LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
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 11-06-2014, 11:11 AM   #31
suicidaleggroll
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 5,161

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884

As an update for my original post, I have found the CentOS 7 installer to be MUCH more stable and easier to use when run from within a live environment. Unlike the standalone installer, when the install process is started from within a live session it does auto-detect the network interface, set up NTP automatically, the boot loader is enabled by default, and the disk partitioner doesn't fatally crash every 2 minutes.

I've since abandoned the standard DVD iso, and instead use the Gnome Live iso and install from in the live session. This says nothing of systemd, gnome 3, etc., but at least the installation process works correctly this way.
 
Old 11-24-2014, 05:55 AM   #32
irenge
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Kenya
Distribution: Centos 6, Fedora 19
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
i use Centos 7 and i find it rather cool . Only not as many application yet like centos 6 but i know it will all come with time
 
Old 12-03-2014, 09:13 PM   #33
DJon
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2012
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
This post pretty much sums it up for me.

http://darkmatterorodhben.blogspot.c...ller-woes.html

Last edited by DJon; 12-05-2014 at 12:39 AM.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 10:31 AM   #34
walterbyrd
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 610

Rep: Reputation: 35
"Disapointment" would be an understatement

I found the partitioner to be confusing, and network set up to be impossible. I wanted a static IP address, but the installer would not seem to allow it. I set up the network manually, but the button to complete the settings was always greyed out.

I spent all day yesterday getting the system set up the way I wanted it. I feel like I should learn to use Gnome Classic, since the standard being forced on us. But I hate Gnome Classic too much. Gnome Classic is too slow, too many unwanted features, and I cannot put icons in the task bar. I use MATE.

This morning I go to boot the system, and it won't work. Every rescue attempt has failed. Yeah, this is just what is needed for the enterprise.

An entire day of work wasted. I will make one more attempt to re-install, then give up. Salix 14.1 looks pretty good.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 02:47 PM   #35
John VV
LQ Muse
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,507

Rep: Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348
as a cent / ScientificLinux user for many years

i gave 7.0 a install on a KVM

i will wait for 7.1 to be out of the current testing

but likely i will be staying with 6 for 6 more years

the MUST use software i use is built for 6 so until it is ported to 7 ......
( as things are I might be that person that ports it )
 
Old 03-15-2016, 06:02 PM   #36
DJon
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2012
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Still the same

Over a year after I started using CentOS 7 on some of the servers I admin, my opinion of it has only gotten worse.

I made the mistake of installing it on my work laptop, hoping that it would provide a nice stable work environment that I wouldn't have to reinstall for a long time. Huge disappointment.

All kinds of things are broken. Things that I'd never had an issue with in any other distribution, including Fedora, don't work. The package availability actually seems to have shrunk since CentOS 6.

This is supposed to be the third incremental release of a rock-solid stable distribution and it's like beta software. At least on the desktop. On the server side, the update from 7.0 to 7.1 was so bad, that I had to reinstall some of our servers to get them working again. Part of this was caused because the base packages in the install DVD were different from those in the base repository.

From what I've seen on bugzilla, these issues are present in RHEL as well. What was Redhat thinking?
 
Old 03-16-2016, 12:42 PM   #37
suicidaleggroll
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 5,161

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884
My opinion hasn't improved much either. Since setting up my workstation on 7 a little over a year ago, I've had to format and reinstall two separate times.

One because a sudden power outage corrupted the XFS filesystem beyond repair. Who on earth thought it was a good idea to use XFS as the default filesystem on a server OS? XFS is horrible, I've never seen a more failure-prone filesystem in my life. Any hiccup in the power supply has a very reasonable chance of borking your entire filesystem and forcing you to format and reinstall. Why does it even have a journal? It apparently doesn't use it.

The second reinstall was because stupid me decided to install exfat driver support so I could access an external drive. This seemingly harmless (and successful, by the way) driver install locked up the system, and on reboot wouldn't stop kernel panicking. I tried dropping back to previous kernels, no dice, nothing would boot, the system was hosed. Even uninstalling the driver didn't help.
 
Old 04-16-2016, 02:02 PM   #38
v4r3l0v
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 136

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I have CentOS on a workstation as well, have few CentOS kernels to choose from when booting, normal thing with the updates... and then each new update rendered one of the kernels unbootable (fails to mount /sysroot, oh what an upgrade). Out of 6 kernels on the menu, 3 are already unbootable.
 
Old 04-16-2016, 08:42 PM   #39
helmet1980
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 40

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I rather use gnome 2 than gnome 3. So I like Centos 6.x. xD
 
Old 04-17-2016, 12:12 AM   #40
John VV
LQ Muse
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,507

Rep: Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348Reputation: 2348
just use KDE or xfce

Gnome3 is well something from the south end of a north facing cow

kde is what i have on Debian8 and suse 13.2
 
Old 06-15-2016, 05:07 PM   #41
hetutree
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Yeah, Tried out centos 7 and moving back to 6 to get some real work done.
 
Old 06-15-2016, 10:44 PM   #42
Doug G
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Posts: 501

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
So if you don't like Centos 7 don't use it. Why complain about Centos 7 without offering any constructive ideas how to improve it?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-02-2016, 08:22 AM   #43
ZZII
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2014
Location: house
Distribution: CentOS 6.7
Posts: 57

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I don't have a lot of experience with Linux, but I would choose CentOS 6.7 over 7. I tried 7 on an old Athlon PC I was going to use as a server and when I tried looking for help with problems, most posts I found were for 5 or 6 which differed too much with 7 to be useful. So when I got the new (old) Dell OptiPlex to replace the Athlon, I installed CentOS 6.7 instead. Never looked back.

To be more specific, I remember a change from iptables to firewalld in CentOS 7 which was harder to find help for because of how new it was. (Although it's probably a bad example as it is inherited from RHEL)

In my opinion it isn't wise to change a less widely used OS too much. People on the new system will find it a lot more difficult to find help.
 
  


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 01:51 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration