DirectAdmin for Enterprise 6.0

Please don't spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Please explain your concerns and the details of SL's connection with the U.S. government. I know them; others may not.

Has anyone tried the DirectAdmin CentOS distribution with SL? Once the /etc/redhat-release file is changed it may work. Then you can choose which distribution you want to use.

Jeff
 
I am enitled to my own subjective opinion. However because you did not like it, I have edited my reply and removed the last sentence.
 
As am I. And I don't mean to play forum-policeman. Perhaps I should simply have explained, so I will:

Scientific Linux has two main contributors:

FermiLab (fnal.gov), a U.S. government-sponsored physics laboratory

Cern (cern.ch), the European Organization for Nuclear Research

Jeff
 
Clarification Request

Hi everyone,

I've been following this post for a while now and am just a bit confused at this point as to whether Directadmin on Centos 6.0 is still in beta or is it now considered out of beta and stable? I have a working Directadmin server running on a older version of Centos now that is working fine but getting a little long in the tooth. I have a brand new machine sitting here with Centos 6.0 installed on it that I would like to use as our new server but I have been waiting for an announcement from Directadmin about official support for Centos 6.0. The system requirement page still only shows support through Centos 5.5 so my assumption is it is still in beta.

Due to the lack of security updates mentioned in a previous post in this thread I'm also wondering if it would be best to wait for Centos 6.1 at this point before moving forward anyway.

So I guess the question is, what is the official status of Directadmin on Centos 6.0 at this point?

Thank you.
 
Hello,

From the CentOS 6.0 main page:
Since upstream has a 6.1 version already released, we will be using a Continous Release repository for 6.0 to bring all 6.1 and post 6.1 security updates to all 6.0 users, till such time as CentOS-6.1 is released itself.
Click to expand...
so I wouldn't worry that it's not 6.1. They are still providing security updates with 6.0. I have no reason to believe there is anything insecure about it.
It just means you'll get updates for everything, but you'll still see 6.0, so no need to worry there. (they add the updates in the "updates" section of yum)

Anyway, we're about ready to take it out of beta, and release it as stable.

There is 1 issue, which already has a fix:
http://help.directadmin.com/item.php?id=385

and I'll be automating that fix in the installer shortly.

There were also reports of the DA binaries not working (linking errors with ssl), but I told them to check the OS in their license, and have not yet heard back, so that was likely a non-issue and just an OS selection error in the license itself (it must show CentOS 6 if you use CentOS 6).

If I were personally going to install a new box today, I would use CentOS 6.

John
 
Thanks for the clarification, I won't worry about waiting for Centos 6.1 but will wait for you to officially announce "stable" support for 6.0 since you say it will be happening very soon and since the server I am looking to replace is working fine for the time being anyway.
 
Note, unless there are any major new reports/issues coming in today/tomorrow, the current binaries are going to be the "stable" binaries, so now or later would be the same difference.

John
 
DirectAdmin Support said:
Hello,

From the CentOS 6.0 main page:so I wouldn't worry that it's not 6.1. They are still providing security updates with 6.0. I have no reason to believe there is anything insecure about it.
It just means you'll get updates for everything, but you'll still see 6.0, so no need to worry there. (they add the updates in the "updates" section of yum)

Anyway, we're about ready to take it out of beta, and release it as stable.

There is 1 issue, which already has a fix:
http://help.directadmin.com/item.php?id=385

and I'll be automating that fix in the installer shortly.

There were also reports of the DA binaries not working (linking errors with ssl), but I told them to check the OS in their license, and have not yet heard back, so that was likely a non-issue and just an OS selection error in the license itself (it must show CentOS 6 if you use CentOS 6).

If I were personally going to install a new box today, I would use CentOS 6.

John
Click to expand...
There is CR repo for 5.6, but there isn't one for 6.0. There are virtually no packages updated by yum since about a month (dont consider it as solid data - just my opinion). The info you provided is dated about 24.08 as I remember and they also said that they're VERY close on 5.7. About two weeks since that news and there is no 5.7.

About SL - I bealieve that science is one of the biggest bastions of Open-Source and always was working on that (speeking, based on my experience). I don't realy have doubts that they do their best to provide quality software since billion of euros/dollars of founding base on their systems.

If you are so concerned I think US government could have even grater influance on RedHat itself which is base for SL/CentOS. I always seen researchers more independent that bussiness. So if they really wanted to get your systems - they could do that either way.

PS.
I'll try to install DA on SL 6 shortly.

--edit
I forgot about Karanbir's tweet about 5.7 (http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS/status/111400281400545280), we'll see about that.

--edit2
I'm trying, to make SL6 work - I'll tell how it went.

--edit3
So far I can see that DA is not ready for CentOS 6.1 now. Had to change setup.sh in few places so it points to good directories. Try searching for "6.0)" string and change them to "6.0|6.1)"
 
Last edited:
First of all, I'd like to notice I'm using SL on OpenVZ.

I've successfully installed DA on SL 6.1 and all seams to work as it does with CentOS 6.

Although i ran into some problems during installation, some of them might be OpenVZ template related.

First of all during a try to install DA dependecities i got some errors about libs version mismatch (but I blame OVZ template for that). All I needed to do is:
yum downgrade openssl zlib
yum install patch
Click to expand...
And then go with other deps:
yum install gcc gcc-c++ flex bison make bind bind-libs bind-utils openssl openssl-devel perl quota libaio libcom_err-devel
Click to expand...

Mascarade SL with CentOS flags :)
perl -pi -e 's/Scientific Linux/CentOS/' /etc/redhat-release
Click to expand...

Then (almoast) everything goes smooth. The one problem i had, wast that setup.sh script was not aware of EL 6.1 in some IF's, so i've added them as mentioned previously - replace some "6.0)" with "6.0|6.1)".

That's it.
 
Here is update about CentOS 6 CR and CentOS 6.1:
Actually (as in "Now"), the CR repo for CentOS 6.0 is being tested by the QA team and there is a "hope" (please note that I wrote "hope", so nothing is written in stone) to have the CR repo for 6.0 in the following days landing on the mirrors. At the same time, the 6.1 tree would normally (please, not the "normally" word again) appear for QA members for testing purposes.
Click to expand...
CentOS 6.0 CR Repo http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/114
 
I think when looking back at the discussion about CentOS vs SL in this thread, the post quoted from Reddit, is a good reminder about what the outcome/situation is today:

http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/wrc5k/oracle_launches_a_better_alternative_to_centos/c5fvhmk

  • RHEL 5.8: Feb. 20th 2012
  • Oracle 5.8: Feb. 21st 2012
  • CentOS 5.8: March 7th 2012
  • SL 5.8: April 24th 2012
  • RHEL 6.3: June 20th, 2012
  • Oracle 6.3: June 28th, 2012
  • CentOS 6.3: July 9th, 2012
  • SL 6.3: Not Yet Released

Scientific Linux are not beating CentOS. CentOS is still riding the bad press train from last year, though, so many think that CentOS is running slow.

The organizational changes they made leading up to 6.0 allowed CentOS to turn around each release faster than before.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top