LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Reviews > Distributions > CentOS
User Name
Password

Notices

Search · Register · Submit New Review · Download your favorite Linux Distributions ·
 

CentOS 4.3
Reviews Views Date of last review
16 58939 11-02-2007
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average Rating
94% of reviewers None indicated 8.4



Description: CentOS is a clone of Redhat and its Enterprise releases, without the cost, support and logo's.

With release 4.0, it is the release to match that of Redhat's own 4 releases.

You can learn more about CentOS at www.centos.org
Keywords: CentOS Redhat RPM


Author
Post A Reply 
Old 05-15-2006, 05:46 AM   #1
mikes63737
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian Etch, CentOS 5.1
Posts: 19

Rep: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: It's really stable, fast, and secure.
Cons: Default KDE and GNOME really ugly; GNOME default desktop.



Wow... I was totally blown away when I installed it. I tried to set up a file server on SuSE, Ubuntu, Mepis, and some others, but none of them were easy to configure. This was just amazing.. it was so simple!

It also automatically makes a grouped volume (I forgot what it's called... LVM i think) which SuSE could never do right.

It's never crashed.

Overall, It's perfect. Don't let the initial ugliness scare you away... other than that, it's perfect.
 
Old 08-23-2006, 03:13 AM   #2
den_santiago
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Distribution: Red Hat 7.3 and 9.0
Posts: 19

Rep: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Great Alternative
Cons:


Been using this product for a year already. Its really has not much difference from RHEL other than the logo and support that you could from Redhat:study:
 
Old 08-24-2006, 07:50 PM   #3
pecan38
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Superb stability
Cons:


we have been using it as an Oracle 10g server with about 1tb of disk and it flies and never crashes, awesome product.
 
Old 10-05-2006, 11:22 AM   #4
jayakrishnan
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: Slacky 12.1, XP
Posts: 991

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 5

Pros: Good hardware detection
Cons:


I dunno why , but somehow centos messedup my system, Install went perfect, it even detected and configured my webcam :). On the first boot , it asked me for my default resolution which i set it to 1024x768, but for some reason it didnt switch to it, but kept at 800x600, It even messedup my secondary drive, after installing centos, my windows xp couldnt see the secondary drive partitions.

Switching from XWindows to CLI and back to Xwindows messed up my Xwindows. This problem used to be there in RH 7 or something, but i didnt have this problem with Fedora 1,2,3,4
 
Old 10-29-2006, 09:26 AM   #5
hermouche
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros:
Cons:


i used Centos 4.3 for let say one year, i like it, it is a redhat enterprise clone.

Recently I've downloaded the 4.4 version.
 
Old 11-02-2006, 03:32 PM   #6
rgs05
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: various, mostly RH and Knoppix
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: clean interface
Cons:


I stumbled on CentOS when corporate sent us a test Oracle server which was running it. It seems stable and requires minimum maintenance.

I downloaded CentOS 4.3 and tried it out on just for s&g. If I was going to maintain the corporate server I wanted to have some experience with CentOS elsewhere. It seems to do everything I want it to.

Happenstantially, I stumbled onto CentOS Live which is a CD-bootable version. I use this version on my corporate laptop to get access to the 'Net from hotel rooms. This keeps my corporate data safe and they have no idea where I was.

I was using DSL on my old ThinkPad T30 but DSL and CentOS refused to recognize the on-board NIC in my new T60. But CentOS did recognize my PCMCIA NIC (D-Link GigaExpress DGE-660TD) so I'm up and at 'em again --- safe and sound.
 
Old 11-17-2006, 11:46 AM   #7
sfarber53
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: CentOS 4.x; also OS X.4
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: Easy install, easy update, runs well on older (600 Mhz) hardware
Cons: SSH seems to break easily; I still haven't gotten it running again.


I was never a Red Hat fan, so when it was suggested that I tried CentOS I was very skeptical. Now that I've tried it I'd have to say that I am a believer. Of course the SSH problem mentioned above continues to be a problem, but the system is rock solid otherwise.

Currently I have three machines running CentOS. Each started like as 4.3. Two have been upgraded to 4.4 and have SSH issues. One is a server, another (the old 600 Mhz) is being configured as a router and the third will likely be setup as an NFS or NAS unit for storage flexibility without needing to touch the master server unit.

Great stuff, CentOS, and thanks!
 
Old 11-29-2006, 12:32 PM   #8
rje_NC
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 182

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: very stable, easy to administer, good 3rd party repos
Cons: not cutting edge, older versions of many apps


I use CentOS v4.4 on several systems, including our in home file server and my daughter's desktop PC at college. She has been very happy with the stability of CentOS (she had many WinXP issues before). She can easily install software and administer the system at school with little help from Dad. Highly recommended.
 
Old 12-21-2006, 06:01 AM   #9
jugglingphil
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Distribution: RH8, RH9, RHEL
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Easy install
Cons:


Used CentOS 4.2 and 4.3 for over a year now. Found the operating system very stable and configurable.
 
Old 12-30-2006, 10:03 AM   #10
pdown85
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: CentOS 4.5
Posts: 26

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Stable. Easy to administer and use.
Cons: Slightly clunky looking default GUI.


Have used CentOS 4.3 for about a year and downloaded and installed 4.4 some months ago. Supporting Apache server, SSH, VSFTP, NTP service to LAN, etc. Wireless and wired LAN connections stable.
 
Old 01-02-2007, 06:37 PM   #11
just_me_then
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Posts: 59

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: Stable, lots of support out there. And of course the yum comand!
Cons: None yet!


Fantastic
 
Old 01-18-2007, 07:45 AM   #12
idharper
 
Registered: Jan 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: very stable, lots of support
Cons: not all hardware works on laptops


ideal for server functions.
carefully choose laptops to get maximum amount of hardware working
use it on all our non-windoze servers
 
Old 04-23-2007, 05:52 PM   #13
harrygraham
 
Registered: Apr 2001
Distribution: Ubuntu Gnome
Posts: 153

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Very stable
Cons: Getting long in the tooth


I really like CentOS 4.4 for its stability and simplicity. It's a very intuitive distro with not too steep a learning curve. The networking tools are very good, and they work 100% of the time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 4 is a very stable distro due to its long development cycle. The same can be said of CentOS 4.4 - very solid. Kind of cheezy artwork, but that has ceased to bug me because of what's under the hood - a finely tuned engine! If you want everything to work predictably with no muss & fuss, this is the distro for you! It installed like a charm on my Pentium 4 2.4 ghz with an 80 gig SATA and 512 megs of memory. NVidia graphics 128 megs installed no problem as well.

Of course, there is always a trade-off for stability, and CentOS is no exception. Some of the programs are a bit oldish. For example, there is no support for my EPSON 2480 scanner even though it is almost two years old. It is possible to download the source code and compile the newer SANE backends, but then getting it to work with XSane is beyond me (xscanimage works though, so it's a least useable).

Another problem experienced was getting the MySQL Gui Tools (compiled specifically for RHEL 4) to work with with CentOS 4.4. So it is not an exact clone of Red Hat, but it's darned close.

I like this distro because it is dependable. Fedora 6 is cutting edge and would likely support my hardware better, but it is so confusing and (I believe) unstable that I can't trust it. For us old farts who have ceased to live life in the fast lane, something like CentOS just what the doctor ordered.
 
Old 08-08-2007, 12:12 PM   #14
alainrob
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: The only distro 'I' was able to do soft Raid5 with SATA
Cons:


I do consider myself a newbie, an I have tried many flavors of Linux.
This was the only distro I was able to install with software Raid5 composed of 4 SATA HDs from scratch easily, also it detected all of my hardware with no problem, even dual monitors.
I use it for file server, it is very stable, only have restarted few times when upgrading kernel.
but it has a lot of old software, every time I wanted to install OOOrg2, it installed v1.1.
For LAMP, I use another machine with Ubuntu server edition, works like a charm, and I prefer apt-get over yum.
 
Old 10-03-2007, 04:30 PM   #15
thewhitelion
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Ubuntu 7.10 for desktop, CentOS+openSUSE for servers.
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: amazing in stability, easy to install, easy to admin.
Cons: nothing yet!


I have installed all common servers for my network (http, dns, alg, mail, ftp) all are running smooth without any troubles.
 
Old 11-02-2007, 12:23 PM   #16
ps_sabu
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10, Ultimate Edition 3.5, OZ Unity 3.0 Black Opal
Posts: 117

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 1

Pros:
Cons:



Back when Red Hat Linux was a product delivered by Red Hat Inc. in its final form, the user community had little visibility into the decisions that affected the distribution. One of the early promises that came with the Fedora Project was that the important discussions would happen in a public forum. Things have not always happened that way, and a number of things still seem to happen by anonymous decree. It is true, however, that the public discussion has grown more vibrant as the wider Fedora community insists on having its say.

One recurring discussion has to do with one of those decisions by decree: Fedora Core 5 lacks the "install everything" option which has characterized Red Hat releases for many years. The reasons behind this change make some sense: it is increasingly hard to support as the distribution grows, and as the distribution is split between "core" and "extras." Some packages conflict with others, making a true "everything" install impossible in any case. Installing everything is an invitation to unnecessary security problems. And the Anaconda installer has been reworked around a yum-based backend which is not so well equipped to do "everything" installs in any case. Administrators who do a lot of "everything" installs can use kickstart to obtain something close to the old behavior.

So removing this option was not an unreasonable thing to do. But the community was not involved in the decision, and quite a few Fedora users are most unhappy with the change. Since there was no discussion - not even an announcement of the change - these unhappy users continue to fill the Fedora lists with complaints; it is beginning to look like one of those threads which never really goes away. But, "install everything" has gone away, and appears highly unlikely to return.

A more relevant discussion, perhaps, is this one: what is to happen with evolution in Fedora Core? The state of the FC5 evolution package is evidently so poor that some Red Hat developers are suggesting that it should be shoved out to Fedora Extras, or dropped altogether:

Evolution in extras is a bad idea. Evolution in core is a worse idea. What other as good as unmaintained large buggy package exposed to external attack and with known unfixed DoS bugs (and probably worse yet to be found) do we ship.

Evolution belongs in the bitbucket.
 




  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

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
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration