CentOs 4.0 Released 48
fluor2 writes "The CentOS team is pleased to announce availability of CentOS 4.0. Major new features include the Linux 2.6 Kernel, SELinux, udev replacing the /dev system, Xorg, MySQL4, CyrusIMAPD, Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3.3. These improvements along with many more are detailed in the
release notes available online.
We read recently about
Red Hat & Centos On Name Usage, and the solution is now to link to
a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor
(PNAELV).
Go ahead and download CentOs from one of their mirrors."
Go ahead and download CentOs from one of their mirrors."
well.... (Score:2, Informative)
Whitebox is/was pretty popular, and CentOS looks to be a good product too. It's not quite the new fledling it seems you think. You should try it. It even works with regular RHEL/Fedora yum repositories.
Re:How similar is it? (Score:4, Informative)
"CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.) CentOS is free, however, we ask for a small contribution. CentOS is a project of the cAos Foundation."
So it apears the only changes made are to remove brandings. So i would imagine it would run in a near identical fashion to RHEL
http://www.centos.org.nyud.net:8090/ [nyud.net]
all the info is on the main page(coral cach just incase) , i cant tell you definantly if they achive this goal , but I see very little reason as to why they shouldnt , unless redhat is not
opening all its sources , which is unlikly.
Release Notes. Correct Link. (Score:2, Informative)
Torrents (Score:4, Informative)
for binary disks 1-4 [gatech.edu]
Note for x86_64 users (Score:3, Informative)
You'll have to wait a bit for the new ISO's.
Other distros based on RHEL 4 (Score:3, Informative)
Some clarifications (Score:3, Informative)
They were basically all started independantly of each other.
Whitebox (being the only one I have really used extensively) is run out of Beauregard Parish Public Library [beau.org] by a a JMorris [slashdot.org]. He rules with a tyranical fist and has no desire to offer anything other than the bare minimum of changes needed to make the rebuild possible. Now I like this hard-line leadership, but it has caused some friction as to the timelyness of updates.
I did recently convert a machine that was Whitebox Linux to Tao Linux to verify that it could be done. I followed this basic procedure. With this basic procedure, picking one of the projects over another isn't that much of a life or death decision. It is relatively easy to move between this projects. [centos.org]
As far as I can tell (not having seen an actual RHEL box) both Whitebox and Tao are very accurate representations of RHEL. I have yet to see an instance where a package desigend for RHEL didn't work with Whitebox and Tao. I have installed Oracle, vmware, various rpm's that were packaged for RHEL without much troubles.
Re:some explanation (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/eval/
Re:well.... (Score:2, Informative)
If you'd like to migrate from WBEL:
Migration from WBEL to Centos [centos.org]
Also check out Whiteboxlinux.net [whiteboxlinux.net] you'll see that the site maintainer was growing frustrated with lack of updates to Whitebox, and switched over to Centos.
The projects were started about the same time.
There are also other competing projects Taolinux, Rocks, XOS, etc...
Re:MySQL 4.1 with PHP 4? (Score:2, Informative)
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/old-client.ht