Installing CentOS 5 "Debian Style"

Ries,

I'm glad someone found it useful. I think for RHEL 5 they didn't have a DVD image with the first few releases but eventually they added it. I just checked and indeed in RHN there is a single binary DVD for 5.8 but I didn't check any of the previous releases. The clone makers have had DVD images available for longer than RH has I think.

Even with the CDs, if you do a minimal install you can probably get away with just the first CD but it doesn't hurt to have the disc 2 ready just in case.

With RHEL 6 of course they offer 2 DVD images and I think they dropped the CDs completely.

I don't recall if I previously mentioned any of that in my post/comments because I didn't bother to re-read them. :)

Thanks for the comment. I almost missed it... and it took me a while to notice and moderate it to active. I must have somehow turned off new comment notification.

Thanks for the comment. I've heard of Cobbler and Puppet but I haven't gotten around to actually trying to use them yet. I did get to meet the author of Puppet at LWCE earlier this month and I was impressed.

You are absolutely correct about the spelling of the program. It is indeed system-config-display. I use tab completion so I usually get it right. :)

Regarding the dep issue... you are correct there also. It just so happens that I wrote the article before the problem existed. I have done the process a few times since then and have indeed run into it. Thanks for pointing it out. There is a work around... but they really should get that fixed.

I have a lot of respect for BSD and look to learn more about it. However, the uptime stats should not be something that is used in comparing it to Linux. When you look at the Netcraft FAQ you find this.

"Additionally HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days. "

Actually, with all due respect, there must be 5. You missed OS X.

Thomas

Opps, I let your comment sit in the approval que for a while... by accident. I do appreciate you taking the time to comment.

I have installed FreeBSD a couple of times on desktop machines...and I have to admit that I was impressed. I did everything the source way (rather than their optional binary install) and it worked rather well... however, recompiling everything all the time isn't something I prefer. I certainly don't begrudge those that want to do that.

You are certainly familiar with Gentoo... which is kind of the Linux distro with the most BSD flavor... although there are a number of source based distros these days. I'd really like to give Linux From Scratch a try sometime myself because I know it will be a great learning experience.

Why aren't the BSDs doing better (market share wise) than they are? I believe this gets back to what you see as their strength... and that is that you enjoy it the most when you compile everything yourself... and there is only a certain segment of folks who are interested in that.

So far as the BSD ports collection goes, while it is rather massive, several Linux distros have massive package sets that would rival or surpass... but we all know it is basically the same software in all of them... with a few exceptions.

I do want to encourage diversity... and yes, many of the Linux distros are bloated... but then again there are a number of stripped down Linux distros as well.

There is also a lot of cross pollenation from distro to distro and even from FreeBSD to/from Linux although I know there is quite a bit of discussion going on now about relicensing of code and the incompatibilities between the GPL and the BSD license... but to me, it's all good.

Regarding using VMware to run virtualized BSD machines... try FreeBSD Jails... which is a form of OS Virtualization. I haven't used FreeBSD Jails myself but I have used OpenVZ and Linux-VServer and in the many instances where they appropriate, they work very well and are much more efficient (higher density and scalability) than Machine (or hardware) Virtualization types like VMware.

Let us not forget that Apple is Unix/BSD under the hood. Can it be both? Not sure what part of the "market share" Mac has these days, but it's growing fast. I think that Apple's one of the few successful hardware vendors that offer Linux/Unix/BSD\Microsoft products.

BTW: I just installed Debian on my home machine last night! One DVD from .iso. I'm not sure I follow some of your 27 disk talk? The timing of this thread is crazed, I've been goofing around with BSD this week too. ;)

Thomas

>Let us not forget that Apple is Unix/BSD under the hood.

This is a popular myth. Apple's OS contains code that came from the BSD source tree,
but it isn't even close internally to what passes for BSD today, or indeed any
version of BSD from the past. For example the kernel code came from Mach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

Note that Darwin isn't Mach either ! The Mach code was forked by Next in 1986.

This book makes interesting reading if: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter1/pdf/macosxinternals-singh-1.pdf

Go argue with Steve Jobs.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/unix.html

Thomas

I'd trust a Wikipedia page or a book over Steve Jobs almost anytime. :)

How about the FreeBSD website Scott?

"Apple's Mac OS X is based in part on FreeBSD and includes a rich UNIX® foundation in addition to the proprietary Apple user interface."

http://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html

Did you guys even read the wikipedia article your referring to?
"Darwin is an open source UNIX computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. Darwin is composed of code developed by Apple along with code derived from NEXTSTEP, as well as from FreeBSD and other free software projects."

Thomas

Been a while since I was involved in a flame fest...

So you said that Apple's OS "IS" Unix/BSD under the hood.

I said it isn't. Rather it's Apple's own OS that they've
been developing for 20 years (back through NeXt), that contains
some BSD code.

And then you argued with me, citing a bunch of articles that
in fact say the same thing that I said : that the apple OS
is its own thing, but it contains BSD code.

To me, if it "IS" BSD, then I should be able to do things like :

1. Download the source for some BSD release, build it, and have
the OS binaries that Apple ships on their machines. I can't do that,
because Apple's kernel (and a bunch of other stuff) is different code.

2. Take a binary that someone built on some version of BSD and run
that binary unchanged on Apple's OS. As far as I know this is not possible.

You may not even have been propagating the popular myth that I mentioned,
which is that Apple runs their own userland and windowing environment
on top of a BSD OS. I hear this all the time, and it's not true.

FWIW I ordered my first Mac at the weekend, it'll arrive on Thursday.
iPhone development can only be done on a Mac, and so I'm going to
get a chance to consume the Kool-aid myself :)

I apologize David. I think you know much more about BSD than I do.

I drank the Kool_Aid about 8 months ago, and it wore off fast.

Mac's claim to Unix is what brought me to Linux. A friend pointed out that it's also based on BSD. In his mind that makes it Linux. I'm by no means an authority, but this issue seams to be convoluted at best. Thank the Almighty that I'm not a Patent Attorney.

I use Debian about 80% of the time now!

Sorry to get off on the wrong foot, you seam to be very knowledgeable.

Thomas

When you get your mac, check this out! MacPorts

Starting at page 91 of the book... it talks about the beginnings of NeXT and NEXTSTEP... and that it was clearly based on the Mach kernel... with a 4.3BSD environment. I'm assuming that "environment" means the userland stuff. The main programming language used on the Mac is a flavor of GNU Objective-C.

Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Apple actually had a Unix port that ran on the Mac. There was also the MkLinux project that had Linux running on top of the Mach micro kernel.

Why did Apple choose NEXTSTEP? I'm guessing it was an insider thing considering Jobs was able to get Apple to buy his old company for more than it was probably worth given the marketshare it had and its failure in the hardware market. I'm wondering what the Mac would be running if Linus Torvalds had agreed to work for Apple. My guess is that by that time NEXTSTEP had already been chosen and they wanted Linus to just abandon Linux... but I'm guess guessing because I'm not sure where everything falls in the timeline.

All of the articles I've seen mention the Mach micro kernel as well as BSD. They don't say what was borrowed from what. I'm not sure what you think I am/we are disagreeing with.

They could include a userland tool from FreeBSD and say that it is based on it... because that would be true. It also borrows some tools from the FSF/GNU Project... and the KDE project. Oddly, you don't see much mention of the later two on the Apple website.

I'm guessing the most authoritative work on the subject, other than the source code itself, would be the book that David linked to. Have I looked at that? Some time ago when it first came out.

The idea that Mac OS X (pronounced ten and not echks) is a wholesale repacking of FreeBSD is not true. I'm not saying you said that... but it is obvious that Apple wants to do as much name dropping as they can in their marketing information. It is strange how Apple refers to both UNIX and BSD. The two are not the same... and there was a long lawsuit (that many say gave Linux the upper hand) and BSD was purged of all UNIX code. It is kinda like saying you are both a McDonald's and a Buger King francise. :) I guess if they follow the licensing requirements of both and they don't technically conflict, Mac OS X could be McBurgerKingDonalds. David tries to point out that the "kernel" part does not have a BSD design. :)

I do remember the quip in Linus' book (entitled JUST FOR FUN with David Diamond) where he mentioned that he had a meeting with Steve Jobs... where Mr. Jobs tried to talk Linus into joining the Apple team to combat Microsoft. Linus wasn't interested at all.

Thomas,

When I wrote that, there were indeed 27 CDs or 3 DVDs that made up Debian. Their installer is such that you only download what you want to install initially and then you can obviously install whatever you want to after that. So many people like downloading the first CD or the netinstall CD and doing a very minimal install from the optical media... and then installing everything else from the network.

Here's a link to a list of CDs... from a few sub-releases since:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r3/i386/iso-cd/

Here's the link for the DVDs:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r3/i386/iso-dvd/

I have noticed two situations that cause more than CD 1 to be required... if you are using software RAID, the mdadm package seems to cause a chain of package deps that kicks in more than CD 1. So if you are using software RAID, CD 1 will not be enough. Hey, use the DVD.

I have also noticed that if you go foward without deselecting everything and then go back and fix it... it still is confused and wants more than one CD 1.

Other than those two conditions, it works as advertised.

I believe if you had selected packages before going through the calculation of dependencies, then went back to un-check packages... it is less forgiving. After only having disk one, I found it suggested I needed 1-5. I went back and double checked and continued for sake of trying but it still asked for disk 2. I had to bail at that point but my second run I un-selected all packages this time and it didn't even stop at the page saying what disks it would require; assuming you had the one disk required already.

So... possibly a little installer bug.

Yes, I've noticed that too. It's one of those bugs that no one wants to fix... but maybe in the next version.

Like... that's why I mentioned it in the first part of the article and used the phrase "Debian Style" to begin with... but thanks for your comment.

Ubuntu doesn't have a net installer like Debian, oh well.

Have you checked the Ubuntu Installation Guide on this topic?

Fedora is everything Red Hat Linux used to be and more... except with the rapid development cycle and massive amounts of updates... because of the change in policy to update versions rather than backport fixes.

Since Fedora is a test-bed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, RHEL is a sub-set of Fedora... just frozen on certain versions of things... with fixes backported. The installs are basically identical... as long as you match up the version pairs:

Red Hat Linux 7.2 = RHEL 2.1
Fedora Core 1 = RHEL 3
Fedora Core 3 = RHEL 4
Fedora Core 6 = RHEL 5

CentOS is built from the source packages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and tries its best to maintain perfect binary compatibility with RHEL... so the install is exactly alike.

Going on a tanget... I want to mention that CentOS is good for Red Hat because RHEL is aimed at businesses with deep pockets and CentOS fills the needs of those without deep pockets. CentOS helps keep people in the Red Hat folk when they probably would be going elsewhere without it.

I think Red Hat would have lost less users if CentOS would have been around at the end of Red Hat Linux and the start of Fedora Core... but unfortunately it wasn't.

I totally agree with Bodhi.zazen here! I say try them all! Or what ever distros can support your hardware architecture. Maybe it would be more productive to start a desk-top environment war! I support GNOME, skrew KDE! hehe Any strict command line interface ppl? ;)

Thomas

Bodhi,

Thanks for the comment.

I hope it wasn't me you thought was distro bashing. Hey, people have been calling Red Hat, "the Microsoft of Linux" for years... and said it too was overhyped. While I don't agree with the former, there has probably been more hype than was necessary... and that's the only semi-negative thing I was saying about Ubuntu. I didn't make any negative comments about its technical side. It is a fine distro.

Installed Centos 5 from the dvd several times.. First I installed everyting. Second just the server gui.. Install process worked ok. Just need to figure out how to get Gnome or the GUI to work.. After the re-boot in both cases I just get a login prompt.. After logging in and trying gnome-session command generates a X11 error message.

If you installed any desktop anything, Xorg is installed... and as part of the "firstboot" service, which runs the first boot after installation, Xorg should be configured and the default runlevel is set to 5 (graphical login).

It is possible that it doesn't like your combination of hardware and just couldn't come up with a suitable Xorg config. I have seen that in the past in rare occations... GUI login is default unless you did a very minimalistic install.

If X isn't configured, you can manually configure it from the command line by running:

system-config-display

That will run the GUI config application and do as much probing for automatic values as possible.

In any event, you shouldn't have to reinstall over and over. If you have something missing because it wasn't installed during the install, use yum from the command line to install whatever you like. Of course if you don't know how to use yum that would slow you down.

To see what the default runlevel is, check the first uncommented line in /etc/inittab.

This is a new HP DL360

Video card is a ATI Technologies Inc ES1000

Monitor Type defaults to autoconfigured..
Setting defaults to 800x600

Only two options configuring the monitor
Generic CRT Display
Generic LCD Display

Monitor and LCD are the only options with 1024x768 to 800x600

No monitor vendor list.. So I can't select my HP 1720 Flat panel from a list.

I did yum using your above list. I can do the vnc thing now from a remote box.

more /etc/inittab

id:5:initdefault:

so it must be a hardware issue

This is a messy way about doing a fix, but I had to do this to get my dell 20" monitor to show up correctly in Gentoo (it uses the 16:10 aspect ratio at 1680x1050).

You need to edit the /etc/X11/xorg.conf file with your favorite editor (vi,emacs,nano, etc). I recommend doing a backup of this file before editing it: cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup

Look for the section in the config that looks like this:

Section "Screen"
    Identifier     "Screen 1"
    Device         "GeForce"
    Monitor        "Dell"
    DefaultDepth    24
    SubSection     "Display"
        Viewport    0 0
        Depth       8
        Modes      "1680x1050" "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
    EndSubSection
    SubSection     "Display"
        Viewport    0 0
        Depth       16
        Modes      "1680x1050" "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
    EndSubSection
    SubSection     "Display"
        Viewport    0 0
        Depth       24
        Modes      "1680x1050" "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
    EndSubSection
EndSection

Just add your own resolution to this file AT THE FRONT of the Modes line under your selected color depth. If this doesn't work you can always undo it by copying your backup over it.

P.S. Scott, a "pre" tag would be nice for code listings ;)

[editor's note: The "code" tag was available but since it doesn't honor all of the whitespace like a "pre" tag does, I added pre and plopped them in where you wanted them.]

I did an install on two DL380 G5's yesterday and both include the ATI ES1000 video chipset... so I know that isn't the problem. It may not like your display. How problematic would it be to try a different display?

I don't have any HP displays... but I have a ton of Dell CRT and flat panels and I haven't had any problems getting max resolutions out of them.

Felipe, you missed a big pro. A single CD is also good for servers that don't have DVD rom drives.

Thanks felipe. I agree with everything you said.

I too do a lot of installs... although luckily I have access to enough machines that it doesn't interfer with my day to day, main workstation.