am curious. Why did Fedora seem to be able to install things through yum immediately after install, and CentOS had to do this key installation stuff?
Red Hat distributes a set of Fedora keys with its base install. Same deal with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you start tapping repositories that do not have keys in the base install, you'll need to add them too.
I'm not really up-to-snuff on the keys included with CentOS. I deploy RHEL far more than CentOS (my apologies).
I assume you already know this, but: - Any major "packages" system (DPKG, RPM) have a way for packages to be signed - Most major, automated "front-ends" (APT, YUM, UP2DATE) often check for valid signatures on packages using existing keys - Any keys not included in the base install will need to be imported from a trusted source, so they can then be checked on packages to guarantee they come from that trusted source
Ideally, the keys should come with the distro, but once you start adding repositories, they don't always.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 00:57 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
I'm not really up-to-snuff on the keys included with CentOS. I deploy RHEL far more than CentOS (my apologies).
I assume you already know this, but:
- Any major "packages" system (DPKG, RPM) have a way for packages to be
signed
- Most major, automated "front-ends" (APT, YUM, UP2DATE) often check for
valid signatures on packages using existing keys
- Any keys not included in the base install will need to be imported
from a trusted source, so they can then be checked on packages to guarantee they come from that trusted source
Ideally, the keys should come with the distro, but once you start adding repositories, they don't always.
--- they come with it...
as root
# updatedb # locate GPG-KEY /usr/share/doc/centos-release-4/RPM-GPG-KEY /usr/share/doc/centos-release-4/RPM-GPG-KEY-centos4 /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.3.3/RPM-GPG-KEY /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.3.3/BETA-GPG-KEY /usr/share/rhn/RPM-GPG-KEY /usr/share/rhn/BETA-RPM-GPG-KEY /usr/share/rhn/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora /usr/share/rhn/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-test /usr/share/rhn/RPM-GPG-KEY-centos4
# rpm --import /usr/share/doc/centos-release-4/RPM-GPG-KEY-centos4
Craig
Thank you all for the information on both how to get yum working, and what the causes behind the confusion are. For me this thread is resolved.
Dave
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:25 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:
But actually, when I was saying that DVDs didn't work under FC4, I meant data DVDs which contained back up files.
What drive? What disc format? What program created them? If you haven't guessed, longterm DVD "reliability" is a technical interest of mine. Why? Because I've been using DVD as a backup for Linux since early 1998 -- yes, _1998_, on Linux!
(and no, the drive didn't cost me $10,000, it was $500, brand freak'n new, list price)
One last note about information and being a newbie. People seem to be debating which information I need and which I don't. As a newbie, let me put it this way: there is no such thing as bad information, it just has to be priorized. Bryan can write the longest posting in the world, and it's fine so long as it goes something like in this order: Here's what to do ro make things just work. Here's how it works. Here's why it works like that. Here's the philosophy behind it's construction. Here's the reasons why the alternate methods don't work.
I'd rather so-called "offended, troubled, overwhelmed, etc..." people be open and critique me directly, than have _other_ people "stand up for them" -- especially for so-called "newbies." We are _all_ newbies, from various aspects, and people can handle themselves.
9 times out of 10, when someone else is supposedly "sticking up for newbies, grannies, etc..." someone already has an agenda with me, and it's just the excuse. And then the so-called newbie _really_ gets to see what Linux is all about (bickering, right? NOT!).
On Thursday 28 July 2005 00:44, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
What drive? Â What disc format? Â What program created them? Â If you haven't guessed, longterm DVD "reliability" is a technical interest of mine. Â Why? Â Because I've been using DVD as a backup for Linux since early 1998 -- yes, _1998_, on Linux!
(and no, the drive didn't cost me $10,000, it was $500, brand freak'n new, list price)
*sighs* BS level exceeded...
* The first DVD-R drives under $1000 did not appear until 2001. * The list price in 1998 was $17000 for the only available drive by pioneer. * DVD-R(G) was not even available until 1999 - so if you had a DVD-R(A) drive, then the media are not comparable to what is out now, and all your BS has no relevance about current media. * Linux DVD writing software did not appear until way after 1998 (growisofs, cdrecord patches, ...) so what software were you using?
Of course I could be wrong. If so, please tell me:
* What model of drive did you own? * What software you used to write to it. * Where you were even able to get your hands on a drive in early 1998 at that price.
9 times out of 10, when someone else is supposedly "sticking up for newbies, grannies, etc..." someone already has an agenda with me, and it's just the excuse. And then the so-called newbie _really_ gets to see what Linux is all about (bickering, right? NOT!).
Psychologically a very good idea to post that... Discount other's opinions before they even stated them... Too bad its wrong in this case. Most people that get into a long drawn out argument with you on this list do it because you're clearly wrong and as technical people, we just don't like incorrect statements.
Peter.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 08:44 -0400, Peter Arremann wrote:
*sighs* BS level exceeded...
DVD-RAM is the most reliable, long-term optical archiving format.
- The first DVD-R drives under $1000 did not appear until 2001.
- The list price in 1998 was $17000 for the only available drive by pioneer.
- DVD-R(G) was not even available until 1999 - so if you had a DVD-R(A) drive,
then the media are not comparable to what is out now, and all your BS has no relevance about current media.
DVD-RAM dude. Worked with Linux from nearly day 1.
- Linux DVD writing software did not appear until way after 1998 (growisofs,
cdrecord patches, ...) so what software were you using?
Dude, this is what I'm talking about.
Of course I could be wrong. If so, please tell me:
- What model of drive did you own?
- What software you used to write to it.
- Where you were even able to get your hands on a drive in early 1998 at that
price.
Dude, this is what I'm talking about.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 00:30 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote: ...
I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no "sticking" with FC3. I only made the commitment to move from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.
So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most recent, not realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge experimental version.
Well, Red Hat and many Fedora users would argue with that characterization (the real serious bleeding is done in development/rawhide and test releases), but FC4 certainly seems to be causing more than the usual amount of blood-loss for a FC final release. After being a Red Hat user for many years and running every FC1/2/3 release, including many of the test versions, I've yet to install FC4 on anything but a VMware virtual machine, and am using CentOS4 for both home and work. It is a lot more stable without sacrificing much in the way of features.
On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret it a bit.
As one if those who led you here, I feel a bit of responsibility. Looks like you have gotten some good advice and I hope your regrets are not too severe. I think you will find this list has a higher signal/noise ratio than fedora-list and it is generally a very good source of help, despite the occasional pontification (perhaps risking that label here :-) and flame-wars. Moving from Windows to any *nix distribution is going to involve some challenges and a bit of pain, but IMHO the world of free software has so much more to offer (aside from the attractive price/performance) that it will be worth it to get up the learning curve.
While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked so far and it's frustrating.
This is probably just frustration talking, but at this point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is far less confusion about versions and compatibility. Ditto for Mac.
Well Mac OS-X is at least *nix-based, but a bit too pricey/proprietary for many. Might argue about Windows versions and compatibility with some of the things that Redmond has broken with "security" and/or DRM patches. Admittedly, Windows tends to be less challenging for the non- technical desktop user. Mac is also apparently a good choice for many people. Both tend to lock you into your choice once you've made it more so than anything in the free OS software world.
I've been experimenting with Linux for three weeks now, and I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let alone which will suit my needs. I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian builds over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of choices, and not in a good way.
Well, the debate over the "best" distro will not be resolved here, and it will always be to a large extent a matter of choice and preference. My $0.02 as a user of Unix since early Sun Microsystems days, and a Linux user since 0.98-pl14, is pick a distribution and stick with it. Any of the sea of choices in which you are drowning could be a reasonable solution. Each distro-family has a different approach and "flavor" to system installation and administration, and all are more-or- less equally viable. For me, I picked Red Hat at about version 3 (RH not RHEL) and have not regretted sticking with that choice over a number of years.
If you value stability it's hard to beat RHEL and derivatives, including WBEL, Tao, Scientific Linux, and CentOS. It is also relatively easy to switch among them as they are all very similar, being built on the same Red Hat code base, and thus sharing a lot in system features and philosophy. Your choice of one of the family is not very limiting. What you learn in any RH-based distro will be pretty directly applicable to any of the others. If you get your kicks from living on the edge, helping debug new features, and always having the latest features, then rawhide is the other end of the scale in the RH world. The two are not mutually exclusive. I like to play around on the bleeding edge, but also want/need to maintain a stable platform for productivity, both for work and for things like playing around with multimedia. FC is more in the middle - pretty much a perpetual Beta and testbed for technologies that may/may-not end up in RHEL.
There are similar choices in the Debian world and to some extent with other distro-families. From what I've seen in your pieces of the threads here and on fedora-list, you value community and want a stable platform. Look at the reviews of the more stable distros, and look over the associated list archives to get a feel for the community spirit. Make a choice and dig in. I doubt you will go back to Windows if you give Linux a good chance and invest the effort to get up the learning curve.
Welcome to the wonderful - but sometimes challenging - world of free software. Hope to see you around the lists.
Phil
Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov wrote:
Well, Red Hat and many Fedora users would argue with that characterization (the real serious bleeding is done in development/rawhide and test releases), but FC4 certainly seems to be causing more than the usual amount of blood- loss for a FC final release.
I really didn't even assert that first part, I tried to be brief. I just merely stated that, just like FC2, I was "holding off" on FC4 adoption. I made that "pre-emptive decision" when GCC 4 went in (among other things), and I like to think my logic has held true.
Now that aside, I wanted to convey that FC3 ~ RHEL4. I also wanted to convey that this is _not_ well known, and even the new, Unofficial Fedora Core FAQ is stating FC4 ~ RHEL4 (incorrect).
Why I got bounced on, I don't know. I'm really sorry for being verbose at times, and I'm trying to curb that. I'm trying to "get to the point," but sometimes, I find that by providing extra information, I answer 2-3 follow-up questions.
I know a lot of the "experts" around here probably glaze their eyes at times at me. But I've also had experts come back after I've answered one of their questions and said they would never question why I add information, because it helped them answer subsequent questions as well.
It's a difficult balance to obtain, and I apologize for what may appear to be someone who "likes to hear himself talk." But in all honesty, that's not my intent. I'm really for discussions to find the root cause, proliferate understanding and many other things so people don't run into them again.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:49 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov wrote:
Well, Red Hat and many Fedora users would argue with that characterization (the real serious bleeding is done in development/rawhide and test releases), but FC4 certainly seems to be causing more than the usual amount of blood- loss for a FC final release.
I really didn't even assert that first part, I tried to be brief.
And here I thought I was replying to Dave Gutteridge. :-P In fact, I was replying to Dave.
I just merely stated that, just like FC2, I was
...
Why I got bounced on, I don't know.
Don't know either, but please don't implicitly accuse me of bouncing on you when my message was a direct response to the OP. A thicker skin and a longer fuse might be good things for such a prolific poster to develop.
I'm really sorry for being verbose at times, and I'm trying to curb that.
Can sympathize with the need to fight verbosity.
...
It's a difficult balance to obtain, and I apologize for what may appear to be someone who "likes to hear himself talk." But in all honesty, that's not my intent. I'm really for discussions to find the root cause, proliferate understanding and many other things so people don't run into them again.
You definitely provide a lot of information, but apparently often more than people want to see. That's what filters are for. :-)
Cheers, Phil
On 7/27/05, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
Whats wrong with CentOS4 that he has just installed ?
_Nothing_.
The orignal post was about sources/ repositories for CentOS4, and not whats wrong with FC4.
But he brought up getting packages from FC4.
I was trying to convey ...
- FC4 is the next ".0" revision, and
- FC3 is the ".1" revision that _maps_to_ RHEL4
People who tap FC packages for RHEL4 (or CentOS4) need to be _aware_ of this! There is not a day that goes by that people think FC4 -> RHEL4. It is FC3 -> RHEL4!
[ Now I blame Red Hat for that, but that's another story. ]
He went to Fedora Core 3 to get a package for CentOS.
Knowing that FC4 is a new ".0" release and uses GCC 4 is very, very pretinent to why you're going to have build issues on RHEL4 (and CentOS4)! And that's why he needs to stick with FC3 if he's going to attempt to use packages from Fedora for CentOS4!
So he bought himself a ford, and is trying to bolt on a few chevy parts. He doesn't need to go buy a chevy to match the part he got, he needs to get some ford parts. </redneck>
His logic is travelling thusly. He wants a package, and he wants a reasonably new version of it. fc4 is new, so he initially tries to use that one. When it failed, he asked on the mailing list like a good user, so rather than point him to the shop up the street, we can help in 3 simple steps
1. Inform him of his error. Note to Dave: What you did was not correct, which is why it broke. 2. Point him to the right locations for additional yum packages. Note to Dave: Install dag's repo and gpg key, available at dag.wieers.com. Also install the Extras and Misc repos (and gpg keys) from centos.karan.org. These 3 repos should provide you with everything you need. 3. Ensure that your solution solves the user's dilemma. Note to Dave: Let us know if that didn't work, or stop by the irc channel (#centos on freenode.net) for more immediate help.
I'm all out of snide manners to provide assistance and mock people into staying on topic. Hopefully it's managed to help poor Dave, and provide someone with a sense of humor.
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
His logic is travelling thusly.
I don't blame his logic one bit. Especially since he's new. I tried to explain it as best as I could.
In fact, even the latest Unofficial Fedora FAQ was saying that FC4 -> RHEL4, which is not correct at all. This is what I meant by "not a day goes by ..."
Whether people run RHEL/CentOS or not, it's based on Fedora Core. And as long as Red Hat doesn't make it simple to understand how the distros relate, when someone has an issue trying to use a Fedora Core package, I'll try to explain it.
I thought I did it rather briefly (at least for me).
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
Whether people run RHEL/CentOS or not, it's based on Fedora Core. And as long as Red Hat doesn't make it simple to understand how the distros relate, when someone has an issue trying to use a Fedora Core package, I'll try to explain it.
I see, but it is necessary? Sometimes, too much information is like not enough. Try putting yourself in the head of someone who has been trying to use linux for 3 weeks. 3 weeks. Does he need to know how crappy is fedora's versionning scheme is? When you're a beginner, you want something that works. You don't want to get into deep details. Once you have a working system, you can dig into details.
Don't take that as in insult. You're probably the best source of information I'll ever meet in all of my lives, but flooding newbies with info can have a very negative effect on their learning, and it may be worse than saying nothing. Please keep it simple. If you want to express your feelings about something, use your new blog, and send a link to it so that people can discuss.
So what was the story of the original post?
1- He tried Fedora, but switched to CentOS because of lack of stability and he could now read DVD's.
2- He found that there are a lot less applications available for CentOS.
3- He tried installing an RPM that was built for Fedora, but it didn't work.
4- He wants to have docs about installation of CentOS.
Conclusion: He wants to keep CentOS, but would like to have more applications available. He probably doesn't care much about _why_ a Fedora RPM doesn't work on CentOS. He wants install docs for CentOS.
For me, the answer is quite simple:
- Dave, Fedora have more repositories configured by default than CentOS, but you can easily add some. It is better to only use RPMs that are built for your system (Using CentOS3? look for RHEL3; using CentOS4? look for RHEL4 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux)), or compile from source. See my other post for link to other repositories.
- For the doc question, I haven't found any doc similar to the posted link. But many tips on that page should work for CentOS, with slight modifications. Or write to the list, we'll help you, or use the IRC channel (other people gave other good suggestions...)
I thought I did it rather briefly (at least for me).
Yes, but it looks like you fulfill your needs before the original poster's.
Regards,
Ugo Bellavance ugob@camo-route.com wrote:
I see, but it is necessary? Sometimes, too much information is like not enough. Try putting yourself in the head of someone who has been trying to use linux for 3 weeks. 3 weeks. Does he need to know how crappy is fedora's versionning scheme is?
I tried to be brief, and essentially state that FC3 ~ RHEL4. That's all. Furthermore, I said the problem is the versioning scheme -- it really screws everything up for people, as he just found out. That's all.
When you're a beginner, you want something that works. You don't want to get into deep details.
He gave details, so I tried to explain details. That's all. I really tried to be brief for myself, that FC4 packages will not work well with RHEL4, and that if you're going to look at anything Fedora, stick with FC3. That's all.
Don't take that as in insult. You're probably the best source of information I'll ever meet in all of my lives, but flooding newbies with info can have a very negative effect on their learning,
Unless I missed something, I didn't know he was new until a subsequent post. But even then, I re-read my first response and thought it was to-the-point.
So what was the story of the original post? 1- He tried Fedora, but switched to CentOS because of lack of stability and he could now read DVD's. 2- He found that there are a lot less applications available for CentOS. 3- He tried installing an RPM that was built for Fedora, but it didn't work.
Right. And I made a couple of notes on that for him. If he would sound off and said I "confused him further," I'll be very, very humble. In fact, no ego here, if that is indeed the case, I would very much like to hear it from him. On-list or off-list, his choice.
4- He wants to have docs about installation of CentOS. Conclusion: He wants to keep CentOS, but would like to have more applications available. He probably doesn't care much about _why_ a Fedora RPM doesn't work on CentOS. He wants install docs for CentOS.
Had he started with only RHEL/CentOS, I probably wouldn't have posted anything. But he said he got advise from the Fedora list, and I wanted to explain that RPMs from FC4 won't work on RHEL4.
Yes, but it looks like you fulfill your needs before the original poster's.
I'm sorry you see it that way.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Ugo Bellavance ugob@camo-route.com wrote:
Yes, but it looks like you fulfill your needs before the original poster's.
I'm sorry you see it that way.
I doubt this is a perception issue.
Look at the amount of threads that ends up without the original poster, that will give you a clue.
Ugo Bellavance ugob@camo-route.com wrote:
I doubt this is a perception issue. Look at the amount of threads that ends up without the original poster, that will give you a clue.
Point taken. I will be considerate in the future. I only ask you don't hold me to a double-standard. ;->
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Ugo Bellavance ugob@camo-route.com wrote:
I doubt this is a perception issue. Look at the amount of threads that ends up without the original poster, that will give you a clue.
Point taken. I will be considerate in the future.
Ok, thanks for your open-mindness. I don't want to filter your e-mails since you say a lot of interesting things. I'm sure you can find a decent equilibrium point.
I only ask you don't hold me to a double-standard. ;->
Don't worry, I don't have enough knowledge to do that yet ;).
Hello, I was wondering if any of you know why the CentOS repository are not updated? for example, i just heard about the bugs of the version <=1.4.4 of Squirrelmail and on their website there is already a stable packet 1.4.5, but in the CentOS repository the only available version is the 1.4.3 9a
Any ideas?
Another thing, im new using yum so i have a question, for example if i put "yum install squirrelmail1.4.5" but i have the version 1.4.3 already installed in my system, what happens? does the yum override the old version? what happens with the config files?
On 7/27/05, Root Fac. Cs. Politicas ccastro@fcpolit.unr.edu.ar wrote:
Hello, I was wondering if any of you know why the CentOS repository are not updated? for example, i just heard about the bugs of the version <=1.4.4 of Squirrelmail and on their website there is already a stable packet 1.4.5, but in the CentOS repository the only available version is the 1.4.3 9a
Any ideas?
RedHat, and by proxy CentOS backport fixes to security problems rather than upgrading to new versions, as new versions can introduce new problems. What is released as an update by centos and RHEL is patched, so you can't really go by version number alone.
Another thing, im new using yum so i have a question, for example if i put "yum install squirrelmail1.4.5" but i have the version 1.4.3 already installed in my system, what happens? does the yum override the old version? what happens with the config files?
This depends on the RPM, and what's marked as a config file. For proper packages, config files are not replaced, and new default configs are created as configfilename.rpmnew. Also, to upgrade you don't need to tell it to install the new one. Simply do "yum update" or "yum upgrade". This will install check for any newer versions of packages that you have installed, and ask if it's okay to install them.
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
Jim Perrin wrote:
On 7/27/05, Root Fac. Cs. Politicas ccastro@fcpolit.unr.edu.ar wrote:
Hello, I was wondering if any of you know why the CentOS repository are not updated? for example, i just heard about the bugs of the version <=1.4.4 of Squirrelmail and on their website there is already a stable packet 1.4.5, but in the CentOS repository the only available version is the 1.4.3 9a
Any ideas?
RedHat, and by proxy CentOS backport fixes to security problems rather than upgrading to new versions, as new versions can introduce new problems. What is released as an update by centos and RHEL is patched, so you can't really go by version number alone.
Another thing, im new using yum so i have a question, for example if i put "yum install squirrelmail1.4.5" but i have the version 1.4.3 already installed in my system, what happens? does the yum override the old version? what happens with the config files?
This depends on the RPM, and what's marked as a config file. For proper packages, config files are not replaced, and new default configs are created as configfilename.rpmnew. Also, to upgrade you don't need to tell it to install the new one. Simply do "yum update" or "yum upgrade". This will install check for any newer versions of packages that you have installed, and ask if it's okay to install them.
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
So are you saying that the packet I found in the CentOS repository (1.4.3) it's patched properly? when I do a "yum update" what im really doing?changing versions or not? just updating to patched versions? what if I want to install a new version of a package? what should i do to upgrade to a new version instead of a patched version? Anyway....why isnt the package of squirrelmail 1.4.5 in the repository? where can i find a description of the packages in the repository..i mean...how can i know the real version..the patches applied to it..and etc.
Is there a way to use yum only to fix security problems? or that is what it really do and i dont know it yet...the first time i run yum update..i download a lot of packages..but how can i know if they are new version or just security patches for my old ones...? If i regulary use the yum update should I be relax that I have all my packages up to date and with their security patches?
Thanks
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 23:59 -0300, Claudio Castro wrote: ...
So are you saying that the packet I found in the CentOS repository (1.4.3) it's patched properly?
$ rpm -q --changelog -p squirrelmail-1.4.3a-9.EL4.centos4.noarch.rpm * Tue Apr 12 2005 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org 1.4.3a-9.EL4.centos4
- remarked out the spash screen (RH/Fedora Trademark removal)
* Tue Feb 01 2005 Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com 1.4.3a-9.EL4
- CAN-2005-0075 potential insecure file inclusions
* Mon Jan 31 2005 Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com 1.4.3a-8.EL4
- CAN-2005-0103 for cross site scripting - CAN-2005-0104 for code injectian via unsanitised integer variable
* Fri Nov 19 2004 Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com 1.4.3a-7.EL4
- RHEL4 ... etc., etc., etc. ...
when I do a "yum update" what im really doing?changing versions or not? just updating to patched versions?
The patched versions will always have a new number. Whether it's a new version or one with backported patches or other incremental changes can usually be determined by the packagename-M.N part of the name.
what if I want to install a new version of a package?
If it's in a compatible repo, and has a higher version, just add the repo to your yum configuration (or alternate favorite package manager) and update.
what should i do to upgrade to a new version instead of a patched version? Anyway....why isnt the package of squirrelmail 1.4.5 in the repository?
Because RH chooses to do backports rather than new versions, and CentOS generally follows RHEL.
where can i find a description of the packages in the repository..i mean...how can i know the real version..the patches applied to it..and etc.
See above.
Is there a way to use yum only to fix security problems? or that is what it really do and i dont know it yet...the first time i run yum update..i download a lot of packages..but how can i know if they are new version or just security patches for my old ones...?
This has been discussed on several RH&derivatives lists. Seems that there's no easy way for yum to know a security update from a simple bug- fix or enhancement. Might turn up as a future feature. Best you can do now is look at the announcements and install only the security fixes, but that seems like more trouble than it's worth.
If i regulary use the yum update should I be relax that I have all my packages up to date and with their security patches?
That's about the best you can do, unless you want to monitor the security lists and roll your own patches.
Dave Gutteridge wrote:
Centos Mailing List,
Hello. I have just recently installed CentOS on my home computer, and just joined this mailing list. I have a lot of questions so I will have quite a few postings in the next few days.
Feel free to ask here. You might also want to look through the mail list archives and the website forums, to see if the issues have been previously addressed.
Anyway, long story short, CentOS looks and feels just like Fedora (which I like), and it reads all my DVD drives normally, so I think I could be happy with it.
cool :) happy is good.
But... When I tried to install Xine, using yum, it said it could not find it. And then I went looking for an RPM for Xine, and they're all for Red Hat or Fedora. I tried installing an RPM for Fedora anyway, reasoning that maybe they were the same in more than just looks, but no dice.
there are a few repo's that host Xine build for CentOS ( remember RHEL packages work here fine ). Ugo has already pointed out Dag's repository...
As I looked around the net, it seems that applications all seem to have specific builds for Red Hat, Fedora, a couple of Debian builds... but no CentOS. Going by the amount of available information and support,
CentOS is based on the Redhat Codebase, you can safely use any related RHEL3 repository for CentOS3 and RHEL4 repository for CentOS4.
There are a few external repo's listed here : http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=438&forum=28
Can't I have it all? Stability, the ability to read my DVD drives, *and* a variety of applications?
Yes you can. And CentOS is the place its at. Fedora moves to quick, breaks often.
Is there any kind of resource for instructions on installing CentOS like there is this one for Fedora: http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_4_installation_notes.html
There is a large Documentation set hosted at http://www.centos.org/docs/ you should be able to find most install instructions, setup and some basic stuff on system admin too.
- KB
-
Bill Diamond -
Bryan J. Smith -
Claudio Castro -
Craig White -
Dave Gutteridge -
Feizhou -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Peter Arremann -
Phil Schaffner -
Robert Hanson -
Root Fac. Cs. Politicas
-
ryan -
Sean O'Connell -
Steve Huff -
Tom -
Ugo Bellavance