
CentOS 8.2.2004 Released - gtirloni
https://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS8.2004
======
rintintone
How much more polished is CentOS than Fedora, in practice?

I'm about 8 hours into a new Fedora 32 workstation and I dunno if I can take
much more of it. Wayland's super crashy (yes I'm on AMD, not Nvidia) as in the
whole thing crashing, not just individual apps; some fairly fundamental
official packages don't work out of the box (Docker—how do you screw that up
so bad that it's simpler to get working on macOS?); and there's lots of
general irritation (missing i686 libs for my off-hours gaming—how's there not
just a metapackage to install those?)

Would CentOS save me? Or am I doomed to end up on _spits_ Win10 and doing my
real work in light, disposable Linux VMs?

~~~
ses1984
Hey, I think you need to learn a little more about what the different distros
to be able to pick which one is a good fit for you.

Centos follows Red Hat Enterprise Linux as closely as they possibly can.

Fedora is more of an unstable distro where new things are tried out that may
get into RHEL when they stabilize.

I don't think either of them have a goal of working on a very broad range of
modern workstations. If you know you specifically want Centos or Fedora to do
your work, you should build a workstation (or select a laptop) that you know
will work with that distro.

Anyway you should rarely be seriously considering both of these at the same
time. Either you want stability and you choose between Centos, Debian, or
maybe older Ubuntu LTS, or you want to be on the edge and you choose Fedora,
or the latest Ubuntu, etc.

Also there are other options besides Fedora, Centos, and Windows. Maybe Ubuntu
would be a better fit for you.

~~~
rintintone
Haven't liked Ubuntu since like... one of the 8 or 9 releases. Whenever the
Pulseaudio switch happened and the distro stopped "Just Working". They've just
gotten weirder and farther from what I want since then (yes I know all major
distros use PulseAudio now—that's besides the point).

I default to Debian on the server but I just want a good base to run modern
software development desktop software on. IDEs, docker, browsers, the
occasional VM or image editor. That sort of thing. It's a hell of a gaming
machine so being able to do some of that's a big bonus—waste of all this power
when off the clock if I can't fire up games on it.

I'm most comfortable in Arch or Gentoo or Void or something along those lines,
but that comfort's just because I'd rather be making something simple work
than fixing something complex that's broken—either way it's fundamentally a
waste of time, neither productive nor fun, and I'd prefer to avoid it these
days.

The Suse suggestion in this thread's interesting. Kinda forgot it
existed—haven't used it since 2004 or something. Might try that.

I really just want a distro that gives me a non-broken desktop on fairly
boring, non-exotic hardware. I haven't really felt like I got that out of
Linux in 20 years of trying off an on (more on than off) but it's 2020, right?
Some of these companies make money from what they do. One of them must
actually work. Win10's one of only three Windows I've _hated_ and Apple's back
on the "3x" side of its "1.5x-3x" markup range it swings between so I just
want... peace, really.

~~~
ses1984
If you want that, then just pick linux friendly hardware, it's the only path
that doesn't lead to misery.

~~~
rintintone
Haha, I'm pretty sure I did. Wayland just seems to have invented new and
wonderful ways for applications to crash the entire windowing system. As if
Xorg weren't good enough at that already. Most of the rest of my problems are
with the quality of software packaging. Sigh.

~~~
gtirloni
You can disable Wayland in Fedora. Edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf.

------
hyperation
Coincidentally, same version number as Windows 10's latest update. :)

------
tinus_hn
What is the logic behind this odd version number? I had to check whether this
was a 16 year old announcement.

------
Koshkin
The version number leaves a weird impression.

------
RedShift1
Yay!

------
techntoke
The only reason people use CentOS is so they don't have to pay for RHEL
licensing for all their servers. There are so many better options for Linux
distros.

~~~
AHTERIX5000
There aren't too many choices if you need to deploy something important in the
most boring, reliable and maintainable fashion.

I'm not a "fan" of CentOS like I'm not a fan of Toyota Hilux vehicles but both
have their merits.

~~~
mikece
You make the comparison to the Hilux... and there are some HUGE fans of the
Hilux specifically because it is extraordinarily reliable. Makes me wonder why
there isn't a well known "boring, reliable" distro of Debian[1]... would
Toyota mind if "Debian Hilux" were to come into being?

[1] I'm fairly certain there are distros derived from Debian which could be a
"Hilux distro" but they aren't well-known to me.

~~~
peebz
Isn't Debian Stable the Hilux distro?

~~~
mikece
Are there LTS releases supported as long as CentOS?

(That's not rhetorical -- I honestly don't know.)

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
No, RHEL/CentOS aim for an absurd 10-year lifecycle, whereas Debian, even with
LTS, is aiming for 5 years.

Compare [https://endoflife.software/operating-
systems/linux/centos](https://endoflife.software/operating-
systems/linux/centos) and [https://endoflife.software/operating-
systems/linux/debian](https://endoflife.software/operating-
systems/linux/debian) for exact figures.

