LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > CentOS (*)
User Name
Password
CentOS (*) This forum is for the discussion of CentOS Linux. Note: This forum does not have any official participation.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2014, 02:56 AM   #16
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952

The problems systemd sought to fix sadly we're solved years ago by Dan Bernstein with daemontools. Process supervision isn't new, but it's taken forever for anyone to even think about using it. Bsdinit and sysvinit both can start up things then pass off init to Runit, s6, perp, or djbdts and still be fast with loads. To me systemd only reinvented a wheel guys like Gerrit Pape, Dan Bernstein, and Laurent Bercot solved years prior.

We had djbdts since 1999 so why the Hell didn't anyone bother using it? Djbdts solved it without creating the so-dubbed clusterf*ck in the system and simplified init. Init loaded the system at the bare minimum then svscan from djbdts loaded daemons all in parallel using tree based dependency loading.

To me vermaden, if people had used the tools given when they had the chance we'd never have seen systemd even sprout from the black ooze from whence it spawned from. Distributions like CentOS, Debian, and such wouldn't be all clones of each other.

It's been refreshing to see nearly unknown distributions like VoidLinux crawling up through the cracks dumping systemd like a bad habit for more system and resource friendly solutions like Runit. I dare say my next distribution might just be an alternative project Linux.

On a long enough timeline, the survivability of systemd as a project will eventually drop to zero.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 08-20-2014 at 03:19 AM.
 
Old 08-20-2014, 04:08 AM   #17
vermaden
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 397

Rep: Reputation: 81
@ReaperX7

Agreed.

Also on VIOD Linux: https://twitter.com/vermaden/status/498755465850134528
 
Old 08-20-2014, 05:15 AM   #18
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
One problem of these alternate init and init-helpers had was the fact they all aren't GPL licensed. I think honestly people are wising up and seeing not all good projects reside under the GPL umbrella. Just because it has GPL plastered all over it, doesn't make it the next best thing since Black Coffee. If GPL was so great, I wouldn't be using a CDDL licensed file system on my Linux box, and our Runit-for-LFS project wouldn't be MIT licensed.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 08-20-2014 at 05:16 AM.
 
Old 08-20-2014, 08:22 PM   #19
joncr
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Posts: 74

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
No issues here with CentOS 7 or Anaconda.

For those who have not been paying attention to Fedora for a few years, the Anaconda rewrite and redesign abandoned the lockstep sequential you-can't-go-back-and-fix-anything approach. It's based on a so-called hub-and-spoke approach with all tasks accessible by clicking icons at the hub. The "Done" approach is taken because there is no "next" step. You just return to the hub until you are satisfied with everything. E.g., you can edit package groups to be installed umpteen different times if you want.

I never cease to be amused that so many apparently clever people are so flummoxed when the people who give them software for free change something. Can't they figure it out?

(As a user, I don't care about the systemd politics. I expect the init process to be hidden from me.)
 
Old 08-20-2014, 08:54 PM   #20
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 2,987

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by joncr View Post
I never cease to be amused that so many apparently clever people are so flummoxed when the people who give them software for free change something. Can't they figure it out?
Can't figure it out? Did you read my post at all or did you just page down to the reply button and jump into defensive mode for some reason?

Basic partitioning functionality is GONE. If a user can't assign an existing partition to a mount point on the new filesystem, that is a fundamental, unforgivable failure in the installer. And on top of that, undoing existing partitioning information results in a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE that shuts down the entire installation process and reboots the computer!

No, this is not a simple change in appearance, this is an absolute abomination of an installer for a supposedly "enterprise" OS. The fact that this POS was actually released seriously disturbs my notion of what the CentOS developers stand for with regards to usability and stability. Given these bugs, CentOS 7 should at this point be an ALPHA release, not even to the level of BETA, much less so-called stable, distributable, etc.

The Fedora installer isn't even this bad, and that's saying something!

Or are you saying that users of free software aren't allowed to complain when that software is crap? Well I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 08-20-2014 at 09:16 PM.
 
Old 08-22-2014, 10:17 AM   #21
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,107

Rep: Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
Is anyone else as disappointed with CentOS 7 as I am?
Yes, but apparently for different reasons.

Quote:
this CentOS 7 installer (especially the manual partition configuration) is terrible.
I had no trouble with that.

Quote:
Oh, there's a tiny "Done" button in the very top left
I can only guess I would not have been confused by that even if I had not been warned. The change from sequential to "hub and spoke" and change from "next" (step) to "done" (with this step) seemed obvious when I saw it, but I had also been warned to look for the tiny "Done" button.

Quote:
I don't remember seeing a bootloader option,
Now that you mention it, I didn't see that option either. I wanted the default. I got the default. But I still would want to know where the option is.

Quote:
let's look closer. Oh there it is, buried in TINY blue text at the very bottom of the screen.
When (which screen)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
The CentOS 7 installer will only let you delete and create, apparently. When you click on an existing partition, it tells you everything you could possibly want to know about it, but the "mount point" box is blank and greyed out.
At some point I will find that VERY annoying. When installing earlier Centos versions, I usually wanted to create my partitioning in a liveCD boot of a different distribution and then tell the Centos installer to use those. On some systems, the Centos installer was sufficiently confused by previous Windows fake RAID that it could not create the partitions I needed and I had no choice but to use another distribution liveCD to create the partitions for Centos.

This time, I had already shrunk Windows and I wanted to manually partition the space that created and doing so in the Centos 7 installer was easy.

I watched our local IT guy start a Centos 7 install, and he chose the option to blow away everything on sda and use default partitioning. That was easy (maybe too easy, because a beginner might not understand what it was doing).
 
Old 08-22-2014, 10:29 AM   #22
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 2,987

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045Reputation: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine View Post
Now that you mention it, I didn't see that option either. I wanted the default. I got the default. But I still would want to know where the option is.



When (which screen)?
Here's a screenshot from the installer (from that review I mentioned in the first post):
http://www.dedoimedo.com/images/comp...-selection.jpg

That "full disk summary and bootloader" text at the bottom is a button, if you click on that it brings up the bootloader menu.
 
Old 08-22-2014, 10:32 AM   #23
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,107

Rep: Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114
What bothered me most was confusion over selecting which packages would be installed initially from the DVD (available on first reboot).

I know I can use yum to install whatever I want pretty easily later. But there are still advantages to having some packages there from the start.

If I remember correctly, earlier Centos versions let you choose packages from several different categories and the choices stuck, so what you ended up with was all the packages you choose. If I understand correctly, this one have several basic plans and you can select a plan and packages in that plan, but you can't select a few packages each from two or more different plans. Of course the important packages I wanted for the first reboot were not together in one plan.

I set up this system on my employer's LAN, so the process was made more difficult by my lack of knowledge about that LAN and lack of admin rights:

We use NIS. I'm not sure what packages are needed for a workstation in an NIS LAN, but something is and I didn't figure out how to install that up front. So when the system reboots before asking to create a local user, I don't have any option to skip that and use my real account.

Similarly, large parts of the environment to make a computer usable on this LAN are based on yp and automount and similar tools. According to our IT guy, if all those packages are installed before the reboot within the install process, all the required info comes in through DHCP and everything comes up usable and not intervention by a LAN administrator would be required. But booting without those installed gives me a system I can't use without getting him to fix things.
 
Old 08-22-2014, 10:42 AM   #24
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,107

Rep: Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114
The dual boot with Windows was not set up automatically by the Centos 7 installer. I'm experienced enough to deal with that with only minor inconvenience. Most serious users of Centos 7 won't want dual boot with Windows anyway. But the users most likely to want dual boot are the users least able to deal with fixing that themselves after the fact.

My limited testing seems to show that the os-prober code for creating the dual boot doesn't work until after you have installed ntfs-3g. I'm not sure that is correct. But if it is true (and of course you can't install ntfs-3g from the Centos 7 DVD, so dual boot can't be correct initially) there ought to be a very clear warning and instructions to get beginners past that.

os-prober ought to be smarter. Without ntfs-3g, maybe it can't tell the partition flagged as bootable in the partition table is Windows (so it can't label the menuentry confidently). But it can trivially tell something was meant to be bootable and it can trivially create a usable menuentry for it. So that is a mis-feature in os-prober so bad, I think it is a bug not just a badly thought through feature.
 
Old 08-22-2014, 10:53 AM   #25
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,107

Rep: Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114
I tried Centos 7 on a 4 year old high end (for four years ago) work station with an expensive nVidia display card with four LCD displays connected.

Centos 7 came up using all four displays and so horrible slow it was nowhere close to usable. I guessed it was a display driver problem related to four displays and painfully slowly (every mouse movement was a challenging task) found the place to disable displays and disabled three of them, resulting in normal performance.

Any failing of open source nVidia drivers is not the fault of the Centos distribution, nor its installer. But if this is at all common for multiple display workstations, the installer ought to be more conservative about what is initially enabled.

This is a temporary install for investigation of various issues and will mostly be accessed from other systems via ssh -X so getting it to work well with its attached displays isn't important. I might work though that mess anyway for the learning value. But I don't know if/when I'll have time. In similar situations in the past, I always waste lots of time trying/failing to get the open source drivers configured correctly then switch to the closed source driver spending nearly as much time again on the configuration details but getting it to work.
 
Old 08-26-2014, 02:52 PM   #26
thealmightyos
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Distribution: CentOS 6.5 / 7
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: 0
Maybe I am the outliner here but I got CentOS7 installed on my home server and it runs great. There are some configuration issues that were my fault, but other then that smooth sailing. The installation GUI was abysmal though, I will admit that. Once you got used to the weird "Done" = "Next" quark, it was at least manageable. Once up and running I could install all the programs I use regularly from yum without having to force-compile something cause of how out of date the os is (looking at you CentOS6.5). And if my laptop was 64bit I would be upgrading that to 7 as well.

I am not disappointed. But then again, I don't have high expectations of any OS. I take it for what it is: an upgrade to 6.5. Is it an upgrade to 6.5? Yes. Yes it is.

All you disappointed peoples, be happy! There are other distro's out there if CentOS7 doesn't do it for you. Just be glad you are not a windows user stuck with Windows8 (w/o touchscreen)

Last edited by thealmightyos; 08-27-2014 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Hilarious spelling error
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Reasons Mesa 9.1 Is Still Disappointing For End-Users LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-15-2013 08:41 AM
LXer: Aupeo review: great music, disappointing app LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-03-2011 05:10 AM
A disappointing experience tm2383 Fedora - Installation 1 04-20-2011 08:13 PM
Mandriva 2009 disappointing biggles1963 Mandriva 1 01-14-2010 01:45 AM
Disappointing font rendering with ATI graphics card terracotta Linux - Hardware 0 11-28-2005 09:20 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration