Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Announces General Availability Of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Red Hat Announces General Availability Of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7

    Phoronix: Red Hat Announces General Availability Of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7

    I mentioned yesterday RHEL 7 would probably be announced tomorrow and it has indeed panned out. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 is now available...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTcxNjM

  • #2
    Still using GNOME 2.x? If they don't want GNOME 3 why not MATE or Xfce? Why are people so goddamn attached to GNOME 2.x? It wasn't THAT amazing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by xeekei View Post
      Still using GNOME 2.x? If they don't want GNOME 3 why not MATE or Xfce? Why are people so goddamn attached to GNOME 2.x? It wasn't THAT amazing.
      Look closer, its Gnome 3 Classic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by calc View Post
        Look closer, its Gnome 3 Classic.
        Indeed it is. Thank god.

        Comment


        • #5
          I wonder how fast CentOS will follow suit ...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phoronix
            ...and it looks and runs great
            It doesn't look that great. Just look at the minimize / maximize and close buttons. They look childish, round and old fashioned like how sci-fi used to look in the 80s.

            Out of all the crappy Gnome 3 Consumer features that have been replaced in Gnome 3 Classic, why did those ugly buttons have to stay? At least all three are there by default I suppose :/
            Last edited by kpedersen; 06-10-2014, 01:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MartinN View Post
              I wonder how fast CentOS will follow suit ...
              Pretty fast, it looks like. Builds are running now, according to the blog they set up to keep people updated about CentOS 7 status.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am very eager to know if the switch to systemd will have any negative or positive impact on their sales of support contracts. Do they release usage numbers (of course would make only sense in about a year or so)?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why XFS and not ext4?

                  Curious about why they went with XFS and not ext4. Did one of last year's ext4 data loss bugs have a corner case that escaped the bugfixes? Is XFS faster or more easily recovererd than ext4?

                  I heard that every sold copy of RHEL comes with on-call tech support(that's what's actually being paid for), so I can see how RHEL would have to be utterly solid. Otherwise it would be like telling a newbie to update their kernel on an older version of Ubuntu while running a binary blob video driver: expect lots of phone calls and hand-holding.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Luke View Post
                    Curious about why they went with XFS and not ext4. Did one of last year's ext4 data loss bugs have a corner case that escaped the bugfixes? Is XFS faster or more easily recovererd than ext4?

                    I heard that every sold copy of RHEL comes with on-call tech support(that's what's actually being paid for), so I can see how RHEL would have to be utterly solid. Otherwise it would be like telling a newbie to update their kernel on an older version of Ubuntu while running a binary blob video driver: expect lots of phone calls and hand-holding.
                    I've read that XFS is a better filesystem, and ext4 is getting obsolete and has some design flaws. The problem with XFS was until a while ago the implementation was not that good, but that has been fixed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Luke View Post
                      Curious about why they went with XFS and not ext4. Did one of last year's ext4 data loss bugs have a corner case that escaped the bugfixes? Is XFS faster or more easily recovererd than ext4?
                      See this article: http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...ilesystem.html
                      This website also made a tour with beta version: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...l7_beta1&num=1

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
                        It doesn't look that great. Just look at the minimize / maximize and close buttons. They look childish, round and old fashioned like how sci-fi used to look in the 80s.
                        The buttons look fine, not sure what you are baying at the moon about. The only thing I am not really sold on is the way the workspace switcher is handled, but to be fair that is what the Activities overview is supposed to be for anyway. GNOME Classic actually turned out much better than some expected.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by funtastic View Post
                          I've read that XFS is a better filesystem, and ext4 is getting obsolete and has some design flaws. The problem with XFS was until a while ago the implementation was not that good, but that has been fixed.
                          Scalability is a major concern for RHEL. In RHEL 7 the maximum size for an ext4 filesystem is 50TB; for xfs it's 500TB.

                          ext4 is a fully-supported option for RHEL 7 (as xfs was for RHEL 6), the change is simply a flip of the *default* from ext to xfs.

                          http://rhelblog.redhat.com/2014/01/07/best-file-system/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Luke View Post
                            I heard that every sold copy of RHEL comes with on-call tech support(that's what's actually being paid for),
                            Nope, you can buy subscriptions without support, so that you only get access to software/updates.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by funtastic View Post
                              I've read that XFS is a better filesystem, and ext4 is getting obsolete and has some design flaws. The problem with XFS was until a while ago the implementation was not that good, but that has been fixed.
                              Some of our systems use XFS on RHEL6, solely because EXT4 on RHEL6 is limited to 16TB, and it has a marked tendency to truncate files to zero bytes when there's a power failure. So I'm surprised by this decision, too.

                              Normally we have redundant power, so it only happens on our test machine with a single supply, but it seems far less reliable than Ext4 (which, AFAIR, also used to truncate files on power failure until someone beat some sense into the developers).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X