Anyone runs CentOS here? How is it for desktop?

Anyone runs CentOS here? How is it for desktop?

> Trying to run server distro for desktop when there are thousands of desktop-oriented distros out there

I want to set up a stable Davinci Resolve setup, maybe even Bitwig not bugchase.

Not OP but I did have a Dell Optiplex GX110 machine (Pentium 3) that ran CentOS near the end of it's life, in a dual boot configuration with XP SP2. And yes, that machine was a desktop and not a server.

I never said you can't do it or that it wouldn't work. It's just stupid. My Pentium M runs Lubuntu just fine.

Use PCLinux for desktops.

I use CentOS at work and every day I want to burn the building down.

I had to use it at work. Let's just say that I'm thankful I'm able to get everything done on my laptop as well.

I run 2000 Server as a Workstation OS on a Athlon XP machine, and I don't see what's wrong in doing that. By far the only limitation is in some applications that require workstation OS in order to install, but otherwise it's fairly useable, even now in 2018.

Excellent server distro. I'd use it for pretty much any server, especially since it's so commonly used there, so knowledge of it is a valuable skill.

On desktop it's garbage though. You think Debian stable has outdated packages? You aint seen nothin yet.

Fedora is the CentOS for desktops.

What does Cent os even change that makes it "server oriented"

tfw no one can answer

RHEL 10 year commercial support is apparently important to people, probably why debian lost a lot of marketshare too

top kek

People are really dumb then

>People are really dumb then

Idunno mang, there's at least some insurance, unlike the other 99% of distros that promise you the world and change their minds halfway through the release schedule

do you pronounce it like centos or cent - OS

The 'ent' in CentOS stands for enterprise. CentOS is a clone of RHEL, Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They are both meant to be server OS's.

That should let you know how it is for desktop.

so what does the ‘c’ stand for?

"sent oss"
"Sent" as in "cent" and "oss" as in "ostrich."

cum

centos isn't bad. in fact, most linux versions are pretty good for desktop use, as long as you don't run into software compatibility issues. i wanted to run a home server with centos and the only thing, the ONLY thing i couldn't get working for it was teamviewer. that was the only thing i really wanted.

>teamviewer on linux
Use VNC, ssh or xpra you dumbfuck.

Community, because it's the community fork of RHEL

Literally this

not personally, but I tossed in centos 6 w/ xfce on my dad's desktop to save myself some tech support trouble
pretty decent, alltho I prefer debian based stuff.
it feels a lot more polished than the last time I used redhat 5 back in the mid 1990s. alltho rpm is still shit

you should have no problem using it as a desktop OS

i know these exist. i just didn't want to set it up for literally the only machine in my environment you dumbfuck. also, vnc is notorious for not working for no fucking reason. it's been like this for over a decade.

>run a home server with centos
That's what I see most CentOS users doing and even a few businesses and random govt offices. I still never grasped the rivalry with Deb vs Rpm packages. I mean I guess I toilet trained late or some shit cuz if I need a compatible package and their isn't one I just use alien to convert it.

I don't run the OS of heritechs

It's pretty good for desktop use if:
A) you're not a gamer
B) you'll be programming
C) you won't be installing on kaby lake machines

I've found kaby lake to be a pain in the butt in certain situations (iGPU thinks there are two displays where there's only one, and more).

It's pretty fucking stable and it does have updates (mostly security and bug fixes). It still uses kernel 3.10 though.

What would be the advantages?

CentOS is the community edition of RHEL and is binary compatible with it. It also follows its 10 year support cycle. For businesses or use cases where stability is valued well over having the latest software (and you don't want to pay for RHEL and a support contract) CentOS is a good fit.

>I still never grasped the rivalry with Deb vs Rpm packages
One sysadmin whose blog I read liked rpm for two reasons: rpms, unlike debs, cannot stop and ask you questions during installation (which is a pain if you want to automate shit) and if I remember right that rpm is okay with having multiple versions of a package around at once, which means you don't need the debian hack of having separate packages for things like linux-image-3.16-amd64 and linux-image-4.9-amd64.

not that it matter much these days, most users won't ever interact directly with RPM packages and will instead use tools like yum, dnf, and zypper that does the rpm manipulations for them, just as users on Debian/Ubuntu usually don't actually mess with DEBs directly using dpkg and will have apt do that work for them. the whole pissing match between DEB and RPM is a circlejerk meme at this point.

I don't like systemd

This brings up a question I've been thinking about/asking about on here occasionally:
Should a software package format be made as a part of POSIX or some other form of standard to reduce fragmentation, or is that a retarded idea?

Would love to know what you think about it.

"reducing fragmentation" isn't a goal that should be pursued. Fragmentation is a good thing. Fragmentation is what lets me use a distro that I like while you use a very different distro that you like, and we're both happy.

Fair enough. That makes sense, and I actually agree. It was just something that was brought up in one of the unices threads, as fragmentation could be a potential reason for why the Linux/*nix desktop is perceived as unpolished compared to the usual botnets

well people who care more about "looks polished" than about "fits my needs and preferences, and is customizable to fit them" are welcome to go buy macs or something.

oh, I wasn't just referring to looks there, I was referring to usability as well

I ran it on my laptop when I was learning more about Linux because I had been using RHEL at work I thought it would be easier to learn. Around that time I also learned that there isn't really a lot of difference between distros from end user point of view.

It's fine, but for example it didn't have my wifi drivers in its repos, so I had to learn how to create rpm and compile the driver. It had issues in X2go that had been reported a long time ago and was fixed. But the issues were still there for Centos packages.

Overall it was a fun experience and I liked the logo, but for personal use there's no need, their repo management policies (which is all that matters in most cases) does not meet daily user's demands. It would be fine for a workstation for an electrical engineer though.

you'd be better off running Fedora on a desktop. CentOS and RHEL are basically just LTS versions of Fedora.

distros are meaningless
pick one with a brand you like and a market positioning closest to who you are or want to be, with good community support and documentation depending on your skill level to deal with any idiosyncrasies that might stand in your way
>"server distro"
you sound like one of those idiots who thinks a Quadro is anything other than a GeForce with driver tweaks and certifications too

care to explain?