Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Red Hat Software Linux

CentOS Linux 6.0 Released 184

dkd903 writes "The CentOS team just announced the availability of CentOS Linux version 6.0 for both i386 and x86_64 architectures. CentOS 6.0 is based on the upstream release of RHEL 6.0 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and includes packages from all variants."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CentOS Linux 6.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Why it took so long (Score:5, Informative)

    by Digimer ( 851067 ) <> on Sunday July 10, 2011 @06:21PM (#36714854) Homepage
    There has been a lot of drama recently about why CentOS 6 took so long to be released. Things to consider; To maintain binary compatibility, they need to not just replace the copyright material and build the source. They need to duplicate the build environment *exactly*. Compile flags, build order, etc. This while also keep the EL5 and EL4 releases updated and patched. This is something EL derivatives like Scientific Linux do not concern themselves with, for better and worse. I do know that the CentOS team have been working to improve their project, and some hear may have ideas and suggestions. Please feel free to join the CentOS mailing list(s) and pass along your ideas. Digimer
  • Re:i386 (Score:4, Informative)

    by nirik ( 5709 ) <> on Sunday July 10, 2011 @07:33PM (#36715380)

    In this case the 'i386' refers to "the "i386" architecture" ie, []

    The 32bit rpms you may note are .i686 and will not run on 386, 486 or 586 processors.

  • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2011 @09:44PM (#36716218)

    SL does not have the goal of binary compatibility, and some of their packages aren't directly link comparable. They just follow RHEL close enough for their needs. SL and CentOS have different target audiences:

    Example []

  • Re:i386 (Score:4, Informative)

    by yuhong ( 1378501 ) <yuhongbao_386@[ ] ['hot' in gap]> on Monday July 11, 2011 @12:18AM (#36717052) Homepage

    The naming of x86-64 has a funny history. Back in 2001 or so, AMD called the 64-bit extensions to x86 simply "x86-64". By 2003 however they decided to change the name to "AMD64". Of course, by then Intel was already trying to copy it. They revealed this to the public in 2004, first calling it "IA-32e", and soon after "EM64T". When they released their Core 2 processor in 2006 as the second processor to support it (first was Prescott and it's variants), they renamed it again to "Intel 64". On the matter of "IA-32", that name was coined I think when they were developing Itanium (before x86-64 even existed). The Itanium architecture was called "IA-64". Later on as x86-64 gained prominence, Intel renamed the "IA-64" architecture to "IPF" (Itanium Processor Family) to avoid confusion.

  • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday July 11, 2011 @02:43AM (#36717652) Homepage Journal

    It wasn't until CentOS 6.0 was delayed beyond reasonable expectation did I find out CentOS was managed by a very small, closed group. The closed part was a little unnerving considering the open source nature of the project.

    As I understand the common team and community positions, from the long debates on the -devel list:

    1) The source is open, the project is not.
    1a) After saying this, much of the build information has been dribbled out on the list anyway, but only after heated encouragement.
    1b) There is no interest in codifying this build information (ala a B(uild)RPM file to automate the process). See also: 3b.
    2) The C in CentOS (community) refers to the target of the product, not the process.
    3) Many people on the list would like to see an open project, run by the community, more like Fedora.
    3a) This would lead to faster releases.
    3b) It is assumed this would create friction with Redhat by helping its competition, and thus cool relations with the CentOS team or cause Redhat to discontinue its fully-open strategy for software it writes.
    3c) There has been talk that after 6.1 is out the door that the team will look into addressing some of these concerns.
    3d) Nobody has talked seriously about fork, yet. There's probably no RHEL 7 on the horizon, so there's a long time to prepare if it ultimately becomes necessary. Whitebox Linux to CentOS in a way proved the viability of this option, but almost nobody would prefer it.

  • by fnj ( 64210 ) on Monday July 11, 2011 @06:20AM (#36718344)

    CentOS jumped the shark quite a while ago. I'd say 2009. Lance Davis, the founder, flew the coop (just literally went AWOL) and no one thought to get control of the domain from him for a year. Meantime you couldn't contribute to the project using PayPal. Then the developers got an unenviable reputation for arrogance and supercilious unfriendliness to the desires of mere users. Finally there was the extremely long delay for 6.0. The release of 5.6, which wasn't all that rapid either, brought to the surface a disturbing problem with security updates for 5.5 not being forthcoming while 5.6 was being worked on.

    Many of these problems have been addressed; some haven't, at least not fully. Most anyone who had a serious need to be in the right technology DECADE this year has already jumped ship to Redhat, Scientific Linux, or PUIAS. I can't say enough good thing about PUIAS. They have 6.1 already. They are no johnny come latelies, as they have been around longer than CentOS.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser