Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Open Source Operating Systems Privacy Red Hat Software Security Software Linux News Build Hardware Technology

CentOS Linux 6.8 Released ( 91

An anonymous reader writes: CentOS team is pleased to announce the immediate availability of CentOS Linux 6.8 and install media for i386 and x86_64 Architectures. Release Notes for 6.8 are available here. Softpedia writes: "CentOS Linux 6.8 arrives today with major changes, among which we can mention the latest Linux 2.6.32 kernel release from upstream with support for storing up to 300TB of data on XFS filesystems. The VPN endpoint solution implemented in the NetworkManager network connection manager utility is now provided on the libreswan library instead of the Openswan IPsec implementation used in previous release of the OS, and it looks like the SSLv2 protocol has been disabled by default for the SSSD (System Security Services Daemon), which also comes with support for smart cards now." In addition, the new release comes with updated applications, including the LibreOffice 4.3.7 office suite and Squid 3.4 caching and forwarding web proxy, many of which are supporting the Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 protocol, including Git, YUM, Postfix, OpenLDAP, stunnel, and vsftpd. The dmidecode open-source tool now supports SMBIOS 3.0.0, you can now pull kickstart files from HTTPS (Secure HTTP) sources, the NTDp (Network Time Protocol daemon) package has an alternative solution as chrony, SSLv3 has been disabled by default, and there's improved support for Hyper-V.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CentOS Linux 6.8 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @06:48PM (#52183543)
    CentOS/RedHat motto has always been "stability and security". Nowadays however , I don't think there is much difference with Debian, for instance, in terms of stability/security. Furthermore, for those using the desktop release, RH and CentOS are really behind (eg compared to Ubuntu) in terms of ergonomics, utilities and other applications.
    • To be fair, they stay behind and backport security fixes for compatibility reasons - mainly enterprise apps that want to ensure they are not going to introduce any breaking changes while staying secure. Their customer isn't the day to day user that wants the latest and greatest.
    • by Phiz ( 21461 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @07:31PM (#52183803)

      CentOS/RedHat major releases have a 10-year life span. Debian is 5 years for LTS and Ubuntu is 4 years. For my uses that is a significant difference.

    • "CentOS 6 is really behind" means that it does not have a bunch of significant recent changes. Which is the definition of stable.

      Has CentOS 6 kept up with recent changes? If so, it's not "really behind". If not, it's stable. Pick one.

      I would say they've done as advertised, they kept it pretty stable. That happens to be what I want right now. If I wanted cutting-edge, I might use Fedora.

      • Was said "for those using the desktop release". Desktop wise, there is a huge difference between modern Ubuntu like releases and CentOS. Even Ubuntu 14.04 (2 years old) is way ahead re ergonomics, utilities and other applications. You can keep CentOS or RH, but at least show a bit of fairness.
        • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @11:45PM (#52184983) Journal

          > there is a huge difference between modern Ubuntu like releases and CentOS. Even Ubuntu 14.04 (2 years old) is way ahead

          I don't necesarily disagree. Let's assume that's right, that Ubuntu has had a lot of updates (changes) and CentOS hasn't. That's what you said, right?

          Of course all that new stuff has new APIs and especially new ABIs. The APIs and ABIs of RHEL 6 haven't changed for six years, so it doesn't have all the new shinies. What do you call it when something doesn't change a lot over time, when it pretty much remains the same? For APIs and ABIs, we call that "stable".

          Notice the word is neither "good" nor "bad", it's "stable", aka unchanging, remaining the same, reliable.

          > but at least show a bit of fairness.

          I can't think of anything more fair than stating a plain, objective fact. RHEL doesn't change the interfaces. They are stable. Love it or hate it, it's a fact. What would be UNFAIR would be to lie and say RHEL doesn't provide a stable environment. That's simply untrue as a factual matter, for the sense of the word "stable" that matters for software maintainence.

      • > Has CentOS 6 kept up with recent changes?

        CentOS doesn't generally "keep up with changes". They follow changes from RHEL, with a few exceptions like their Xen virtualization project.

        RHEL is kept very standard, with consistent major libraries, kernels, and software versions. They do occasionally publish add-on toolkits, such as additional and upgraded versions of python or gcc in parallel with the main default version. And they are doing some interesting things with the "software collecion" libraries, to

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Hosts have 3 weeks to roll it out:

    "PHP cURL module now supports TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2" and "NSS now enables the TLS version 1.2 protocol by default"

    (Yes, that's right, NSS, not OpenSSL.) []

    PayPal is upgrading the protocols used to secure all external connections made to our systems. Transport Layer Security version 1.2 (TLS 1.2) and Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 1.1 (HTTP/1.1) will bec

    • by unrtst ( 777550 )

      "PHP cURL module now supports TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2" and "NSS now enables the TLS version 1.2 protocol by default"

      (Yes, that's right, NSS, not OpenSSL.) []

      I don't understand your emphasis on NSS.
      FWIW, the version of openssl that shipped with CentOS 6.7 fully supported TLSv1.2. Their announcement that, "NSS now enables the TLS version 1.2 protocol by default", does not in any way imply that OpenSSL had not or did not do so. They happen to be building some items against NSS, thus that change affects things like pyCurl and phpCurl for them, though those could be rebuilt against OpenSSL (I rebuild php to get a more recent version, and link it to openssl instead o

    • PayPal didn't back off, the PCI Council did. The PCI DSS standard previously offered an exemption for existing sites that could not easily deprecate TLS 1.0 that was to expire June 2016. Now that has been extended 12 months, and PayPal is following suit.

  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <> on Thursday May 26, 2016 @02:23AM (#52185391) Homepage

    I had to install it this morning by typing ''yum update'', it told me that it was going to install 855 MB and prompted me ''Is this ok [y/N]'' -- notice a default answer of no.

    This is yet more evidence that RedHat/CentOS is behind the time and not following recent industry practice of bamboozling their users [] into installing the latest version of the OS whether they want to or not. Should I downgrade to Microsoft Windows so that I can become as exasperated as some of my friends ?

    • Should I downgrade to Microsoft Windows so that I can become as exasperated as some of my friends ?

      Do you hate yourself? If so, then yes, join your friends.

  • Just no reason for CentOS anymore. The kernel on the 6.x distros is old. The 7.x use that horrid systemd crap. It really sucks. CentOS 6.5 was a great distro.

    Calculate Linux is based on Gentoo, but Calculate installs easily. I use the MATE based distro, everything works, and is easy.

    I think Slackware 14.3 is out. That might be worth a look.

    I used FreeBSD for a while, but FreeBSD has no Dropbox client, and I could not install my VPN on FreeBSD. Sad, because FreeBSD is very solid UNIX implementation.

  • Well, my big file server just paniced after a 6.7->6.8 upgrade. The ONLY reason to stick with CentOS6 was stability and long lifetime. Since that is now out the window, switching to Ubuntu 16.04 (with the huge advantage of having ZFS precompiled) is back on my burner.

    The good news is it doesn't look like I lost any of my 24 TB of ZFS data, despite panics, reset switches, and power buttons.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.