Fedora vs CentOS
philo
10 (32bit)...It's running great.
Now that I'm up and running...at least a few folks have mentioned that I
should have gone with CentOS as it's essentially Red Hat Enterprise...
while Fedora is essentially the Beta version of Red Hat.
Well,I figured might as well try CentOS 5.2 64 bit.
Bottom line is that it works fine...If anything, I prefer Fedora...
and now I find that there is not even a 64bit version of Flash for Linux...
so I see no point in going further.
Just wondering if I should give the 32bit version of CentOS a try?
John Hasler
> ...now I find that there is not even a 64bit version of Flash for
> Linux...
Yes there is. I'm using it.
<http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/flashplayer-mozilla.php>
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
philo
> philo writes:
>> ...now I find that there is not even a 64bit version of Flash for
>> Linux...
>
> Yes there is. I'm using it.
> <http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/flashplayer-mozilla.php>
Thanks for the info!!!!
General Schvantzkoph
64 bit FLASH is available, it works fine I'm running it on 64 bit Fedora
10.
habibielwa7id
> After trying quite a few of the new Linux distros...I went with Fedora
> 10 (32bit)...It's running great.
>
> Now that I'm up and running...at least a few folks have mentioned that I
> should have gone with CentOS as it's essentially Red Hat Enterprise...
> while Fedora is essentially the Beta version of Red Hat.
isn't stable enough for the real environment work, But it's may be
great on your desktop, As in the desktop it's not serious when may be
a problem happen, But for the production systems I suggest CenOs or
Debian, I was screaming that Fedora is stable enough for the
production systems but lately I changed my mind after facing many
problems specially with Fedora 10, I faced many problems in just some
days like,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465389
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470628
I was upgrading 2 systems from Fedora 6 to Fedora 10 when I booted and
found 1 of each problems happened with 1 of those systems, Nice it
wasn't critical servers although it's a production systems, but I
could carry the down time.
-I know that Fedora is a test release to RedHat enterprise, So they
don't care enough for the stability, But I wish to understand how they
want to test it and no body will use it on production systems?
> Well,I figured might as well try CentOS 5.2 64 bit.
>
> Bottom line is that it works fine...If anything, I prefer Fedora...
> and now I find that there is not even a 64bit version of Flash for Linux...
> so I see no point in going further.
-You may uninstall the 64 bit firefox and install the 32 bit firefox
release with it's 32 bit flash plugin.
philo
Well, I am currently using Fedora 10 and have had no problems with it...
OTOH: I have also been using CentOS 5 (64bit) and see it has a lot more
options for serious users...such as clustering etc...
so for my purposes , merely as an experimenter and home user...
Fedora is fine.
Everything is working and the system is rock solid...
but I will continue monitoring the bug reports
philo
Ok
I just downloaded it and will install it later
Jean-David Beyer
I think the main decision to make between the latest (or next-to-latest)
version of Fedora and the latest version of RHEL or CentOS (essentially the
same) is whether you want stability or leading edge version of Linux.
I happen to run RHEL 5 on my main machine and CentOS 4 on my old machine.
This is because I hate to upgrade, and Red Hat support their RHEL
distributions for seven years after their first release, so I can run them
that long if I choose. In fact, I do not run them that long; I usually skip
every other release (that come at about 18 month intervals). So I moved from
RHEL 3 to RHEL 5 when RHEL 5 came out.
It is not that installing a new release is especially difficult. It is
configuring the new system that is a pain and tends to take me about a
month, what with new interfaces (both software and human), new configuration
methods, and such. I just hate to do that.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:10:01 up 7 days, 26 min, 4 users, load average: 4.03, 4.05, 4.02
Bob Tennent
> philo wrote:
>>
>> Now that I'm up and running...at least a few folks have mentioned that I
>> should have gone with CentOS as it's essentially Red Hat Enterprise...
>> while Fedora is essentially the Beta version of Red Hat.
>
> version of Fedora and the latest version of RHEL or CentOS (essentially the
> same) is whether you want stability or leading edge version of Linux.
>
> I happen to run RHEL 5 on my main machine and CentOS 4 on my old machine.
> This is because I hate to upgrade, and Red Hat support their RHEL
> distributions for seven years after their first release, so I can run them
> that long if I choose. In fact, I do not run them that long; I usually skip
> every other release (that come at about 18 month intervals). So I moved from
> RHEL 3 to RHEL 5 when RHEL 5 came out.
>
> It is not that installing a new release is especially difficult. It is
> configuring the new system that is a pain and tends to take me about a
> month, what with new interfaces (both software and human), new configuration
> methods, and such. I just hate to do that.
Good point. Avoid the 6-month upgrade treadmill if possible. And
occasionally the Fedora people have a brain cramp and replace essential
working software with something "new" but broken; kde 4.0 being
notorious. I had to immediately switch all the systems of my kde-users
to CentOS; even Linus had to switch to Gnome. That's when I appreciated
the remark that Fedora is a perpetual-beta distribution.
Bob T.
General Schvantzkoph
Fedora is for individuals, it's not for organizations. I use a mixture of
Fedora and CentOS. I have a half dozen machines but only one user, me.
Because there is only me I can put up with Fedora's problems in return
for it's advantages. If I was supporting a user base > 1 I would never
pick Fedora because it breaks on occasion, CentOS never breaks. When I
setup a system for a client, which I do on occasion, I use CentOS. That
said here is how I triage my systems,
For servers I choose CentOS if I can make it work, if I can't I use
Fedora. All of my systems use desktop hardware not server hardware so
CentOS won't work on the newest boxes. The one serious failing of RHEL is
their decision to never upgrade the kernel. They backport drivers for
server systems but not for desktop or laptop systems. You can sometimes
get around this by installing your own kernel. I did this on my 65nm
Core2 box. The MACs in that box aren't supported by the CentOS 2.6.18.xx
kernel. I installed a 2.6.19 kernel on that box when I first built it, it
now runs a 2.6.24.7 kernel which is the latest that I could get to run on
CentOS5.2, later kernels won't boot. My newest machine, a 45nm Core2, is
running Fedora 10 because it requires a current kernel which can't be
installed on CentOS5.2. Fedora is actually a fine server OS because
servers generally don't run very many applications which means that there
is a very low probability that anything that matters will break. The
advantage of CentOS is the low numbers of updates and that you are never
forced to do an upgrade.
For workstation and laptop use I always choose Fedora. There are two
reasons, hardware compatibility and the massively better UI in Fedora.
The Linux desktop has made huge strides in the last couple of years,
Fedora has those improvements, CentOS doesn't. Wireless is a good
example. In Fedora 10 it's a pleasure to use, all of the available
networks are discovered automatically, you can just pick one. Wireless
was an awful pain until recently, now it just works. On the other hand
sometimes things that worked perfectly get broken. Evolution is the key
offender in F10. It's been getting worse for some time. In F9 it crashed
on occasion but was otherwise functional. In F10 Evolution's virtual
folders are a complete mess and the performance has gone to hell. I've
stuck with F9 on my desktop because of the Evolution problems, I have F10
on my laptop because it's so new that it won't run with F9. This sort of
issue is a general Linux problem, I see Ubuntu users posting the same
bugs on Bugzilla. CentOS has a working version of Evolution and you can
be assured that it will always work, on the other hand it will never get
any new features either.
If you have a production environment then always works trumps never gets
better, if it's for you alone then works better when it works might trump
doesn't the job barely but consistently.
philo
Thanks for all the comments folks...
my machine is setup with removable drives, so I am going to be keeping
my Fedora 10 setup
but also working with CentOS 5.2 64 bit
I've spent quite a bit of time getting Fedora all setup
and really like it...
OTOH: Once I get a few more things on CentOS figured out..
I may start migrating over to that drive a bit more
John Thompson
>> ...now I find that there is not even a 64bit version of Flash for
>> Linux...
> Yes there is. I'm using it.
><http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/flashplayer-mozilla.php>
Same here. Works fine with Fedora 10. See
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
philo
OK
I now have Flash working...
now one more thing
Is there a version of Wine that will work with CentOS 5.2 64bit?
I have one win-app I need to run
General Schvantzkoph
Check the yum respositories. Also if you haven't already done it add the
karan repos to CentOS, that will give you access to a lot of Fedora apps
that have been rebuilt of CentOS. CentOS is missing a lot if important
things, Xemacs for example, but the karan repos include them.
philo
OK
thanks
I am also going to give CentOS 5.2 32bit a try
Jean-David Beyer
> I am also going to give CentOS 5.2 32bit a try
Red Hat have been up to 5.3 for a while now. I suppose CentOS is too.
My current kernel in RHEL 5.3, for example, is kernel-PAE-2.6.18-128.1.1.el5
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:25:01 up 8 days, 10:41, 3 users, load average: 4.57, 4.44, 4.33
General Schvantzkoph
> philo wrote:
>
>> I am also going to give CentOS 5.2 32bit a try
>
> Red Hat have been up to 5.3 for a while now. I suppose CentOS is too. My
> current kernel in RHEL 5.3, for example, is
> kernel-PAE-2.6.18-128.1.1.el5
CentOS is still at 5.2, Scientific Linux has just release 5.3.
John Thompson
> I now have Flash working...
>
> now one more thing
>
> Is there a version of Wine that will work with CentOS 5.2 64bit?
>
> I have one win-app I need to run
Wine does not compile as a native 64-bit application; you have to use an
i386 version. Fedora 10 is up to wine-1.1.15; the Fedora rpms might work
with Centos.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
philo
I may keep using Fedora 10
but I currently have CentOS 5.2 32bit and 64bit installed...
so will fool around with all of them