On Thursday 24 September 2009 13:27:16 Timothy Murphy wrote:

Anne Wilson wrote:

...

I'm thinking of giving CentOS to a non-tech user for her new desktop. He needs are small. She has been used to Mozilla for both mail and browsing, so equivalents there are not a problem. She needs grip and lame, for her mp3s - again no problem. In fact the only problem I can see is that gwenview doesn't appear to have the kipi-plugins. I can see libkipi listed, but no plugins, and a pbone search didn't find it for me.

Why CentOS, as a matter of interest. I'm a great fan of CentOS for servers, but I would have thought Fedora would be more suitable for the purpose you are talking about.

No, not for her, I think. The long-term support and stability are more suited to her needs. She doesn't need the latest and greatest. FC6 did, for me, everything she needs and more, so as long as I can resolve the photo printing problem, CentOS is the logical answer.

Anne

Matt a écrit :

I have always used Ubuntu for desktop linux and CentOS for servers. Have never tried CentOS as a desktop. Perhaps I should?

One look is worth a thousand words, as they say :

http://www.microlinux.fr/captures.html

My Linux desktop, based on CentOS 5.3, tweaked to death with all the extra stuff like working Flash, working Java plugin, working codecs, extra packages from RPMForge as well as my own repository. Will play every audio and video format under the sun, and it's just about to make coffee also :o)

This is the exact same desktop I usually install for my clients. Comes on two homegrown custom CDs with install scripts, so installing it on a fairy recent desktop takes no more than half an hour.

Does everything that the average Ubuntu/Mint desktop is supposed to do, that is, minus the bugs and the worries.

Policy: I install it, the user uses it. Period.

Works like a charm.

Cheers,

Niki

Les Mikesell a écrit :

Can the install script be simplified to rpm installs of the http urls to the yum repo release files followed by yum installs of a list of packages? And if so, can someone publish that script?

Not really. Before discovering CentOS (around 2006), I've been a die-hard Slackware user, so my two install CDs are a bit like a set of two Slackware CDs. Which means, a loose set of directories with stuff in them, plus scripts to install them. For example, directories like x11/, nvidia/, ati/ and compiz/, with stuff in them, which I install only if needed. As for the configuration, I do everything (X11, network, ...) by hand, using Vi.

Here's an example. I have a directory java/, with the latest java from sun.com, plus the following script:

#!/bin/bash # CWD=`pwd` cp jre-6u14-linux-i586.bin /opt chmod +c /opt/jre-6u14-linux-i586.bin { cd /opt rm -rf jre1.6.0_14 rm -f /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so sh jre-6u14-linux-i586.bin rm -f jre-6u14-linux-i586.bin } ln -s /opt/jre1.6.0_14/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so \ /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ cat > /etc/profile.d/java.sh << EOF export J2RE_HOME=/opt/jre1.6.0_14 export PATH=$J2RE_HOME/bin:$PATH EOF chmod +x /etc/profile.d/java.sh source /etc/profile.d/java.sh alternatives --install /usr/bin/java java /opt/jre1.6.0_14/bin/java 2 alternatives --config java

Or, other example, the w32codecs/ directory with the following script:

#!/bin/bash # # codecs-install.sh

CWD=`pwd`

rm -rf /usr/lib/codecs rm -rf /usr/lib/win32

tar xjf $CWD/all-20071007.tar.bz2 -C /usr/lib { cd /usr/lib mv all-20071007 codecs ln -s codecs win32 }

This logic applies pretty much to everything. But it's not really an installer.

Of course, it *could* be possible to publish some more user-friendly set of install CDs, but this would be a hell of a lot of work, and you'd end up with something like Yellowdog Linux (which is based on CentOS).

Cheers,

Niki

Les Mikesell a écrit :

But that leaves you in charge of maintaining and updating every piece you install or leaving the systems in a lurch if you don't and there are subsequent security/bug fixes. The whole point of having an enterprise-type long-life distribution is that you don't have to do that.

Well, 'yum update' should fix that, except for the odd extra package (Java, OpenOffice.org, codecs etc.)

mark wrote:

Niki Kovacs wrote:

...

Les Mikesell a écrit :

<snip> > Here's an example. I have a directory java/, with the latest java from > sun.com, plus the following script: <snip> I've just become familiar with alternatives, and now wonder why no one created that a decade ago.

It's not a real good fit for things like java where you really want to be able to run multiple versions simultaneously, depending on the user, the app, or the intended purpose (perhaps testing the next release while production apps continue to use the older one).

mark wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:

...

mark wrote:

...

Niki Kovacs wrote:

...

Les Mikesell a écrit :

<snip> > Here's an example. I have a directory java/, with the latest java from > sun.com, plus the following script: <snip> I've just become familiar with alternatives, and now wonder why no one created that a decade ago.

It's not a real good fit for things like java where you really want to be able to run multiple versions simultaneously, depending on the user, the app, or the intended purpose (perhaps testing the next release while production apps continue to use the older one).

I gather, thought that is what JAVA_HOME is for....

Yes, but you also need to know where that is, and the correct path to the executable you want, which the alternatives system goes out of its way to hide. And if you want different builds/patchlevels of the same minor rev, the RPM system itself will make it difficult.

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 08:53 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:

Anne Wilson wrote:

...

I'm thinking of giving CentOS to a non-tech user for her new desktop. He needs are small. She has been used to Mozilla for both mail and browsing, so equivalents there are not a problem. She needs grip and lame, for her mp3s - again no problem.

Desktop, non-techie - use Ubuntu instead.

I'm a big CentOS fan, I joined even the Facebook group (lol), but its place is on the server or, perhaps, on a workstation for a power user (or for things like running scientific apps on the desktop). If you're a PhD running quantum theory equations with Mathematica on your Xeon multicore workstation, I can very well see why you would prefer CentOS, or even Red Hat Enterprise proper.

But non-tech persons, they will be much more comfortable with Ubuntu. Much, much more comfortable. It will do more things for them, they may even be able to tinker with it, in a small way. Your support calls will be much reduced. ;-) CentOS (any RHE derivative, basically) is a less good choice for this particular situation.

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint.

I have converted several "non-techie" users to CentOS from the "other OS" ( sometimes called the Rubbish from Redmond ) with little difficulty. CentOS on the desktop is what I use, therefore I am in a good position to answer their questions ( which have been very few, so far ) where if I put another distro on their machines, I would have to flail around when some minor point about the desktop or menu comes up. This also gives the long support cycle, as others have noted in this thread. This is also of interest, since I equip these folks with recycled or "older technology" systems, which CentOS supports quite well.

For those who may have some need or want that CentOS doesn't support, I keep Linux Mint around. It is a derivative of Ubuntu that has the codecs and stuff like that included, so it has all of Ubuntu's "user friendliness" with less fuss over non-free components. So far, I haven't had to use it since CentOS has satisfied the modest requirements of my users.

This is just my $0.02 ( US ) worth.

Heck, I consider myself very knowledgeable (been using Linux since Slackware came on a stack of floppies and I had it dual-boot with a novelty OS called Windows 95; made my own distribution once from scratch; been using Red Hat nearly since the beginning) and I still don't run CentOS on my desktop - I use Ubuntu instead. (actually, as I'm getting more and more involved with higher-end-ish digital photo and digital video processing, I find myself booting Vista a lot more often on my home PC - it's a long story and yes I am aware of all the wonderful Linux video apps)

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:37 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:

Ron Loftin wrote:

...

difficulty. CentOS on the desktop is what I use, therefore I am in a good position to answer their questions ( which have been very few, so far ) where if I put another distro on their machines, I would have to flail around when some minor point about the desktop or menu comes up.

That is a fair point. Having to support something you're not familiar with can be difficult.

...

This also gives the long support cycle, as others have noted in this

Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) is similar to Red Hat in that regard, if that's what you want (but the advantages of a slow-moving distro are less clear for this kind of situation).

http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-8.04-lts-desktop

I forgot to mention something: The end-user support for Ubuntu is phenomenal. With CentOS or Red Hat, you do get info on the mailing lists and wikis, but it's for geeks like you and me. Ubuntu has plenty of information on the Web, including forums and blogs and whatnot, much more accessible to the average Joe/Jane. The difference is gigantic, orders of magnitude really, it was the most striking feature when I started to use Ubuntu (besides the fact that you almost never have to compile anything, ever - any software you can imagine is just an "apt-get install" away, or rather, click on Synaptic Package Manager, Search, double-click).

All true. No way would I argue with that.

The low-tech crowd using Ubuntu is huge, they clearly have the largest user base in that segment. And if you're a non-techie you want to stay with the crowd.

What I'm saying is, they will be able to figure out more things by themselves on Ubuntu, if they can use a browser. Maybe even become totally independent after a while.

We might have a communication problem here, in the image of the "low-tech" user.

My image of the "low-tech" user is the one who surfs the Web, reads and writes e-mail, and does the odd letter or maybe even a spreadsheet in some office tool, along with maybe some simple games. My experience with this category of user is that when they stumble across something unfamiliar or want some additional function, they pick up the phone and call me.

If I'm reading your above two paragraphs correctly, your image of the "low-tech" user is one who has enough curiosity and motivation to poke at the machine by his/her self to find things out. My personal tendency is to not include people like this in the "low-tech" category, but to let them slide towards the "power user" category.

This, of course, is another rationale for the Linux/Unix security model versus the sham that is called "security" under Windoze. When somebody is experimenting with an idea new to them just found on the 'Net, at least it's more difficult for them to trash the entire machine.

Anyway, I have been reasonably successful with my approach to moving people onto Linux, and apparently so have you. As every little bit helps, then let's both keep at it. ;>

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:

On Thursday 24 September 2009 17:50:37 Ron Loftin wrote:

...

My image of the "low-tech" user is the one who surfs the Web, reads and writes e-mail, and does the odd letter or maybe even a spreadsheet in some office tool, along with maybe some simple games. My experience with this category of user is that when they stumble across something unfamiliar or want some additional function, they pick up the phone and call me.

I recognise that description ;-D

It's the "Give a man a fish/Teach a man to fish" scenario. I've long-since stopped setting up machine for anyone in that category. They _must_ figure things out for themselves (with hints from me perhaps), then they've learned something valuable and are better able to fend for themselves from that point on.

Preferably hand them a set of CD's or a DVD and say "have fun". They have a sense of ownership and of accomplishment that way too. Remember how proud you were when you could finally say "I don't depend on MS anymore!"?

Family is the only category where I make (rare) exceptions, but my kids are already showing me a thing or two these days about Linux so I needn't worry about them anymore.

Anne Wilson wrote:

On Thursday 24 September 2009 20:03:04 Curt Mills wrote:

...

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:

...

On Thursday 24 September 2009 17:50:37 Ron Loftin wrote:

...

My image of the "low-tech" user is the one who surfs the Web, reads and writes e-mail, and does the odd letter or maybe even a spreadsheet in some office tool, along with maybe some simple games. My experience with this category of user is that when they stumble across something unfamiliar or want some additional function, they pick up the phone and call me.

I recognise that description ;-D

It's the "Give a man a fish/Teach a man to fish" scenario.

Some people would rather visit the fishmonger, and it's their right to make that decision.

Or, "teach a man to fish and he'll waste the rest of his life sitting in a boat drinking beer"?

Florin Andrei wrote:

I'm a big CentOS fan, I joined even the Facebook group (lol), but its place is on the server or, perhaps, on a workstation for a power user (or for things like running scientific apps on the desktop). If you're a PhD running quantum theory equations with Mathematica on your Xeon multicore workstation, I can very well see why you would prefer CentOS, or even Red Hat Enterprise proper.

+1 I have to agree here as well. I used to recommend and help set up CentOS on user desktops, but it became more of a burden than good thing. I no longer do so, because Ubuntu is so much more user-friendly.

In my experience, Ubuntu is much more out-of-box useful for a standard user desktop or laptop. There's no fussing around with hardware configurations, or extra drivers (in most cases), and things just seem to work. All the gadgets, gizmos, and eye-candy items are already there, things I enjoy, but have some setup time involved in with using CentOS.

For instance, on my laptop, CentOS doesn't recognize my external display and it doesn't matter what I've tried, I can't get it to work. On Ubuntu, though, it just works. I've had other experiences like having to really try hard to get wireless working. Most of my issues were hardware issues, but I know CentOS is improving on that.

I think like others have mentioned. It's a combination of what the user is going to do with it, versus, what you are most comfortable with, versus how much twiddling the user is going to want to do. Ubuntu is much much easier for the user to configure himself/herself.

Although it doesn't stop me from using CentOS on my laptop and desktops, I don't recommend it to people I know now because of the following reasons.

I think it's all personal experience and what the system is going to be doing. It's not a simple question. These are just my experiences.

Regards, Max

Tiago Almeida wrote:

IMHO,

I think Fedora is a good choice for Desktop (Although i'm a Debian fan), because it's RPM based distro and if you get used to it you'll be also at CentOS.

I totally agree that for servers CentOS or RHCE is a good choice.

Hi

Sorry, but Fedora is no longer a good desktop choice. I was a Fedora user, but the distribution is pushing to far the idea of cutting edge features.

Now I use Ubuntu in my laptop for the same reason presented before by others. CentOS in great for technical workstations (I use and install for the engineers in the company) and servers.

Regards

Marcelo

-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On

Behalf

Of Marcelo M. Garcia Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:57 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS for non-tech user

Sorry, but Fedora is no longer a good desktop choice. I was a Fedora user, but the distribution is pushing to far the idea of cutting edge features.

Would you mind elaborating your view here?

It's that same old problem.

Some distros just ignores LSB, and do the way they wants leaving to some incompatibility issues.

The way you configure network, for example, is different on Debian, Slackware, etc.

That's bad.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Drew wrote:

...

The other thing is that ubuntu does some things I consider odd, and puts some things in odd places (say, not having your web stuff under /var/www, etc).

That may be because they're aiming for compliance with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ( http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ ). Web related stuff goes under /srv/www.

I really wish RH would hop on the /srv bus. The broad distinction is fairly easy to grasp: /var for variable data of general interest to the machine, /srv for stuff related to a specific service. In general, /var is machine-generated, /srv is person-generated.

If you maintain it with $EDITOR and it's available with $DAEMON, it goes in /srv. (How's that for a stunningly broad generalization? :-)

On 24/09/09 21:32, Paul Heinlein wrote:

I really wish RH would hop on the /srv bus. The broad distinction is fairly easy to grasp: /var for variable data of general interest to the machine, /srv for stuff related to a specific service. In general, /var is machine-generated, /srv is person-generated.

what does the lsb haveto say about this ?

- KB

So I don't see consensus here. What if my served data ist "variable data"? An no distinction between man made or machine made is given here. Also this might not be flexible enough for some scenarios.

Is the data being stored customer facing or internal to the machine?

That's the rule of thumb I see applied to what goes in /srv. In a LAMP box for example I'd expect to see the website(and site logs), database files, and POP3/IMAP spools stored in srv directories. Machine specific data like system logs and email processing spools get stored in /var.

Karanbir Singh wrote:

On 09/27/2009 02:57 PM, Drew wrote:

...

That's the rule of thumb I see applied to what goes in /srv. In a LAMP box for example I'd expect to see the website(and site logs), database files, and POP3/IMAP spools stored in srv directories. Machine specific data like system logs and email processing spools get stored in /var.

well, /srv to me is served and shared storage. So anything on the network that isnt consumed directly by off-immediate-network clients using any service would end up there.

To me, thats the best match for usage - most other things, maybe everything else, has a fairly clear guideline from the LSB. although the lsb specs are themselves a bit in the air. Lets see if the 3rd or 4th time they get something done a bit more formally.

Not likely... Storage paths are all arbitrary and if a standard has to make up a new location that breaks existing concepts they've already done something wrong. So far the LSB has been good at making up things that nobody used before - not so good at getting everyone to agree to change (and change again every time they change their minds).

Drew wrote:

...

Not likely... Storage paths are all arbitrary and if a standard has to make up a new location that breaks existing concepts they've already done something wrong.

Times change. What worked well on Unix 20-30 years ago isn't necessarily the best way of doing things today.

Storage paths are arbitrary. There's nothing more functional about one path than any other. This isn't about 'working well'. It's about forcing everyone to change for no reason. It's about making Linux different from other unix flavors for no reason. All while avoiding the thing that Linux actually needs which is to define a standard set of libraries and their locations that must be present so people can deliver programs that run across distributions.

Websites for example have moved from static html on the arpanet & university sites to the rich multimedia content we see today. Back then the idea of a website infecting a computer was unheard of. Now an entire industry has cropped up around protecting systems from malicious content.

Those are functional issues, not arbitrary choices.

...

So far the LSB has been good at making up things that nobody used before - not so good at getting everyone to agree to change (and change again every time they change their minds).

I've never seen an entire industry move rapidly to adopt change unless there are significant incentives to do so. And as the incentives for Linux to do so are primarily "best practices" I don't expect to see a wholesale move anytime soon.

Exactly. There is no reason to change from one arbitrary location to another, and without standardizing library functionality and locations the LSB provides no functional benefit.

Drew wrote:

The argument you're expressing, as I see it, is that there is really no difference whether or not the files are stored in /var or /srv because in the end they're bits on a disk so where in the file system they end up doesn't matter. /var was chosen years ago by Unix admins so why change it to /srv?

Not quite. It is more a matter of a standard only being useful if everyone does what it says. Picking a new location that no one currently uses is always the worst possible choice.

My argument is that those same Unix admins no doubt placed it there because it made functional sense at the time.

It is not a functional thing. It's a name.

Over the years that location became a convention and therefore became an arbitrary location. The LSB is reviewing that same functional choice in light of what changes have occurred in how we use servers and they feel that it makes more functional sense to break those files out into their own tree.

Names are arbitrary. If you make up a new one, you ensure that you break everything that already had one - and that's mostly what the LSB has done so far.

As far as breaking tradition from Unix, last time I checked porting an app of reasonable size over from Linux to Unix is not a simple process.

Linus started out with the idea of emulating Solaris/SysVr4. If that's not what happened, it is a failing of Linux. And Posix imposed additional standards along the way. And of course java came along and made it possible to run things portably in spite of the OS attempts to prevent that.

The choice to put client facing files in one directory or another is a minor part, at best, of that process.

Aren't all files 'client facing' if the machine has a purpose? What other reason would you have for any files?

I agree with you on standardizing libraries but I fail to see how that has any relevance to where an admin should place their client facing files.

Standardizing libraries would be a functional reason to embrace the LSB. Otherwise it makes about as much sense as having a committee make up new names for your kids. If mount points and volume sizes were also standardized, it might be reasonable to standardize what goes where, but they aren't and shouldn't be because the machines will differ in size and purpose.

Drew wrote:

...

Not quite. It is more a matter of a standard only being useful if everyone does what it says. Picking a new location that no one currently uses is always the worst possible choice.

So are revolutions but those seem to work well on occasion. :-)

Only for the survivors.

...

...

My argument is that those same Unix admins no doubt placed it there because it made functional sense at the time.

It is not a functional thing. It's a name.

A name is a way to for a person to remember an object or a concept.

Yes, and once they have been established it is simply confusing to invent a bunch of new terms for the same things.

Names can then be arranged and organized. How names are organized is important in the context of how and where the users and admins interact with them.

Yes, but keep in mind that these same users and admins are very likely to interact with systems that are not Linux and LSB compliant also.

It may not make a functional difference to apache that the website resides in /srv/www instead of /var/www but it may matter to the admin that client facing data stays away from machine files.

The name of the place they stay is irrelevant. And it's still not clear what you mean by a client, or how one piece of data is different from another.

...

Aren't all files 'client facing' if the machine has a purpose? What other reason would you have for any files?

How about performance logs, access logs, and audit logs?

How about them? If I want to access them through a web interface, does that make me a client? How is it different than using ssh and cat?

All of which are stuff you would put in /var and I'm sure we can agree you wouldn't want the client to see those until they've been processed. So not everything faces the client.

What kind of server these days doesn't process everything before displaying it? Besides, am I not a client? Does a web service have to serve different people than other kinds of services? How does the type of service relate to the type of data involved? Yes, I want ways to isolate different users and groups of users, but it is very likely that I'll want the same service protocols serving different sets and the categories won't fit neatly under something a committee makes up.

...

...

I agree with you on standardizing libraries but I fail to see how that has any relevance to where an admin should place their client facing files.

Standardizing libraries would be a functional reason to embrace the LSB. Otherwise it makes about as much sense as having a committee make up new names for your kids. If mount points and volume sizes were also standardized, it might be reasonable to standardize what goes where, but they aren't and shouldn't be because the machines will differ in size and purpose.

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. I'm not arguing against library standardization, in fact I'm for it, nor am I arguing about the purpose of the LSB. What I am trying to ask is what relevance does the LSB's existence and/or library standardization have to do with the FHS, and specifically the /srv folder?

OK, so what relevance does /srv have? What works after you go to the trouble of moving things to this new location that didn't work exactly the same way wherever you had it before?

As far as I'm concerned the FHS could have been written by RedHat, IBM, or Oracle and would in no way impact discussing the relevance of the /srv folder.

It doesn't have any relevance by itself. Things will work if you put them under /srv. They will work if you don't put them there. What's to discuss about it? What we do need in package-oriented distributions are places that are clearly out of scope for package installations, and it would be sort-of nice if 3rd party repos had non-conflicting locations for each to drop potentially conflicting items. But the committee didn't address the stuff we actually need.

...

I'm thinking of giving CentOS to a non-tech user for her new desktop.  He needs are small.  She has been used to Mozilla for both mail and browsing, so equivalents there are not a problem.  She needs grip and lame, for her mp3s - again no problem.

Desktop, non-techie - use Ubuntu instead.

I'm a big CentOS fan, I joined even the Facebook group (lol), but its

Thats my thought as well. Ubuntu desktop and CentOS for servers. Just wandering if anyone is using the 'Ubuntu Server Edition's'? They seem appealing but CentOS is what I am used too on servers now. Thought about loading it up on a box to just try though.

Matt

I'd like to chime in on this.

Being techy. nothing really bugs me as I think its all POS.

However I do think the Linux desktop is not so good in general.

I've been a big fan of Irix and used to maintain it when it was the golden child of the Unix desktop.

I've been following the 5dwm project for a while;

http://www.maxxdesktop.com/site/

Anyways, check it out, hope ppl find it use full. Eric Masson was brilliant for getting this project up and running.

On Sep 28, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Robert Heller wrote:

At Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:29:12 -0500 CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org

...

wrote:

...

...

...

I'm thinking of giving CentOS to a non-tech user for her new desktop. He needs are small. She has been used to Mozilla for both mail and browsing, so equivalents there are not a problem. She needs grip and lame, for her mp3s - again no problem.

Desktop, non-techie - use Ubuntu instead.

I'm a big CentOS fan, I joined even the Facebook group (lol), but its

Thats my thought as well. Ubuntu desktop and CentOS for servers. Just wandering if anyone is using the 'Ubuntu Server Edition's'? They seem appealing but CentOS is what I am used too on servers now. Thought about loading it up on a box to just try though.

I use CentOS on my desktop and my Laptop.

It is also the version I set up at the local library(1), which *used* to have Ubuntu. There where two main problems with Ubuntu:

1. Ubuntu really needs more frequent total updates (it is not a

long-term stable release). The Ubuntu system that was on the local library's server was unable to get updates (apt-get would fail -- I ended up manually downloading packages and installing by hand (using raw dpkg commands -- ala using raw rpm instead of yum).

2. Ubuntu generally sucked as a server O/S -- it was trying to be way

too clever about some things -- drove me up the wall (doing *stupid* things like constantly automounting the USB connected backup disk whenever someone logged in and swaping the ethernet cards around, seemingly at random).

CentOS as a desktop system (or laptop) is perfectly fine, *even for non-techies*, which would most of the users at the local library. I guess the only issue would be in terms of support for really new hardware (which is not an issue at the local library, since the hardware not this years model). One can get the 'missing' multimedia goodies from RPMForge or EPel (or even from Adobe's repo [flash and acroread]).

(1) http://www.deepsoft.com/2009/08/setting-up-thin-clients-at-the-wendell-free-...

...

Matt _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Geoff Galitz a écrit :

Ubuntu has the LTS releases, which are long term stable releases. They are supported for five years after release.

Ubuntu Long Term Support is three years for desktops and five for servers.

In the last LTS version (8.04), half of the audio apps had no sound for a month or so, until Ubuntu fixed the problems with Pulseaudio. At the time, I had given Ubuntu 8.04 a shot in our public libraries and had some very embarrassing moments.

Solution: stick with CentOS, rock-solid and *real* LTS.

Niki

Niki Kovacs wrote:

Geoff Galitz a écrit :

...

Ubuntu has the LTS releases, which are long term stable releases. They are supported for five years after release.

Ubuntu Long Term Support is three years for desktops and five for servers.

In the last LTS version (8.04), half of the audio apps had no sound for a month or so, until Ubuntu fixed the problems with Pulseaudio. At the time, I had given Ubuntu 8.04 a shot in our public libraries and had some very embarrassing moments.

Solution: stick with CentOS, rock-solid and *real* LTS.

But that means you have to wait many years for new features - that you probably want in rapidly developing desktop apps.

Karanbir Singh wrote:

On 09/30/2009 02:11 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:

...

...

Solution: stick with CentOS, rock-solid and *real* LTS.

But that means you have to wait many years for new features - that you probably want in rapidly developing desktop apps.

thats not always true - it is to some extent though. And the 'long term' usually translates into 18 months. Most people, in real life - specially those that are not involved with technology on a daily basis can easily live with that.

I'd say 3 or 4 years would be more realistic if you look at time from the feature freeze on one enterprise release until the next one ships - which amounts to a lot of changes that other distos will include.

Even on the server side, 5.x is starting to show its age. For example, I'd like to be able to rewrite absolute URL's embedded in the content in sites handled through apache's ProxyPass but mod_substitute was added in apache 2.2.7 and we still only have 2.2.3.

At Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:21:08 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:

...

1. Ubuntu really needs more frequent total updates (it is not a

long-term stable release). The Ubuntu system that was on the local library's server was unable to get updates (apt-get would fail -- I ended up manually downloading packages and installing by hand (using raw dpkg commands -- ala using raw rpm instead of yum).

Ubuntu has the LTS releases, which are long term stable releases. They are supported for five years after release.

I run Ubuntu along with other Linux distros for various purposes and I've never had an update problem with it. Perhaps that system was pointing to a flaky mirror?

I don't really know. The guy who set it up originally was somewhat unhelpfull. I'm guessing he didn't use a LTS release and did not really set things up well. I took over management of the system without really any experience with Ubuntu (or Debian).

Perhaps it is getting trendy to beat up on non-Centos distros here on the Centos list?

No, I don't think so, *I* just had a bad experience dealing with a Ubuntu setup and had problems dealing with it. And generally found a marked *lack* of support from the Ubuntu forums or from the guy who originally set the system up. For *me* it was just easier to install CentOS, and having done so, things just worked better. I have set up CentOS for other 'non techies' and things have worked well.

---

Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Karanbir Singh wrote:

you might want to look into exactly what is ubuntu-support and how that compares with what you get with CentOS. Its not nearly the same thing. To an extent that LTS is mostly considered a nonstarter in most > very small business. Specially where the client is in a position to evaluate their options and work out the implications of what they are getting. It always surprises me how many are not.

I agree with your assessment that Red Hat & Co are still The Distribution for enterprise stuff.

They should keep an eye on Ubuntu though, it's gaining ground real fast and it's using the best strategy (that worked before for the likes of Intel, Microsoft and, yes, Linux in general): they're co-opting the low-end first. Things are going to get pretty interesting a few years down the road.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, keep in mind that it took many years for Red Hat to get it right (or what they think is right) and when they did, they stopped distributing the binaries for free.  Ubuntu should be getting pretty close to having the support experience they need to be a match - and so far they have promised that their version will continue to be available for free.

I don't know what Ubuntu wants eventually, but for now they seem to have a totally different mindset than Red Hat. They've positioned themselves to be the "move from Windows" Linux and, in doing that, they're basically pushing "cutting edge." Red Hat, on the other hand, made the decision to go for the corporate server (and Desktop) market. Everything they do is geared for that purpose. Their only real competition here is SuSE.

My experience with Ubuntu is mixed. It's easy to install but there always seems to be something that doesn't quite work right -- usually issues with my Intel graphics chip. I've also had problems with updates breaking what already worked. I'm using "trailing edge" hardware, so that could be the problem. If I used a Debian-based distribution it would probably just be Debian.

On 09/29/2009 09:21 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:

...

Ubuntu has the LTS releases, which are long term stable releases. They

are

...

supported for five years after release.

you might want to look into exactly what is ubuntu-support and how that compares with what you get with CentOS. Its not nearly the same thing. To an extent that LTS is mostly considered a nonstarter in most > very small business. Specially where the client is in a position to evaluate their options and work out the implications of what they are getting. It always surprises me how many are not.

Would you mind elaborating on your views on that? I did some basic research on the LTS offerings and I don't see any significant differences with the exception of porting elements from Debian testing.

What constitutes real LTS in your view?

-geoff

--------------------------------- Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/

Florin Andrei wrote:

Well, it's the group bias.

I keep an eye on a Kawasaki forum, and they have a knack for doing a lot of Suzuki bashing. I'm, like, "WTF, they're all awesome sportbikes!" :-)

Same here. In the end, Linux is the same, just different flavors for different tastes.

Agreed. Unfortunately, open source communities never seem to think that way. The point being, open source/Linux serves to all get to the same goal, but unfortunately, projects get a bad name for bashing other projects. The vi vs. emacs, Gnome vs. KDE, etc. rants.

I was at Ohio Linux Fest this past weekend where Shawn Powers, a Linux Journal editor, opened with a keynote speech. Basically, his speech hit on that topic somewhat.

I understand and appreciate passion, but I think it gets in the way sometimes when you start bashing other open source projects that are trying to reach the same goal. The point of Linux and open source is choice, and I truly don't respect the zealots that do a lot of bashing. I think it's counter-productive and exactly why Linux communities get a bad name sometimes.

I understand lists are specific, but questions like this should be about what people have had good and bad experiences with things. CentOS works good here for one persons needs, but may not fit another.

Regards, Max

Florin Andrei a écrit :

I keep an eye on a Kawasaki forum, and they have a knack for doing a lot of Suzuki bashing. I'm, like, "WTF, they're all awesome sportbikes!" :-)

Same here. In the end, Linux is the same

Right. Got fifteen Hondas and one Yamaha before finally settling for an old 1000cc BMW which curiously reminds me of my CentOS desktop. Rock-solid, quite heavy, but oh boy is it comfortable, and it always takes me from A to B without any nasty surprises.

m.roth@5-cent.us a écrit :

I also have CentOS at home. There are quirks, though: for example, I tried to run kaffeine last night, and it couldn't find libkaffeinepart.so. I tried adding /opt/kde3/lib to LD_LIBRARY_PATH, to LOAD_LIB<whatever>, and even did an ldconfig, and it *still* can't find it (I run icewm, btw, not KDE).

Kaffeine is basically Xine for KDE. Since you're running IceWM, you might as well give Xine or Gxine (no Gnome deps) a spin.

Cheers,

Niki

m.roth@5-cent.us a écrit :

...

I also have CentOS at home. There are quirks, though: for example, I tried to run kaffeine last night, and it couldn't find

libkaffeinepart.so. I

...

tried adding /opt/kde3/lib to LD_LIBRARY_PATH, to LOAD_LIB<whatever>, and even did an ldconfig, and it *still* can't find it (I run icewm, btw, not KDE).

Kaffeine is basically Xine for KDE. Since you're running IceWM, you might as well give Xine or Gxine (no Gnome deps) a spin.

As a followup - I spent the rest of last week and the weekend relocating (ARRGHGHHGHGH!!!) - I played around with this, and discovered xine was a) not installed, and b) wasn't on the CentOS 5.3 DVD I'd burned a month or so ago.

Sound juicer was installed, and worked.

*sigh* "Let's add this, this time, and take that out...."

mark

-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On

Behalf

Of Christopher Chan Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:35 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS for non-tech user

Ubuntu for desktop is really a give and take. You get some stuff conveniently done for you like Nvidia drivers (which, I believe is also doable on Centos with a certain repo...cannot remember which) but you may also have to handle random crap like Network Manager not setting things up properly.

Rpmforge, dkms and the nvidia-dkms-package. Works like a charm. You can't but love it. 8-)

Matt wrote:

Just wandering if anyone is using the 'Ubuntu Server Edition's'?

On a whim, I installed it on my home mail/web/* server. It was due for an upgrade anyway.

So far, so good. Running a boatload of services (low load though), no crashes, solid.

The "Ubuntu experience" is the same. When I had to install stuff like the MythTV backend, or the MediaTomb UPnP server (*) or things like that (including multimedia things like libavcodec or libdvdread), there was no need to add all sorts of repos to the system, which may or may not conflict each other or replace the base packages. I just did "sudo apt-get install somepackage" and, voila!, I was done.

So I think I prefer it even on the server, if it's a small home server like this. At work though, what with Oracle RAC, high-end storage and things like that, Red Hat and its derivatives are still the choice.

(*) - It's great to have a system up-n-running 24/7 anyway (for email, web, DHCP, printing and whatnot). In that case, you can put a UPnP server on it, and dump all your multimedia files (MP3, JPEG, movies) on the hard-drive, then comfortably browse them on your TV with some sort of UPnP client (a game console like the PS3, or one of those tiny UPnP boxes they sell on the Internet). Then put a MythTV backend on the server, and install the frontend on the gaming PC connected to your TV - you do have one, right? :-) The gaming PC can dual-boot, Mythbuntu for MythTV, Windows for games. It's a great setup, and yes, it can be done on CentOS or just about any Linux distro. But with Ubuntu everything is just there, so the install/admin effort is greatly reduced.

On Friday 25 September 2009 17:02:24 Lanny Marcus wrote:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com

wrote:

...

I'm thinking of giving CentOS to a non-tech user for her new desktop. He needs are small. She has been used to Mozilla for both mail and browsing, so

I believe if you install all the multimedia stuff that's described on the CentOS Wiki and K3b, and the other things previous responses have mentioned, OpenOffice.org, etc., she will be fine. The one thing I suggest you teach her is where her files are and how to backup to a CD or DVD.

In the past, under windows, I set up a one-click link to run a pre-defined job. Since I moved her to Mandriva I have shown her once how to copy files with k3b, and she wasn't unhappy about that.

I ran into an issue with K3b (which otherwise works perfectly for me), where it couldn't automatically erase a CD-RW (which I think it claims it can do), so I need to su - and as root "umount /dev/hdd" before it can erase a CD-RW. Hopefully she won't need to do that, as running as root is probably not something she should be doing.

Not really a problem. When we discussed RWs she said that CD-Rs are so cheap now that it's not worth the bother of using RWs.

I have installed one package from the FC6 DVD (KDEEDU) on CentOS 5 (32 bit) to get KStars and that worked fine. But, as Phil pointed out, maybe better to rebuild from the srpm.

Sounds encouraging, thanks.

Anne

Ron Blizzard wrote:

...

I've been generally unhappy with my CentOS desktop both at home and at work, when it comes to thinks like sound and video.

I'd recommend going with Fedora Core, to be honest. Much as I love CentOS on my servers.

I like stability over "cutting edge," so CentOS (with multimedia from RPMForge) is working fine for me on my desktop and laptop computers. I don't hate Fedora, but I don't like the constant updates. But, if I didn't have the CentOS option, I'm pretty sure Fedora would be my next choice.

Fedora has the advantage to a RHEL/CentOS user of having the same install/admin tools. But if you are turning the box over to someone else, Ubuntu makes much more of an effort to be user friendly. And they haven't been quite so bad as Fedora about refusing to admit that proprietary code exists.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4centos@gmail.com wrote:

I like stability over "cutting edge," so CentOS (with multimedia from RPMForge)

What are the details on MM from RPMForge?

If I could get my MM working I'd be happy. I like stability too, which is why I use it on my servers. But for desktop use, MM is pretty much a must-have. And I've used Fedora for years with no real issues. Switched to CentOS for desktop because it is recommended at my new job. So I switched at home too.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Alan McKay alan.mckay@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4centos@gmail.com wrote:

...

I like stability over "cutting edge," so CentOS (with multimedia from RPMForge)

What are the details on MM from RPMForge?

If I could get my MM working I'd be happy.   I like stability too, which is why I use it on my servers.   But for desktop use, MM is pretty much a must-have.  And I've used Fedora for years with no real issues.  Switched to CentOS for desktop because it is recommended at my new job.  So I switched at home too.

I think these are the instructions I used the first couple times I installed CentOS 5.x. It might be overkill, but it worked for me.

http://www.sklav.com/?q=node/2

I am not an Ubuntu basher, but I felt it was babying me a little too much.

Hmmm, maybe that's what I should put on my wife's laptop :-)

I already know Linux very well - been a UNIX geek for over 20 years, and Linux geek for getting on 10 now. And I still get frustrated with how difficult it can be to set up multimedia!

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Tait Clarridge tait@clarridge.ca wrote:

CentOS is great for server use and if you want to learn CentOS for use as a server, Fedora is a great place to start because they are both redhat based. Chances are that if you got something to work in Fedora, you can get it to work in CentOS (maybe with a few extra tweaks).

I don't have any servers. I like CentOS on my desktop and my laptop just because it's solid. It's also the Linux distribution of choice for most Asterisk platforms -- which I intend to (eventually) learn. (I'm a telephone tech, who is eventually going to have to go VOIP.)

...

I don't have any servers. I like CentOS on my desktop and my laptop just because it's solid. It's also the Linux distribution of choice for most Asterisk platforms -- which I intend to (eventually) learn. (I'm a telephone tech, who is eventually going to have to go VOIP.)

Have a look at FreeSwitch as well:)

You can get asterisk packages from rpmforge on Centos...but on Ubuntu you do not have to add an extra repository to get asterisk.

Don't bother with that, go straight to the source! http://packages.asterisk.org/ These get updated rather quickly.

jlc

...

Don't bother with that, go straight to the source! http://packages.asterisk.org/ These get updated rather quickly.

jlc

+1 for this suggestion.

Starting out it may be easier to pull packages from a repo if you're not familiar with building from source. BUT, in the long run, you'll need to learn it. When a security >vulnerability is fixed, you don't want to wait any longer than necessary for the package maintainer to get around to updating. Just grab the source and build. Also, the packages >don't always have all the functionality you may require (codecs, modules, etc). There are plenty of docs on how to do this as well as many helpful people on the Asterisk-Users >mailing list.

You completely misunderstood my suggestion, and actually suggested something I learned a long time ago to never do:)

The url as suggested by the name, *is* an rpm package repo. As I said, the packager gets these built with new releases and/or kernel updates very fast.

Compiling software and bypassing the package mangler is always a risk for trouble down the road. Given the many deps Asterisk may require, its simpler to use this repo versus compiling.

An aside as well, I see many people on this list always concerned with vulns and patches and always eager to simply `yum update`. FWIW, if the vuln doesn't affect you, it's not a vuln for *you*. You may not have the module installed/active or in my case, the internet facing exposure is limited to an VSP who I *very much* doubt would use my system to dial for free based on one of the recent vulns.

I wouldn't panic about being at risk for vulns *just because* a vuln exists, it may not affect you. I had an Ast box running without a reboot or update in almost a year cuz I couldn't get the window. Its exposure was so highly minimized that it wasn't even a consideration. None of the updates pertaining to stability were ever applicable either to my best knowledge so I didn't worry...

jlc

Rob Kampen wrote:

...

...

I have a dedicated * CentOS box that shows today as uptime 543 days. I built from scratch as I needed to support a four port analog trunk card. This does not have internet access as I'm running it like an old fashioned PABX - just with great sip / linux based snom desk phones and all the attendant wiz-bang super stuff that * provides.

I do want to do an update of it all to latest versions etc. but when it just keeps working it is hard to justify the down time and potential hic-ups.

If you are very well firewalled and trust all the local users you might get away with ignoring security updates but it's mostly a matter of luck. With the stock CentOS components, your downtime for an update is normally just a reboot and problems are extremely rare. If you'd added custom or 3rd party code items there's a somewhat greater risk, but it is still pretty unlikely that an update would break things - or that you wouldn't have heard about other people having a problem.

Ron Blizzard wrote:

...

...

I do want to do an update of it all to latest versions etc. but when it just keeps working it is hard to justify the down time and potential hic-ups.

If you are very well firewalled and trust all the local users you might get away with ignoring security updates but it's mostly a matter of luck. With the stock CentOS components, your downtime for an update is normally just a reboot and problems are extremely rare. If you'd added custom or 3rd party code items there's a somewhat greater risk, but it is still pretty unlikely that an update would break things - or that you wouldn't have heard about other people having a problem.

If I understand Rob correctly here, there is actually no need for a firewall. He's not on the Internet. He's using analog trunks and SIP phones in a closed system. He's basically got a traditional key system or PBX switch that just happens to be based on CentOS/Asterisk.

(Traditional telephone switches have been based on UNIX for years.)

You are still exposed to anything that is on the local LAN - which could include other machines that might have been compromised through browser exploits, etc. unless the segment only connects to IP phones (and you lose the ability to use soft phones). Linux is less vulnerable to most of these than windows would be, but still, if you know there are updates to fix known security issues you are pressing your luck if you don't install them.

Phone switches are particularly attractive targets to hackers: http://nerdvittles.com/index.php?p=580

If you are very well firewalled and trust all the local users you might get away with ignoring security updates but it's mostly a matter of luck. With the stock CentOS components, your downtime for an update is normally just a reboot and problems are extremely rare. If you'd added custom or 3rd party code items there's a somewhat greater risk, but it is still pretty unlikely that an update would break things - or that you wouldn't have heard about other people having a problem.

That's just not always correct. Again, a sec update that is not applicable doesn't make sense to update to, and there many other circumstances to.

Ironically, I broke this very box once by updating it. I had expected to have had to update DAHDI as it builds against the kernel, but something I never figured out become not compatible with the version of asterisk. It seg faulted every time I tried to start it.

I ended up enabling the ast repo and updating asterisk as well after and it started fine. But it cost me a couple hours, and there was no fscking need to update. It's even firewalled from the local users. I wasted a bunch of time for nothing...

YMMV, jlc

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis@gmail.com wrote:

Uptime is a red herring and is generally meaningless.  You'd be better off performing updates and reboots at least once a month, so you don't need to worry about any big changes that might come with not updating for almost 2 years.  If you updated now and something broke, you wouldn't know what did it.  If you keep up incrementally, you can catch the small things as they come.  You also don't have a "delicate flower" that you need to worry if it won't come up after the next reboot.  That's not a good situation to be in.

Except, in this case, you could probably go forever without updating. CentOS/Asterisk is just the switch's embedded OS as used here. I've maintained many Nortel switches (based on Wind River UNIX) which weren't patched for years -- no need to update the OS unless there was a specific problem or a necessary new feature. But I do think Rob wants to update this system. The problem is, unlike computer networks, people are very intolerant of phone downtime.

...

You can get asterisk packages from rpmforge on Centos...but on Ubuntu you do not have to add an extra repository to get asterisk.

Don't bother with that, go straight to the source! http://packages.asterisk.org/ These get updated rather quickly.

Ah, now that will definitely change my view of distro choice...no more waiting for latest packages.

Ron Blizzard wrote:

...

Have a look at FreeSwitch as well:)

Thanks. I think I looked at it once, but I can't remember what it was about it that didn't attract me at the time. I'll take another look.

Here's some interesting commentary on why it is likely to become more popular than asterisk even though it may take another year.

http://nerdvittles.com/index.php?p=224

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher

You can get asterisk packages from rpmforge on Centos...but on Ubuntu you do not have to add an extra repository to get asterisk.

What I meant was that the "pre-built" Asterisks (Trixbox, AsteriskNow, Elastix and PBX in a Flash) are all based on CentOS. I've never tried compiling it on my own -- I've only experimented with Asterisk.

When you say go voip, do you mean use sip for the stations only or also for the trunks?

My experience (and the experience of those I know) is that SIP trunks don't really work consistently. But, when I say I need to learn VOIP I'm mostly talking about the station side. My goal is to learn enough to build Asterisk boxes to replace key systems. I like the idea of Asterisk because it can use standard trunks for critical lines and SIP trunks for specialized purposes or overflow. (At least that's what I *think* it can do.)