|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CentOS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux"
- 2 Proprietary up2date and yum-plguins?
- 3 Lance open letter stuff
- 4 link RHEL <-> regular Redhat/Fedora releases
- 5 Funny Citation
- 6 Pronounciation?
- 7 Delay column
- 8 Really? Then I have a bridge to sell ...
- 9 Is CentOS Logo free or non-free?
- 10 No white box?
- 11 Architectures
- 12 2 ≠ 3 mistake
"Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux"
There seems to be a bit of an edit war over whether the family for CentOS should be "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux". Personally, I prefer "Unix-like", because the body of the article already explains how it's based on RedHat, and "Unix" seems to be a pretty good description of what CentOS is. Thoughts? Samboy (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the family should be "Linux", because that is what the base of the OS is. "Unix-like" seems a bit too obscure IMHO. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- After viewing a dozen articles for the most popular distributions, as well as four major BSD variants, there doesn't seem to be any clear standard. The most popular value is "Unix-like", but not by an overwhelming amount (perhaps 50%?). I believe my vote goes to "Linux, Unix-like". UncleverOnion (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the expression be chosen by semantics or correctnes instead of popularity? If CentOS uses a Linux Kernel isn't it just Linux. And maybe in the article about Linux there should be written that Linux is Unix-like? That would be some kind of a recursive definition. Just an proposal. ẼDIT: Just saw that this discussion is maybe a bit outdated.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Proprietary up2date and yum-plguins?
As a result of a previous discussion the article was changed in April to read: "Red Hat includes proprietary software to access the Red Hat Network (up2date in older versions, yum with custom plugins in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5) for managing software installation." Sorry, but this is not correct, both are GPL'ed just like the whole RHN. Grab the srpm from , extract it and take a look at the headers of the source code:
- # Copyright (c) 2001-2002 Red Hat, Inc. Distributed under GPL.
Same for yum-rhn-plugin :
- # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
- # (at your option) any later version.
Lance open letter stuff
I removed this line because it sounded subjective, no citation, weasel words, and for all I know... not even necessarily true (I could go on.): As of right now, in the public eye, Lance's credibility and potential for being trusted for involvement in future business endeavors is on the chopping block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know the open letter existed, but it was the question of Lance's credibility and trust being on the chopping blank "in the public eye". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Came here looking for info on what was obliquely referred to as "the CentOS debacle" on some site. I'll try to add a brief section which is more objective. --Thomas B♘talk 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be "sent-oh-ess". A colleague of mine went to a Red Hat conference in London recently (June 2014) and said that the Red Hat representatives were pronouncing it sent-oh-ess. Unfortunately I don't have a URL reference for that :-) Gareth.randall (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? Then I have a bridge to sell ...
Quote: In July 2010, CentOS overtook Debian to become the most popular Linux distribution for web servers, with almost 30% of all Linux web servers using it, although Debian retook the lead in January 2012
Is CentOS Logo free or non-free?
I know that an Image:CentOS_full_logo.svg is registered in "non-free". However, there is clear statement of Creative Commons as far as I look at the applicable site:
If this is right, it is necessary to change the license of the picture file definitely. This greatly influences an exhibition to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia of other languages in particular. I demand comment and the support of user everybody. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the licensing info of tjis file and uploaded this file in Wikimedia Commons. If you notice that a procedure has a problem, please revise it definitely. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the license change. I was not sure at the time whether the logo was free or non-free. I couldnt find a license for centos artwork, but you are right. The logo seems to be free under the GPL license (based on the artwork license). Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. If you are still not sure, you can always file a bug report about the CentOS logo and contact the centos artwork team. (Sav_vas) Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. (Sav_vas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No white box?
The architectures section would benefit from a table showing which processor architectures are supported by which CentOS versions, so that people can see with which version an architecture became supported and with which version it lost support. Could someone in the know replace the existing list with such a table? FreeFlow99 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! Please see the (collapsed by default, as it otherwise makes the article less readable) table in CentOS § CentOS releases section, it should be exactly what you're asking for. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Fedora (operating system)#Architectures mentions Pidora as the "specialized Fedora distribution for the Raspberry Pi" prior to official support for ARM-hfp (eg RPi2); neither CentOS nor RHEL mention RedSleeve as the specialized EL7.1 distribution for the Raspberry Pi prior to official support for ARMv7hf. Can we add it to either or both pages? Fedora / YellowDog / RHEL / CentOS / SciLinux distributions for the older ARMel, or Raspberry Pi, or Excito Bubba3, etc. hardware are scarce and that makes them very difficult to discover if they don't get a mention from articles on the major industrial distributions where everybody naturally heads to when searching for "but can I get this for my Raspberry Pi?" 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2 ≠ 3 mistake
The Repositories section states, "There are two primary CentOS repositories," but the list that follows has three items. My first thought was to edit the page to say three instead of two, but then I thought there might be some distinction that I'm not aware of. One of those three might not belong. Could someone with knowledge on the topic look at this? un4v41l48l3 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! Thank you for pointing it out, Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC) by changing "two" to "three". It might be debatable how much the addons repository makes up the CentOS distribution, as it is no longer used in CentOS 6 and 7; the footnote I've added should be clear enough, if you agree. —