Is CentOS 5.0 Worth Every Penny?: CentOS is a Linux distribution based on the ever reliable Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The name stands for Community ENTerprise Operating System and is not in any way related to a coin :-) The main purpose of CentOS is rebuilding the commercial RHEL and makes it available to those who want the reliability of an enterprise class operating system minus the cost.I have used Fedora and RHEL before but have never tried any of their derivative distros. Then just recently, a new version of CentOS live CD was released so I got curious and wanted to try it out. I downloaded the almost 700MB ISO, and for my 384 kbps broadband connection it took about 7 hours to complete. Again, I utilized the very handy VMWare for testing as with most Linux distros I have tried before, to see how well it performed without physically installing it on my HDD. It also helps save time and resources as I don’t have to burn the ISO to a CD to use it. So now I’m going to share some experiences I had using 5.0 CentOS.
Test Machine Specs:
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 512MB allocated to VM memory
Display: RADEON X300/X550 Series [Display adapter]
Intro:
The first version of CentOS, CentOS 3 build4-rc0, was released in the end of 2003. CentOS is 100% compatible rebuild of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in full compliance with Red Hat's redistribution requirements. CentOS has made its own name and become popular by ranking number 12 in Distrowatch.
Installation:
The download site for CentOS can be found here. The live CD cannot be used as an installer, take note of that. It’s made only for testing and as a rescue CD. So I booted CentOS and it detected every major component of the VMWare system. The funny part was when logging in; you can press enter and login as guest, or you can login as root. But what is the root password? Let’s play finders keepers! No, I will just give it to you. It’s: 12qwaszx.
Look and Feel:
The highest set of resolution I can have on my 19 inch screen monitor is only 800x600. CentOS has a GNOME desktop and a very Fedora-like theme which is plain and simple. There are no extra wallpapers except for the few already included by default in Gnome. There’s nothing really fancy to see except for the Desktop Effects icon that will let you activate Compiz with just a few clicks. That is if you have a capable graphics card.
The first version of CentOS, CentOS 3 build4-rc0, was released in the end of 2003. CentOS is 100% compatible rebuild of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in full compliance with Red Hat's redistribution requirements. CentOS has made its own name and become popular by ranking number 12 in Distrowatch.
Installation:
The download site for CentOS can be found here. The live CD cannot be used as an installer, take note of that. It’s made only for testing and as a rescue CD. So I booted CentOS and it detected every major component of the VMWare system. The funny part was when logging in; you can press enter and login as guest, or you can login as root. But what is the root password? Let’s play finders keepers! No, I will just give it to you. It’s: 12qwaszx.
Look and Feel:
The highest set of resolution I can have on my 19 inch screen monitor is only 800x600. CentOS has a GNOME desktop and a very Fedora-like theme which is plain and simple. There are no extra wallpapers except for the few already included by default in Gnome. There’s nothing really fancy to see except for the Desktop Effects icon that will let you activate Compiz with just a few clicks. That is if you have a capable graphics card.
Package Management:
A good lineup of software is included in the live CD. There’s OpenOffice.org 2.0.4, Firefox 1.5.0.10, Thunderbird 1.5.0.10, Gaim 2.0.0, Scribus 1.3.3, XChat 2.6.6, K3b 0.12.17 and GIMP 2.2.13. As a rescue CD, there is a full set of LVM and RAID command line tools; QTParted; Nmap and NMapFE; graphical traceroute; Samba 3.0.23c with CIFS kernel support to connect to Windows file shares; system log viewer; GUI hardware device manager. The only setback is that the CD has a non writable /usr directory, which means it is not able to have additional software installed on it after boot-up.
Stability:
It is based on RHEL so there’s no doubt about CentOS's stability. I have tried opening numerous programs without encountering problems. I also successfully ran several Python scripts with it. I really didn’t find CentOS to be that fast but it works and most if not all of the included applications are functional. As a live CD only, I could say that it is solid enough.
Conclusion:
So is CentOS 5.0 worth every penny? Not really. A live CD of its size should have been a little more complete. Even the smaller-sized Zenwalk can do much better than CentOS live. If its main purpose is merely for testing or for rescuing a broken system, lots of mini distributions can do the job just the same. CentOS 5.0 live CD edition shouldn’t have been released in the first place because it is not ready yet. For now, I wouldn’t recommend downloading it because it’s just a waste of time. But to those who are really eager to try CentOS, perhaps the DVD installer version will do just fine based on the good things I’ve heard about it in some reviews. Maybe I will download that version also, that is after I have fully recovered from my disappointment with the Live CD. However, I still consider CentOS as one of the best Linux web servers around.
*RELATED POST: In Response to Beranger.org
For the HTTP site:
mirror.linux.duke.edu
For the packages path (or whatever it is called, I know it is the line after site info)
/pub/centos/5.0/os/i386/
CentOS is an ENTerprise Operating System. This live CD is primarily for Workstation usage. Probably something you have no familiarity with since you mention Zenwalk in the review and NimbleX in the comments (which are aimed at "USER" usage).
Also, what kind of review is this? Its in VM, only 512MB of RAM is allocated, there is no 3D with VM (yet), what applications did you install and run? What direct comparisons can you garner from ubuntu for example? What about wireless? Etc, Etc.
You really are a poor tech source. As others have said. Stop reviewing for the love of god.
Let's have a look at the the release announcement:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2007-July/014018.html
--------- [begin quote] ---------
The CentOS Development team is pleased to announce the availability of
the CentOS 5 i386 Live CD.
This CD is based on our CentOS-5.0 i386 distribution.
It can be used as a Workstation, with the following software:
OpenOffice.org 2.0.4
Firefox 1.5.0.10
Thunderbird 1.5.0.10
Gaim-2.0.0
Scribus-1.3.3
xchat-2.6.6
k3b-0.12.17
Gimp-2.2.13
It can also be used as a rescue CD with the following tools:
1. Full set of LVM and RAID command line tools
2. QTParted
3. Nmap and NMapFE
4. Graphical Traceroute
5. samba-3.0.23c with cifs kernel support to connect to Windows file shares
6. System Log Viewer
7. GUI Hardware Device Manager
--------- [end quote] ---------
and
--------- [begin quote] ---------
This CD has a non writable /usr directory, which means it is not able to
have software installed on it after boot up. The CentOS team is working
hard to create a Live CD for CentOS 5 that is based on the Fedora Live
CD Project (that is writable in all directories and even able to be used
for installs) ... unfortunately we were not able to get this working
with CentOS 5 for this release. We hope to get that Live CD working by
the release of CentOS 5.1.
That means that the purposes of this CD are to see if CentOS will
boot/work on your hardware, to test some of the features of CentOS as a
workstation, and to use as a Rescue CD. It does not contain all the
features of the 7 CD CentOS 5 Distribution on one CD :)
---------[end quote]---------
Clearly, the LiveCD is not designed to illustrate full potential of CentOS 5.
When I look at the title, I fully expect a review of a fully installed CentOS and the evaluation of its majot components. How does it function as a server? How dos it compared to RHEL? etc.
Sadly, there is no review of such.
What a waste of time!
You review a Live CD, talk fairly positively about it, and then say it's not worth it? You tested stability by opening a few programs and running some *python* scripts? WTF? How is that supposed to test anything? Try doing some *real* stress-testing.. firing up OOo and the gimp at the same time and running "hello world" in python is the most useless stress-test on the planet.
I'd recommend using a unique security-oriented distro such as Annvix, but since it requires more technical prowess than this reviewer has, I'd cringe to see what kind of review would come out of it. Gentoo as well, for that matter.
Stick to Ubuntu, fan-boy.
I have observed that a lot of web hosting servers (and reseller hosting services) out there run CentOS. This appears to be one of the main uses of this wonderful OS. I was therefore surprised that the review did not discuss the really relevant aspects of the distribution. The review was actually totally useless to me too.
It works fine for that, becuase it essentially IS RedHat.
I'd recommend waiting until 5.1 or 5.2, after they've worked out the bugs.
That said, I highly recommend version 4.5 for its stability and usefulness. It's what I use on my production machine.
I read your review on CentOS 5, it was well written,
would you be interested at all in reviewing Fedora 8
and openSUSE 10.3? I need other writers/reviews/Linux Users/Developers to review all the distributions out there and then I can publish the best ones. My hope is to have a National Magazine published in USA a la the UK's Linux Format. Please contact me at hudsonman35@gmail.com if you like to help out!
Mark McLaughlin - linuxglobe.wordpress.com
Mark
Why would anyone have beryl on RHEL? Heck.. Why would you put X on RHEL?
BBH
The above URL has a copy of the same post and appears to be claiming ownership.
The below URL has information on how to file a DMCA take-down notice if you object to such use. The fact that the author is not attributed is enough cause to get it taken down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
I'll add my note surprise to all the others about your testing methodology. You say "I have used and reviewed plenty of distributions myself, perhaps more than most of you have used, that I believe is enough for me to honestly and fairly judge a specific distro that I have tested". I think it's fair to say that if all your tests are conducted in the same way as this one they're all equally worthless. You really haven't bothered to think about how you go about this task and to give reviews based on these "tests" (that you expect to be taken seriously) is amazing.
CentOS is a server / enterprise OS. I've never seen a box that does anything important in a datacenter boot from a liveCD to do it's job. LiveCDs are great tools, but they are for recovery / troubleshooting.
The author complains about the liveCD being 700MB, and not having enough features, but again, this is a rescue environment. It's also not CentOS's fault that the author's internet connection is slow.
What kind of metrics were used to determine that 'CentOS was not that fast'? Running a few commands/scripts in a liveCD environment on a VM, which only has CPU cycles allocated to it by the host OS. So resource allocation already plays a part in the equation, then add the fact that none of the commands / scripts were timed and compared with results on similar hardware and a different distro, but just run. It was just "slow", according to a guy that thinks a vmware boot of a liveCD is a valid way to test or review a server OS. That doesn't carry any weight with me.
I made an airplane out of paper, and it was really fast! I don't know how fast exactly, but it was fast enough to fly when I threw it. It is for this reason that I recommend my paper airplane over the Boeing 747, which seems slow to me. Whenever I see a 747 fly by, it moves really slow, but my paper airplane was really quick!
I have used Centos as a desktop distro, forced to use Ubuntu at the mo.
My experience is that for number crunching that I do Cnet is 20-30% faster than Hardy.
Who, on the earth, installs CentOS for his wife?