Using RHEL 6 at work

Man it's a pretty nice client OS. Anyone else using this as a client and if so what are your thoughts?

This is on my Dev machine. Still rolling 64 bit XP on my regular machine.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MentholMoose

I really like Fedora, which is similar. I don't use RHEL on my desktop since I prefer having updated desktop software at the expense of stability (I never have stability problems with Fedora anyway). RHEL 6 is still pretty new so the Gnome/KDE packages are not too outdated yet, but try RHEL 5 and you will see what I mean (anyone still want to use KDE 3.5?).

Forsaken_GA

hate it as a client. Don't know why their implementation of pulseaudio sucks so bad, but I've had nothing but problems with it. I went back to using Debian as a client OS

onesaint

We use CentOS 5.5 and I enjoy it well enough. Ive run into a few interesting situations where the older more stable kernel means newer devices arent supported (e.g., USB3). Fedora, Debian, and Ubuntu seem to get a lot more attention as client OSes go. Maybe thats cause Cent/RHEL are intended for the back end. ha.

Forsaken_GA

Debian doesn't get as much attention as you might think.

Ubuntu is to Debian as Fedora is to RHEL.

But yeah, RHEL isn't cutting edge. Fedora is the upstream for RHEL, RHEL is cobbled together out of Fedora tests/releases, so it's always a little behind. It's intended to provide a stable server environment on known good hardware. If I remember right, RHEL 6 is based on Fedora 9 if I remember right (and Fedora is at 15 now, so....)

onesaint

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Debian doesn't get as much attention as you might think.

Ubuntu is to Debian as Fedora is to RHEL.

But yeah, RHEL isn't cutting edge. Fedora is the upstream for RHEL, RHEL is cobbled together out of Fedora tests/releases, so it's always a little behind. It's intended to provide a stable server environment on known good hardware. If I remember right, RHEL 6 is based on Fedora 9 if I remember right (and Fedora is at 15 now, so....)

And CentOS is one step behind RHEL. I didnt realize that about Debian and Ubuntu. In my foray into the ocean that is *nix, Ive so far been limited to CentOS and some Slackware.

Awesome article on the SSH tunneling by the way.

Forsaken_GA

onesaint wrote: »

And CentOS is one step behind RHEL. I didnt realize that about Debian and Ubuntu. In my foray into the ocean that is *nix, Ive so far been limited to CentOS and some Slackware.

Well, CentOS is not *supposed* to be one step behind RHEL. It's supposed to be equivalent. They've just been very slow getting things out the door (with RHEL 6.1 out, they're actually 2 steps behind). CentOS will catch up eventually. Scientific Linux is the other big RHEL rebuild, and they're on 6.0, but haven't been updated to 6.1 yet. Red Hat is a bunch of dicks, and the rebuild teams have to take the sources that Red Hat supplies, and change any occurrence of Red Hat's name, or their trademarked logo's, and then recompile all of those packages into new packages with new branding. And some packages, red hat doesn't supply source for, so they have to be obtained, or replaced through other means.

so the rebuild projects have lag built into them as just a fact of life, not as a matter of policy.

Ubuntu is basically just debian testing, with a little bit of unstable mixed in. Or at least it was. With the most recent release, Ubuntu is going off and doing it's own thing, but it still uses Debian as it's upstream. Debian stable is alot like RHEL, it's designed to be, well... stable! The testing version is what will become stable next, and it's usually pretty stable, but occasionally you see stupid stuff like important core packages moved out of the testing repo (which means everything breaks if you update). unstable you shouldn't touch unless you like fixing broken debian systems.

Awesome article on the SSH tunneling by the way.

Thanks!

onesaint

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

so the rebuild projects have lag built into them as just a fact of life, not as a matter of policy.

Its a good free distro, so I just take it as part of the life cycle, that they are a bit behind RHELs release. Plus your spot on about the Red Hat folks.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

The testing version is what will become stable next, and it's usually pretty stable, but occasionally you see stupid stuff like important core packages moved out of the testing repo (which means everything breaks if you update).

Sounds like an OS X move. They love moving packages around. Fedora does that a lot as well. I had always thought that Ubuntu was just the GUI, fun, & popular distro of Linux. Heh.

Forsaken_GA

onesaint wrote: »

Sounds like an OS X move. They love moving packages around. Fedora does that a lot as well. I had always thought that Ubuntu was just the GUI, fun, & popular distro of Linux. Heh.

Ubuntu, back in 2007, was the first Linux I ever installed and everything just worked. I didn't have to deal with any crap regarding drivers. It found them, asked me if I wanted to turn them on, and it just worked. So I loved it, especially after I realized it was Debian under the hood.

Debian used to be a pain. Those who remember Debian when all you had was dselect and dpkg to do your software installation will remember much pain. But when they put in apt, it got so much easier to manage. And they've steadily been making it easier and easier for the admin. It's gotten to the point where I had to move some of my internal boxes to Red Hat just because Debian was making into a lazy admin.

Now, with that being said, Debian ain't perfect. Their hardline militant stance on licensing issues makes things painful sometimes. For example, I will never ever ever run an ldap server on debian ever again. Once they started linking openldap against gnutls instead of openssl, it caused me no end of pain. Even getting Debian integrated as an LDAP client is a major pain in my rear, due to a few bugs in libnss that they haven't implemented a workaround for.

But for damn near everything else, Debian is easily my distro of choice for deploying servers.

petedude

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Ubuntu, back in 2007, was the first Linux I ever installed and everything just worked. I didn't have to deal with any crap regarding drivers. It found them, asked me if I wanted to turn them on, and it just worked. So I loved it, especially after I realized it was Debian under the hood.

You see, this is what gets me about all the Linux command-line junkies who assault Ubuntu. It just works. . . which is the way most people want to work with their PCs.

For my part, I've been enamored lately with Linux Mint and Ubuntu for client use. Especially Mint with Xfce and Lubuntu-- these seems to run much better. In the past, I was a bit OpenSUSE fan as I was a Novell nerd, but their releases have become WAY too bloated and slow.

Haven't spent much time with Linux servers in a long while and it shows. What do I do with a > prompt again?

Forsaken_GA

petedude wrote: »

You see, this is what gets me about all the Linux command-line junkies who assault Ubuntu. It just works. . . which is the way most people want to work with their PCs.

This is also the reason I run Mac OS X. I fix crap for a living. It's what I get paid to do. I'm not getting paid when I'm busy expending my knowledge on my own gear. My time is actually worth something, so I want my tools to *work*. This is what alot of folks who eventually turn to Macs end up understanding on a personal level.

On a system administration level, I also prefer clients that simply work. Thankfully, I'm out of the sysadmin ghetto now. If I was still there, I'd probably have begun taking away my users computers and requiring them to use pen and paper. I'm sure they'd find someway to screw THAT up as well.

Haven't spent much time with Linux servers in a long while and it shows. What do I do with a > prompt again?

Properly terminate your command, son!

ChooseLife

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

and Fedora is at 15 now, so....

15?!

Jesus... Last I looked at Fedora (and it wasn't that long ago) it was at version 4... In the same time period, RHEL went from 4 to 6, Slack - from 10 to 13...

MentholMoose

Fedora has a time-based release schedule (approximately one release every six months). Fedora 4 was released in 2005 so maybe you didn't look at it as recently as you remember.

ChooseLife

MentholMoose wrote: »

Fedora has a time-based release schedule (approximately one release every six months). Fedora 4 was released in 2005 so maybe you didn't look at it as recently as you remember.

Yep, 2005 is when I saw it last. At the time I was running RHEL 4 and Slack 10. So in 6 years we have 2 major version releases for RHEL, 3 for Slack, and 11 for Fedora. Nothing wrong with that, any versioning system is chosen arbitrarily and is no better or worse than any other, that was just my natural reaction after seeing a relatively recent project have such a high version number. Sort of like "Firefox 16 just released"

onesaint

ChooseLife wrote: »

Sort of like "Firefox 16 just released"

You may get your wish, they just jumped from ver. 3 to ver. 5 in what, 6 months?

Forsaken_GA

onesaint wrote: »

You may get your wish, they just jumped from ver. 3 to ver. 5 in what, 6 months?

They're just copying Chrome's versioning system now. Chrome is up to version 12 now I think. So expect to see Firefox 6 sometime this year as well!

onesaint

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

They're just copying Chrome's versioning system now. Chrome is up to version 12 now I think. So expect to see Firefox 6 sometime this year as well!

I guess they're all trying to keep up with Fedora! lol.

sambuca69

N2IT wrote: »

Man it's a pretty nice client OS. Anyone else using this as a client and if so what are your thoughts?

This is on my Dev machine. Still rolling 64 bit XP on my regular machine.

Oh no you didn't.. Bieber as an avatar?? C'mon man!

Forsaken_GA

sambuca69 wrote: »

Oh no you didn't.. Bieber as an avatar?? C'mon man!

Resisting... urge.... to neg rep....

Bodanel

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

RHEL 6 is based on Fedora 9 if I remember right (and Fedora is at 15 now, so....)

RHEL 6 is a mix of Fedora 12 and 13 (some guy from RH said that in a interview). I use SL 6 as my desktop and before that was CentOS 5.5.
Btw, I think that eventually centos project will die- SL 6 was released on march 3, it' s devs are more customer oriented and this have catched up lots of people frustrated by the God complex of some of devs working on Centos project.

Also with the appearance of ClearOS backed up by ClearFoundation develops ClearOS, a Linux Network, Gateway, Server CentOS has another competitor

I prefer stability so I use SL 6 because i dont want some obscure update to brake my system when my boss screams for something.

Forsaken_GA

Bodanel wrote: »

RHEL 6 is a mix of Fedora 12 and 13 (some guy from RH said that in a interview). I use SL 6 as my desktop and before that was CentOS 5.5.
Btw, I think that eventually centos project will die- SL 6 was released on march 3, it' s devs are more customer oriented and this have catched up lots of people frustrated by the God complex of some of devs working on Centos project.

I don't know if the CentOS project will die. It has a very large user base, as it's one of the most popular OS's used for web hosting companies. The delays to CentOS6 certainly haven't helped their reputation either.

I have a few SL6 boxes, but you have to keep in mind a couple differences between CentOS and SL. SL has paid developers, where CentOS is all volunteers. Up until this week, SL did not have a rebuild of 5.6 out yet. Given that upgrading from RHELish 5 to RHELish 6 is a painful, painful experience, alot of folks found the 5.6 update more important than the 6.0 update, since it contained relevant security patches. Both projects are similarly paced, but they have different areas of focus.

Honestly, I'm not terribly concerned with the slowness of Centos 6.0, and I don't get involved in distro politics. I don't give a damn if the devs are like Theo De Raat (big fan of his, personally) or like Mother Theresa. As long as it works.

I prefer stability so I use SL 6 because i dont want some obscure update to brake my system when my boss screams for something.

Erm, I don't quite get what you're saying here. Are you really saying SL6 is more stable and less likely to push a broken update than CentOS? That doesn't really track, man, it's all being built from the same source code.

And honestly, right now, with all the drastic changes that RHEL6 brought, I wouldn't want to push it in production right now. The authentication changes alone are a huge pain in the ass. SSSD needs to be updated in RHEL quicklike, the version shipping with 6.0 is lacking a few key features.

Bodanel

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

SL has paid developers, where CentOS is all volunteers.

You have to agree that lots of people would have donated to CentOS if it was possible and I think that it would be possible to keep 2 or 3 devs paid to work only for CentOS

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Up until this week, SL did not have a rebuild of 5.6 out yet. Given that upgrading from RHELish 5 to RHELish 6 is a painful, painful experience, alot of folks found the 5.6 update more important than the 6.0 update, since it contained relevant security patches

.

CentOS did not provide security updates for a few months altough a few security holes were discovered and, while SL 5.6 was not out yet, SL released a few security updates to cover those holes.
And CentOS advertises that those security update will be released in 48 hours after RH

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Honestly, I'm not terribly concerned with the slowness of Centos 6.0

The ideea was that when they were asked about updates or CentOS 6 the only answer
you'd get is "when it's ready". This has pissed off many people having critical servers (many webhosting companies as you say) not patched

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Erm, I don't quite get what you're saying here. Are you really saying SL6 is more stable and less likely to push a broken update than CentOS?

.

I was comparing SL with Ubuntu and other similar distros not RHEL clones. My bad for not beeing clear enough.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

And honestly, right now, with all the drastic changes that RHEL6 brought, I wouldn't want to push it in production right now.

Push no, but slowly migrate yes.

I was a HUGE fan of CentOS, I learned linux on CentOS, but the delay between RHEL and CentOS increases with each release and I think that if they dont change their approach the project will die.

Forsaken_GA

Bodanel wrote: »

You have to agree that lots of people would have donated to CentOS if it was possible and I think that it would be possible to keep 2 or 3 devs paid to work only for CentOS

It probably would be, but if they don't want donations, and want to keep it as a labor of love, then that's their right. The folks who want to pay to support CentOS or something like it could always go build out their own fork and pay some developers to work on it. Something like what ClearOS did. I can respect the integrity of the developers in wanting to keep it as a thing they do because they want to, not because they're paid to.

CentOS did not provide security updates for a few months altough a few security holes were discovered and, while SL 5.6 was not out yet, SL released a few security updates to cover those holes.
And CentOS advertises that those security update will be released in 48 hours after RH

Yup, and this was my one major concern while they were preparing the 5.6 release. Three months without security updates was unacceptable. They've been good about providing updates to 5.6, however. We'll see if RHEL 6 updates slip while they're working on the 6.1 point release. If they do, then that's going to be a major cause for concern.

The ideea was that when they were asked about updates or CentOS 6 the only answer
you'd get is "when it's ready". This has pissed off many people having critical servers (many webhosting companies as you say) not patched

Honestly, I do not have a problem with that response. If I disagreed with it that strongly, I wouldn't use the product anymore. Far too many folks are going about trumpting the death of CentOS, the supremacy of SL, and yelling at the CentOS developers because they're not happy with the pace.

All for a product they didn't pay a dime for.

I find it very hard to show any sympathy to that viewpoint. If your servers are that mission critical, and timely updates are a requirement, you should be paying for RHEL. If you choose to deploy one of the rebuilds in production, you take on that peril, and if you did it without realizing what it meant, you're a fool.

I was comparing SL with Ubuntu and other similar distros not RHEL clones. My bad for not beeing clear enough.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense. Ubuntu updates don't tend to break things. They do that with new releases twice a year. And yeah, as much as I loved Ubuntu, they're acting far too much like Microsoft as of late for me to put a whole lot of confidence in them. Which is sad, I've gotten alot of good use out of Ubuntu. But Debian serves my needs just as well, so it's not a huge deal.

Push no, but slowly migrate yes.

Honestly, right now, we couldn't push any variety of EL6. SSSD not being able to support netgroups is a huge blocker for us. Until RHEL starts shipping a version that contains at least SSSD 1.4, we can't even consider it a viable migration target. And we are NOT going to do custom installs of SSSD across our servers in order to get that functionality.

I was a HUGE fan of CentOS, I learned linux on CentOS, but the delay between RHEL and CentOS increases with each release and I think that if they dont change their approach the project will die.

We'll see. CentOS may lose some market share (what a funny term to be applying to free software), but I think we'd see a leadership change well in advance of the project actually dying. The problem with the internet is that it lends itself far too much to Chicken Little and Boy Who Cried Wolf syndromes. The folks who are unhappy with the progress of CentOS are certainly welcome to express their opinions, and I'll consider those opinions valid as long as they state them and then MOVE ON. If anyone is unhapppy with the CentOS project, there are alternatives, and anyone who continues to attack them out of anger and spite after they've already made the decision to move on is no better than a *****. And I don't pay much attention to trolls.

Bodanel

I can respect the integrity of the developers in wanting to keep it as a thing they do because they want to, not because they're paid to.

I agree with you on this one but having paid developers will allow other forks to keep up with RH

Honestly, I do not have a problem with that response. If I disagreed with it that strongly, I wouldn't use the product anymore.

And many did just that.

Far too many folks are going about trumpting the death of CentOS, the supremacy of SL, and yelling at the CentOS developers because they're not happy with the pace.

Actually, as someone who's using SL 6 for desktop I dont find it superior to CentOS in regards of stability and usability.

I find it very hard to show any sympathy to that viewpoint. If your servers are that mission critical, you should be paying for RHEL. If you choose to deploy one of the rebuilds in production, you take on that peril, and if you did it without realizing what it meant, you're a fool.

I agree that he should pay RHEL but if he uses CentOS because the budget guy wont allow RHEL because they googled something that answer may offend you and make you wanna switch distro.

Honestly, right now, we couldn't push any variety of EL6. SSSD not being able to support netgroups is a huge blocker for us.

This is specific to you enviroment. When I'm sure that it doenst brake anything I upgrade, if only for a fresh install and hardware maintenance.

I little change in leadership maybe isnt a bad thing.
The problem with the internet is that it lends itself far too much to Chicken Little and Boy Who Cried Wolf syndromes. And I don't pay much attention to trolls.

And lots of trolls appeared on CentOS forums in the last months. And we are going off-topic and we're gone get a slap on the hand

Joshua Hazelton

I have used Ubuntu for several things but mainly server use. It's great for workstation backups, web servers and running web based PHP/Mysql programs for users.

varelg

For linux client, I wouldn't use anything RH. Ubuntu is made to be the client and personal computing distro, it has integrated exactly those client-y things casual users want. Server-wise, it is a different story. But still RH wouldn't be my first choice for server OS, or linux for that matter. But if it has to be linux, I'd much rather work with Ubuntu Server.

UnixGuy

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

... I fix crap for a living...

+rep for the attitude

Forsaken_GA

varelg wrote: »

For linux client, I wouldn't use anything RH. Ubuntu is made to be the client and personal computing distro, it has integrated exactly those client-y things casual users want. Server-wise, it is a different story. But still RH wouldn't be my first choice for server OS, or linux for that matter. But if it has to be linux, I'd much rather work with Ubuntu Server.

RH works fine for a client, for the most part. Right now, RH 6.1 has issues running as a VM in VirtualBox, the Guest Additions and it don't get along so well.

I've been a fan of Ubuntu for years, but I'm having to shy away from them lately. They're trying to be too much like Windows, and going off and doing their own cowboy thing. Which is fine, it's just not something I'm personally going to support. I get what they're trying to do with the Unity interface, but when a company starts choosing form over function, I can't take them seriously anymore.

Catering to the lowest common denominator may be lucrative, but I feel it's ultimately self-destructive... to the society, if not the company. Folks should be encouraged to step their game up.

N2IT

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Resisting... urge.... to neg rep....

It was for a joke! Glad you didn't ding me for having a sense of humor

Forsaken_GA

N2IT wrote: »

It was for a joke! Glad you didn't ding me for having a sense of humor

Oh, I was kidding

I don't hand out neg rep lightly, I can only remember doing it twice, and in both cases, the idjuts in question *REALLY* deserved it.

But the urge was there!