WhiteBox Linux
blueparty
is RHEL 4 clone. Have they given up ?
B
General Schvantzkoph
Probably.
CentOS is the primary RHEL clone now. Scientific Linux is also a RHEL
clone.
F. Michael Orr
WhiteBox was produced by a parish in Louisiana, and had posted that they
were hit hard by Katrina. I don't think they ever recovered to the point
of supporting something like a RedHat clone anymore.
Robert Heller
There are some people working on taking it over and there have been
mumblings on the whitebox mailling list about 5.<mumble> being in the
process being built.
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
blueparty
Scientific Linux is fine. I had problem with CentOS 5.2 DVD. It won't
boot on my laptop. Boots fine on my main PC, but no way on laptop. I've
noticed that some other people have the same problem. Interesting is
that checksum matches, but I can't even get boot loader to show up, so
it is not an ACPI problem. It acts as if the image is not bootable at
all.....
B
.
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> It acts as if the image is not bootable at all
FWIW...
Does the laptop have a floppy? I've had similar situations (CD or DVD is
bootable on some systems but not others), for which I've used SBM (Smart
Boot Manager) as a workaround:
http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/download.html
HTH; YMMV...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).
blueparty
> In <gll3jp$hhc$1...@ss408.t-com.hr> blueparty:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> It acts as if the image is not bootable at all
>
> FWIW...
>
> Does the laptop have a floppy? I've had similar situations (CD or DVD is
> bootable on some systems but not others), for which I've used SBM (Smart
> Boot Manager) as a workaround:
>
> http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/download.html
>
> HTH; YMMV...
>
Intersting, thanks a lot. I have USB floppy and BIOS supports it as boot
device. Do you happen to know if Centos 5.2 is able to run Sybase ASE 15
for Linux ? It is said that ASE should run in RHEL, but it won't run in
Scientific Linux 5.2. I suspect that SL guys replaced some libs in order
to support some newer applications. For example SL 5.2 comes with
Firefox 3, and I doubt very much that it is the case with original RHEL.
B
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> happen to know if Centos 5.2 is able to run Sybase ASE 15 for Linux ?
Sorry, I don't have any experience with Sybase. However, it would seem to
be something Centos wouldn't be totally adverse to managing. But it might
be Sybase will only "officially" warrant installs on systems like Red Hat
or SuSE (etc.). But again, sorry, I can't really say.
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Intersting, thanks a lot. I have USB floppy and BIOS supports it as boot
> device. Do you happen to know if Centos 5.2 is able to run Sybase ASE 15
> for Linux ? It is said that ASE should run in RHEL, but it won't run in
> Scientific Linux 5.2. I suspect that SL guys replaced some libs in order
> to support some newer applications. For example SL 5.2 comes with Firefox
> 3, and I doubt very much that it is the case with original RHEL.
>
The original RHEL 5 came with firefox-1.5.0.9-10.el5.
The current RHEL 5 contains firefox-3.0.5-1.el5_2.
I do not run CentOS 5 (I run CentOS 4 on my other machine). If my CentOS 4
experience is like what CentOS 5 delivers, their releases are about a day
behind those of Red Hat.
I have never run Sybase. It is my experience that Red Hat do not make
changes in the software except to fix bugs and security problems. Anything
that worked with RHEL 5.0 will continue to work throughout the life (7
years, IIRC) of the RHEL 5 release. The current release is called
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.3 (Tikanga)
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:05:01 up 6 days, 1:56, 3 users, load average: 4.26, 4.27, 4.38
Robert Heller
>
> In <glmu78$as8$1...@ss408.t-com.hr> blueparty:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> > happen to know if Centos 5.2 is able to run Sybase ASE 15 for Linux ?
>
> Sorry, I don't have any experience with Sybase. However, it would seem to
> be something Centos wouldn't be totally adverse to managing. But it might
> be Sybase will only "officially" warrant installs on systems like Red Hat
> or SuSE (etc.). But again, sorry, I can't really say.
If Sybase ASE 15 will work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2, it will
work under Centos 5.2.
General Schvantzkoph
I wouldn't dream of using CentOS on a laptop or a desktop that I'm using
as a workstation, the antique kernel that they use doesn't support modern
consumer hardware and you miss out on the massive improvements that have
been made in the Linux user experience in the last couple of years. I use
CentOS on older machines that I'm using as headless servers (sometimes
with a custom kernel) and Fedora on my modern hardware. If I need RHEL
compatibility for a program I use a VM. VMware Server 2 runs fine on
Fedora 10, that's what I use, and the version of KVM that's built into
F10 seems to have reached the point where it's a viable VM solution also.
Tim Greer
>
> I wouldn't dream of using CentOS on a laptop or a desktop that I'm
> using as a workstation, the antique kernel that they use doesn't
> support modern consumer hardware and you miss out on the massive
> improvements that have been made in the Linux user experience in the
> last couple of years. I use CentOS on older machines that I'm using as
> headless servers (sometimes with a custom kernel) and Fedora on my
> modern hardware. If I need RHEL compatibility for a program I use a
> VM. VMware Server 2 runs fine on Fedora 10, that's what I use, and the
> version of KVM that's built into F10 seems to have reached the point
> where it's a viable VM solution also.
I couldn't imagine using Fedora on any system I cared about. I use
CentOS and simply install my own custom kernels anyway (laptop,
desktop, workstation and especially servers). I've not noticed
anything lacking, and again the kernel isn't a concern (and shouldn't
be). I'm curious of issues not related to the kernel that you find
CentOS lacking where you'd prefer Fedora?
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
blueparty
> I wouldn't dream of using CentOS on a laptop or a desktop that I'm using
> as a workstation, the antique kernel that they use doesn't support modern
> consumer hardware and you miss out on the massive improvements that have
> been made in the Linux user experience in the last couple of years. I use
> CentOS on older machines that I'm using as headless servers (sometimes
> with a custom kernel) and Fedora on my modern hardware. If I need RHEL
> compatibility for a program I use a VM. VMware Server 2 runs fine on
> Fedora 10, that's what I use, and the version of KVM that's built into
> F10 seems to have reached the point where it's a viable VM solution also.
>
That is exactly my problem. I am trying to find a balance. I am looking
for the newest Linux distribution that is still able to run Sybase DB
server. Sybase wants their server to run on RHEL. That's why it can't
run on recent distributions.
Far as I was able to find out it has something with glibc version and
thread libraries.
New RHEL will have library version equal to those in Fedora 10, I've
heard. But, who knows how long will take until Sybase releases their new
server.
I need sybase because it is compatible with MS SQL, as far as SQL
commands are concerned. I need to have some Java/JSP apps adapted for MS
SQL, but I am not comfortable with Windows. I could run WinXP in VM, but
upcoming versions of MS SQL are, mostly likely, not going to run under
XP. Vista and upcoming Windows versions are resource hungry monsters,and
Windows server OS platforms are too expensive. In fact I'd prefer to
bypass Windows completely.
For now I am running minimal installation of old Suse 10.0 in VM. Sybase
runs perfectly, as if it was written specifically for that. When I need
GUI (Sybase administration), I use native X server in host OS (via TCP),
to increase performance and conserve memory. I got that SUSE 10.0 DVD
along with a book, and it was already obsolete when I bought it. I never
thought I was going to find some use for it. The whole VM is limitted
to 128 MB RAM and still works !
I'd prefer to have everything running in real machine, and still have
reasonably recent distribution for other things, but I am aware that it
might prove to be impossible. CentOS is my last hope.
B
Keith Keller
>
> That is exactly my problem. I am trying to find a balance. I am looking
> for the newest Linux distribution that is still able to run Sybase DB
> server. Sybase wants their server to run on RHEL. That's why it can't
> run on recent distributions.
[snip]
> I'd prefer to have everything running in real machine, and still have
> reasonably recent distribution for other things, but I am aware that it
> might prove to be impossible. CentOS is my last hope.
If CentOS 5 is too new to run Sybase, then you could always install
CentOS 4. It's a little older but still maintained by the CentOS
maintainers. Either 5 or 4 is a direct clone (minus the RH proprietary
stuff) of RHEL.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Jean-David Beyer
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>> I wouldn't dream of using CentOS on a laptop or a desktop that I'm using
>> as a workstation, the antique kernel that they use doesn't support modern
>> consumer hardware and you miss out on the massive improvements that have
>> been made in the Linux user experience in the last couple of years. I use
>> CentOS on older machines that I'm using as headless servers (sometimes
>> with a custom kernel) and Fedora on my modern hardware. If I need RHEL
>> compatibility for a program I use a VM. VMware Server 2 runs fine on
>> Fedora 10, that's what I use, and the version of KVM that's built into
>> F10 seems to have reached the point where it's a viable VM solution also.
>>
>
> That is exactly my problem. I am trying to find a balance. I am looking
> for the newest Linux distribution that is still able to run Sybase DB
> server. Sybase wants their server to run on RHEL. That's why it can't
> run on recent distributions.
>
> Far as I was able to find out it has something with glibc version and
> thread libraries.
>
> New RHEL will have library version equal to those in Fedora 10, I've
> heard. But, who knows how long will take until Sybase releases their new
> server.
>
$ rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.5-34
They do not change the interface or operations (only fix security problems
and bugs) throughout the life of the distribution (7 years). So if Sybase
ever worked in RHEL 5, it will always work in RHEL 5. They sometimes
backport bug fixes and security fixes from later versions, but not new or
changed features.
Red Hat put actual changes, upgrades, etc., in new releases, the next one
being RHEL 6 that is not yet out. Releases are spaced about 1 1/2 years
apart (approximately).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:25:01 up 7 days, 1:16, 3 users, load average: 4.40, 4.29, 4.27
General Schvantzkoph
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>
>> I wouldn't dream of using CentOS on a laptop or a desktop that I'm
>> using as a workstation, the antique kernel that they use doesn't
>> support modern consumer hardware and you miss out on the massive
>> improvements that have been made in the Linux user experience in the
>> last couple of years. I use CentOS on older machines that I'm using as
>> headless servers (sometimes with a custom kernel) and Fedora on my
>> modern hardware. If I need RHEL compatibility for a program I use a VM.
>> VMware Server 2 runs fine on Fedora 10, that's what I use, and the
>> version of KVM that's built into F10 seems to have reached the point
>> where it's a viable VM solution also.
>
> I couldn't imagine using Fedora on any system I cared about. I use
> CentOS and simply install my own custom kernels anyway (laptop, desktop,
> workstation and especially servers). I've not noticed anything lacking,
> and again the kernel isn't a concern (and shouldn't be). I'm curious of
> issues not related to the kernel that you find CentOS lacking where
> you'd prefer Fedora?
The most recent kernel that I've gotten to work with CentOS 5.2 is
2.6.24.7, 2.6.25 and later won't boot, so that leaves out any machine
that needs a driver in a later kernel. Also having to build a custom
kernel for a supposedly "stable" OS seems to be wildly inconsistent with
the philosophy of a stable environment. The advantage of a stable OS is
that you can install it and practically forget about it. All you do after
you've done the install is an occasional update, which are tiny (CentOS
has < 1% of the updates that Fedora has), and that's it. And RHEL/CentOS
is supposed to be absolutely consistent from one system to another.
Building the custom kernel changes the consistency equation and it also
changes the ease of installation equation. That said, I admit it's pretty
trivial to install a custom kernel and I've done just that on my first
generation Core2 box which has MACs that aren't supported by the CentOS
kernel (they got support in 2.6.19 but those drivers have never been
backported to the RHEL 5.x kernels). However I couldn't get it to
install at all on my second generation Core2 box or on my new Core2
laptop so I run Fedora 10 on those systems.
I use Fedora in two ways, as a desktop environment and for compute
servers which are running on hardware that requires a current kernel. In
the desktop environment you have to be a little bit careful when you do
updates because they do break things every now and then, but the value of
having a modern environment outways the problems. For servers, which run
without X, I've found Fedora to be every bit as solid as CentOS. On the
servers I do the updates when convenient and I've never seen them break
the basic OS which is all that's required for a headless server. For the
most part I've found that the compatibility libraries are sufficient to
allow me to run commercial applications that are targeted at RHEL. For
those applications that won't run native I use a CentOS 4 or 5 VM, or
Win2K or XP VM for that matter, depending on the application's
requirements.
I love virtualization, it allows you to separate the two types of
compatibility problems, i.e. hardware and software. Hardware
compatibility requires using the latest kernel because that gives you the
latest drivers which generally means using a current distro like Fedora.
Software compatibility, at least for closed source commercial
applications, requires an unchanging OS environment like CentOS. Running
a CentOS VM on top of Fedora gives you both.
As for the differences between Fedora and CentOS in the laptop/desktop
space I'll give you a simple example, take a look at the way Fedora 10
handles wireless connections. The new NetworkManager automatically finds
every network that's out there, all you have to do is select one and
connect, that capability wasn't there until F9 and it didn't work well
until F10 and there is nothing like it at all in CentOS. Fedora also has
a much richer selection of applications and they are all up to date. Open
source applications get better by the day, I don't want to run anything
that's a month old let alone something that's two years old.
Tim Greer
>
> The most recent kernel that I've gotten to work with CentOS 5.2 is
> 2.6.24.7, 2.6.25 and later won't boot, so that leaves out any machine
> that needs a driver in a later kernel.
I've been able to use the most current, stable kernels without issue. I
suppose you might be needing different drivers than I have needed that
perhaps aren't are stable, but that would be the kernel, not the OS, so
I'm confused about the kernel booting fine otherwise?
> Also having to build a custom
> kernel for a supposedly "stable" OS seems to be wildly inconsistent
> with the philosophy of a stable environment.
I find it's pretty up to date and patched, if you are talking about the
package updates, but I don't often use them, so I don't know just how
old they are since it's been a while. Again, I've not had issues with
the newest kernels.
> The advantage of a stable
> OS is that you can install it and practically forget about it.
Definitely, and that is something I absolutely need, and I've simply not
had an issue, but again, I always compile my own and don't use what
just comes with it. If you mean you want to run an update and forget
about it, then I suppose I get where you're coming from.
>
> I use Fedora in two ways, as a desktop environment and for compute
> servers which are running on hardware that requires a current kernel.
> In the desktop environment you have to be a little bit careful when
> you do updates because they do break things every now and then, but
> the value of having a modern environment outways the problems.
Again, I suppose that's a good point if you needed something that wasn't
in the distribution itself, since you should be able to build a kernel
without issues, but Fedora itself is too bleeding edge in my opinion
for server related stuff, and I don't find any need to try it, since I
can't think of anything a server would need that something like CentOS
wouldn't handle or come with (or that I'd need to install anyway).
> For
> servers, which run without X, I've found Fedora to be every bit as
> solid as CentOS.
It's probably close, I've had a few issues on the server side, but I've
also not used Fedora in some years now, since it really doesn't have
anything on CentOS from a server perspective. I have also ran Fedora
at home on laptop's and desktops, and had a few more issues as well,
but switched entirely over to CentOS anyway, and haven't regretted it.
However, again, you might be using features I'm not.
> On the servers I do the updates when convenient and
> I've never seen them break the basic OS which is all that's required
> for a headless server. For the most part I've found that the
> compatibility libraries are sufficient to allow me to run commercial
> applications that are targeted at RHEL. For those applications that
> won't run native I use a CentOS 4 or 5 VM, or Win2K or XP VM for that
> matter, depending on the application's requirements.
That's cool, I am sure it's stable enough, but I just didn't find it as
stable for a server as CentOS. If it is for other people, that's fine,
I just don't believe it would be better.
> I love virtualization, it allows you to separate the two types of
> compatibility problems, i.e. hardware and software. Hardware
> compatibility requires using the latest kernel because that gives you
> the latest drivers which generally means using a current distro like
> Fedora. Software compatibility, at least for closed source commercial
> applications, requires an unchanging OS environment like CentOS.
> Running a CentOS VM on top of Fedora gives you both.
Again, I am just confused why the current stable kernels wouldn't work,
just because it's CentOS?
> As for the differences between Fedora and CentOS in the laptop/desktop
> space I'll give you a simple example, take a look at the way Fedora 10
> handles wireless connections. The new NetworkManager automatically
> finds every network that's out there, all you have to do is select one
> and connect, that capability wasn't there until F9 and it didn't work
> well until F10 and there is nothing like it at all in CentOS. Fedora
> also has a much richer selection of applications and they are all up
> to date. Open source applications get better by the day, I don't want
> to run anything that's a month old let alone something that's two
> years old.
If it has more applications you need, then I totally get why you'd want
to use it. This is why most people use it in my experience. I think I
was just thrown off by the original mention of kernel versions/options
being the problem. I get the rest. I can also very much appreciate
the opensource dist of Fedora, just like CentOS, and the rest. If
CentOS didn't exist, there'd be a good chance I might be using Fedora
(and I did before I got into CentOS).
Darren Salt
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>> The most recent kernel that I've gotten to work with CentOS 5.2 is
>> 2.6.24.7, 2.6.25 and later won't boot, so that leaves out any machine
>> that needs a driver in a later kernel.
> I've been able to use the most current, stable kernels without issue. I
> suppose you might be needing different drivers than I have needed that
> perhaps aren't are stable, but that would be the kernel, not the OS, so I'm
> confused about the kernel booting fine otherwise?
Could be that newer udev is needed. I ran into this recently when upgrading
an etch install on an old laptop.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/> (PGP 2.6, GPG keys)
A clean and tidy desk is a sign of a *very* sick mind.
Tim Greer
> Could be that newer udev is needed. I ran into this recently when
> upgrading an etch install on an old laptop.
Interesting to note. Thanks.
blueparty
> On 2009-01-28, blueparty <partner...@vansoftcorp.com> wrote:
>> That is exactly my problem. I am trying to find a balance. I am looking
>> for the newest Linux distribution that is still able to run Sybase DB
>> server. Sybase wants their server to run on RHEL. That's why it can't
>> run on recent distributions.
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'd prefer to have everything running in real machine, and still have
>> reasonably recent distribution for other things, but I am aware that it
>> might prove to be impossible. CentOS is my last hope.
>
> If CentOS 5 is too new to run Sybase, then you could always install
> CentOS 4. It's a little older but still maintained by the CentOS
> maintainers. Either 5 or 4 is a direct clone (minus the RH proprietary
> stuff) of RHEL.
>
The problem is that older distributions won't run new software. Good
example are apps that depend on gtk. They often require certain libgtk
version or newer. Recent gtk versions have the supporting libraries
built with Cairo (pangocairo.so.x.y).
One could build a newer gtk, put it somewhere, and point LD_LIBRARY_PATH
to that location for newer applications, but there are many supporting
libraries that need to be compiled. It is a lot of work, and I am afraid
that some of the supporting libraries might require newer glibc, or
something like that. One could end up with custom building half of OS.
Some people might enjoy that, but it is not an exercise for everybody.
B
Keith Keller
>
> The problem is that older distributions won't run new software. Good
> example are apps that depend on gtk. They often require certain libgtk
> version or newer. Recent gtk versions have the supporting libraries
> built with Cairo (pangocairo.so.x.y).
Well, look. You have to meet your most important requirements first.
If you need CentOS 4 to run Sybase, then you need CentOS 4. If you
really need Sybase, it seems like you should have the budget to dedicate
an entire machine to it, and run your recent GTK-based apps on other
hardware and a recent distro.