Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
My desktop OS: CentOS 4.2
By Steve Hanson
on
April 04, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
I have been a Unix and Linux system administrator for more than 20 years, and have worked with many different operating systems. Over the last several years I've spent a lot of time with various versions of Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core, and I'm the editor of the Fedorazine online magazine. I run a Web consulting company, where I maintain several production servers for Web and email, and I need to have a stable production Linux environment for them. I chose to use CentOS as a platform for the servers, and since I already had a commitment to maintaining a number of different servers in CentOS, I decided a while ago to start using it on my desktop as well.
The CentOS operating system is essentially a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The CentOS people take the source RPMs for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (which are available under the GPL) and recompile them, taking out all of the branding elements of the OS and putting it together as a full distribution that for all intents and purposes acts just like the Red Hat product, but does not have support from Red Hat. Several other distributions are constructed in a similar manner, including White Box Enterprise Linux and Tao Linux. The current release is CentOS 4.2, which is equivalent to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 release, with a number of patches applied.
CentOS in operation is much like any Red Hat Enterprise or Fedora installation. It is easy to install, works well on most hardware, and is well-behaved. Unlike Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is free and has free updates. It uses the Yum package manager to install updates rather than the Red Hat tools. Personally I prefer Yum to the way Red Hat packages updates. And unlike the Fedora Core releases, CentOS provides support for updates for a long period of time after release (typically five years) so that you don't have to upgrade to a new release every year to keep getting updates. CentOS 4 is scheduled to have full support through February 2008, and maintenance updates through 2012. This was the major appeal for me on my servers, and it's just as nice on a desktop OS.
CentOS contains a rich range of applications, including OpenOffice.Org 2, CD burning facilities, KDE and GNOME desktops (both looking much as they do in the Red Hat distributions), and many audio and video applications. The desktop applications are older than those in the more cutting-edge distributions, but on the other hand using CentOS on the desktop is remarkably free from the "surprises" inherent in some of the faster-developing distributions.
In some ways CentOS has some of the best features of both the Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise distributions, but it will be disappointing for anyone who wants the latest and greatest desktop features. Fedora Core is much more cutting edge, since it is essentially the development platform for Red Hat Enterprise, and CentOS comes out after the corresponding Red Hat Enterprise releases. CentOS has many of the same characteristics that annoy people about the other Red Hat-derived releases. It has, for example, no MP3 capabilities on its own (due to patent restrictions) and does not include any of the popular non-open-source applications. However, it is a solid base operating system that's stable and reliable. It is a good choice for a server Linux distribution, and can be good on the desktop as well if you're looking for a distro that is less cutting edge, but is stable and will not require constant upgrading.
No Linux distribution can fill everyone's needs. I still use Fedora Core on a couple of desktop machines where I really need the latest versions of software, but having CentOS available on my desktops as well gives me a common platform with my server environment, which is great for stability and development purposes.
Steve Hanson is the Principal Consultant for Cruiskeen Consulting LLC. He has been a Unix administrator for Honeywell, Collective Technologies, FERMILAB, and several other companies.
What desktop OS do you use every day? Write an article of less than 1,000 words telling us what you use and why. If we publish it, we'll pay you $100. (Send us a query first to be sure we haven't already published a story on your favorite OS or have one in hand.) In recent weeks, we've covered SimplyMEPIS, Xandros, Mac OS X, Fedora Core 3, Ubuntu, White Box Enterprise Linux, Mandriva PowerPack 2006, Slackware, SUSE, GRML, Kanotix, Gentoo, and VectorLinux.
Comments
on My desktop OS: CentOS 4.2Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Scientific Linux is another free rebuild.
You can make CentOS/WhiteBox/RHEL much nicer desktops by adding the yum repo information for <a href="http://apt.kde-redhat.org/" title="kde-redhat.org">kde-redhat</a kde-redhat.org> and <a href="http://apt.sw.be/redhat" title="apt.sw.be">rpmforge</a apt.sw.be>.
I use it in its K12LTSP incarnation; pretty sweet
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 12:24 AM
Hello folks,
Thanks to Eric Harrison's K12LTSP work, there is a version of K12LTSP that is based on CentOS 4.x. The night before last, I did a yum update on my K12LTSP 4.2.2EL server to bring it up to 4.3. Very easy.
I've been using CentOS, in its K12LTSP variant, pretty much since it came out. It's been a joy to use, and it is highly recommended to those of you looking for an inexpensive, solid GNU/Linux distribution. It is *ESPECIALLY* recommended for those who need or want to upgrade a school computer lab on the cheap and have excellent performance from it. It is also installed--and heavily used--on one of my laptops at work, and a one-week-old installation of Slackware 10.2 runs on the other one (the one I happen to be using to write this now).
I thank the CentOS folks, and Eric Harrison, every day I get home and fire up my LTSP terminal, (in reality an old Pentium-166 with 32MB DRAM and an EtherBoot floppy). They have made efficient, economical computing even more practical than it already was, in even more situations. This is the beauty of Free Software; you are FREE to make it do whatever you need it to do.
--Terrell Prude', Jr.
--Just One More Penguinista
Thanks to Eric Harrison's K12LTSP work, there is a version of K12LTSP that is based on CentOS 4.x. The night before last, I did a yum update on my K12LTSP 4.2.2EL server to bring it up to 4.3. Very easy.
I've been using CentOS, in its K12LTSP variant, pretty much since it came out. It's been a joy to use, and it is highly recommended to those of you looking for an inexpensive, solid GNU/Linux distribution. It is *ESPECIALLY* recommended for those who need or want to upgrade a school computer lab on the cheap and have excellent performance from it. It is also installed--and heavily used--on one of my laptops at work, and a one-week-old installation of Slackware 10.2 runs on the other one (the one I happen to be using to write this now).
I thank the CentOS folks, and Eric Harrison, every day I get home and fire up my LTSP terminal, (in reality an old Pentium-166 with 32MB DRAM and an EtherBoot floppy). They have made efficient, economical computing even more practical than it already was, in even more situations. This is the beauty of Free Software; you are FREE to make it do whatever you need it to do.
--Terrell Prude', Jr.
--Just One More Penguinista
More info than "It's just like Redhat Enterprise Linux"?
I'd like to know how EL differs from Fedora, personally.
I'd like to know how EL differs from Fedora, personally.
Fedora has a less of a life cycle. pretty much every 6 to 9 months Redhat releases a new Fedora Core. they are on FC5 now. mostly Fedora is used for testing new applications and how well they play with others. then, alot of what is in fedora goes into the next release of RHEL.
if you are looking for reliability, look at Centos or RHEL. if you are looking for cutting edge (see bleeding edge) use Fedora.
if you are looking for reliability, look at Centos or RHEL. if you are looking for cutting edge (see bleeding edge) use Fedora.
Fedora is not Enterprise, it's really quick to implement changes whether they are stable or not. RHEL (and CentOS) use packages that are stable, and only issue updates after they have been tested.
RHEL 4 and CentOS 4 more closely resemble Fedora Core 3 than the latest version of Fedora. In fact I have gotten confused on a KVM switch whether the system I am working on is Fedora 3 or RHEL 4 or CentOS 4. I usually cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/*-release to make sure.
I have CentOS on 5 remote database servers at customer sites that are out of state ( one is in another country). I went with CentOS because it would be supported for several years, and because the budget just wasn't there for RHEnterprise.
The systems have been rock solid for 3 years now. I mean ROCK SOLID day in and day out without even a hiccup. They are sitting on IBM servers and run data bases that are the back end for reservations systems for their owners. They run for months without a reboot. In fact the only reboots I can remember were caused by power outages or kernel upgrades.
There really isn't that much differece between CentOS and RHE. RHE does give your executives the "We run ENTERPRISE software" fuzzies and I suppose that the support is nice although I have never called them. If you have some funky apps or are spending big money on a big money database then you might as well go with RHE just so when your DB goes sideways they can't tell you that you are on an unsupported platform. But, if you are a smaller company or are using the usual opensource (lamp type) apps then I would go with CentOS.
As far as using it for a desktop, I don't know. I guess that it would be good for work desktops. Both RH and CentOS have the same stoggy, feel. Neither one is very sexy but they are both solid.
I don't know that I would put either one on a home machine where you would be more interested in multimedia, and digital cameras an stuff like that. Not that you can't make all of that stuff work on CentOS or RH, you can.
There are also third party repositories that will flesh them out with newer, flashier stuff. Problem is that that takes away the stability factor which was the main reason you went with RH or CentOS in the first place.
Bottom line...
A great OS. Use where stability is key and your admins are more comfortable with a RH type distro. (Remote servers, large numbers of work desktops, your parents in another state that only want email, etc)
The systems have been rock solid for 3 years now. I mean ROCK SOLID day in and day out without even a hiccup. They are sitting on IBM servers and run data bases that are the back end for reservations systems for their owners. They run for months without a reboot. In fact the only reboots I can remember were caused by power outages or kernel upgrades.
There really isn't that much differece between CentOS and RHE. RHE does give your executives the "We run ENTERPRISE software" fuzzies and I suppose that the support is nice although I have never called them. If you have some funky apps or are spending big money on a big money database then you might as well go with RHE just so when your DB goes sideways they can't tell you that you are on an unsupported platform. But, if you are a smaller company or are using the usual opensource (lamp type) apps then I would go with CentOS.
As far as using it for a desktop, I don't know. I guess that it would be good for work desktops. Both RH and CentOS have the same stoggy, feel. Neither one is very sexy but they are both solid.
I don't know that I would put either one on a home machine where you would be more interested in multimedia, and digital cameras an stuff like that. Not that you can't make all of that stuff work on CentOS or RH, you can.
There are also third party repositories that will flesh them out with newer, flashier stuff. Problem is that that takes away the stability factor which was the main reason you went with RH or CentOS in the first place.
Bottom line...
A great OS. Use where stability is key and your admins are more comfortable with a RH type distro. (Remote servers, large numbers of work desktops, your parents in another state that only want email, etc)
Steve,
You seem to be having good experience in installing & managing Linux servers. Is there really any deference in RHEL based distros like Tao, whitebox and Centos when it comes to ease of installtion and managing the server after installation? Secondly why did you not consider dapper drake of Ubuntu?
You seem to be having good experience in installing & managing Linux servers. Is there really any deference in RHEL based distros like Tao, whitebox and Centos when it comes to ease of installtion and managing the server after installation? Secondly why did you not consider dapper drake of Ubuntu?
WTF does Ubuntu have to do with CentOS, and other Red Hat clones and derivatives?? Geez.
Nothing "the fuck".
It is a Linux distro, that's what it has to do with CentOS and other RHL clones and derivatives.
A bit more tolerance would not be a bad thing.
It is a Linux distro, that's what it has to do with CentOS and other RHL clones and derivatives.
A bit more tolerance would not be a bad thing.
Why should we tolerate trolling fanboys?
I am not Steve, but I can tell you why I preferr the CentOS variants. They have a good support group that looks like it will be arround for a while, while White Box, for example, is mostly the work of one man. It is true that one person can easily do the job, but what happens when his job changes, and he no longer needs the project? With CentOS there is a very good chance that someone else will pick up the job of maintaining the updates.
Troll somewhere else fanboy!
"I have been a Unix and Linux system administrator for more than 20 years, and have worked with many different operating systems"
Good to see than in your 20-odd years of working with computers you have managed to pick up a clue, unlike this guy (links provided for those who may have been living under a rock for the last week or so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )
<a href="http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=127" title="centos.org">http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?st<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ryid=127</a centos.org>
<a href="http://www.tuttletimes.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_088201244.html" title="tuttletimes.com">http://www.tuttletimes.com/siteSearch/apstorysect<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> on/local_story_088201244.html</a tuttletimes.com>
Good to see than in your 20-odd years of working with computers you have managed to pick up a clue, unlike this guy (links provided for those who may have been living under a rock for the last week or so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )
<a href="http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=127" title="centos.org">http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?st<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ryid=127</a centos.org>
<a href="http://www.tuttletimes.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_088201244.html" title="tuttletimes.com">http://www.tuttletimes.com/siteSearch/apstorysect<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> on/local_story_088201244.html</a tuttletimes.com>
So, I'm running yet another version of Asterisk@Home. It's a prepackaged Asterisk IP PBX server running on CentOS4.3. It had taken me nearly a day to get everything configured just the way I wanted for my home office and the server had been running for 99 days without any problems. That's great!
My desktop machine, SuSE 9.3 was on its second or third kernel update since I had installed the Asterisk@Home server so, I knew that there were kernel updates out there. I was feeling a bit guilty about not applying security patches to the Asterisk server for 99 days so, I decided to spend a few minutes updating it. Big mistake!
I log into the Asterisk@Home box and run <tt>yum update</tt> and it nicely downloads and installs all of the updates for my system, including a new kernel.
Now, I've been through this before. Asterisk uses a kernel module driver called zaptel for the POTS interface card, which is basically just a cheap modem. This driver module, like so many other Linux drivers, must be compiled for the specific version of the kernel that is being booted on the system. Knowing this, the Asterisk@Home developer conveniently includes a script that, though executed manually, recompiles and installs the zaptel kernel module after you update your kernel. I've updated the kernel on this system before and the script works so, on with the update.
After my <tt>yum update</tt> has finished, I reboot to load the new kernel and, as expected, the zaptel driver fails to load. No sweat, I think. I run the <tt>rebuild_zaptel</tt> script and the system grinds through the compile script for a few minutes before terminating abnormally with errors. It's complaining about references in the <tt>zaptel.c</tt> source file. That can't be right so, I rerun the recompile but, it still errors out. Oof! Still undeterred, I proceed to look through the <tt>zaptel.c</tt> file to see if there is anything that my small amount of C knowledge can figure out and fix.
After a while with no luck, logic starts to take over. This source file and compile script have worked several times before. The thing that has changed is the kernel and its source code. Well, I might be able to pull off a <tt>Hello World</tt> C program but, I'm no kernel hacker so, it's time for another plan as my phones have been out of commission for nearly an hour.
The obvious choice is to drop back to the old kernel. A quick reboot and I select the old kernel from the grub menu that Red Hat/CentOS has thoughtfully placed there for just such emergencies. I thought that it would boot right up to where I was before and my phones would work again. Silly me!
The system boots but fails to load the zaptel driver for some gobbledy-goop reason. That's because the previously failed half compile deleted some things and recompiled others, none of them successfully. So, I again run <tt>rebuild_zaptel</tt> to recompile the zaptel module for the older kernel that I am back to running again. Success! The driver compiles without a hitch and I reboot, expecting a running system but, I instead get an error about unable to find or access<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/zap. Doh!!!
The phones have been down for over an hour now, I can't get the system to boot properly, I no longer have a clue what the problem is and my sphincter is starting to ache due to the tension. In an act of desperation, I decide to reconfigure the zaptel/modem thinking that perhaps its configuration was hosed by the botched recompile from earlier. It's been 99 days since last I had to configure a zaptel/modem card and my memory isn't photographic so, I was really greatful to find the <tt>genzaptelconf</tt> script from Asterisk@Home that automatically configures the card for you, provided you know to manually execute it in the first place. When it completes I <tt>modprobe</tt> the zaptel driver and it sees the card so, fingers crossed, I reboot again.
An hour and a half after the first reboot, my system finally comes up and the phones come to life. I'm elated and relieved. But, wait. I'm still running a kernel with known security bugs, what to do? Well, tough tomatoes! I need my phones to work and I don't have the knowledge/patience to fix whatever is wrong in the kernel source, or even the zaptel source that the system is blaming, seemingly incorrectly. It'll have to do without any further updates!
That's why I hate Linux.
My desktop machine, SuSE 9.3 was on its second or third kernel update since I had installed the Asterisk@Home server so, I knew that there were kernel updates out there. I was feeling a bit guilty about not applying security patches to the Asterisk server for 99 days so, I decided to spend a few minutes updating it. Big mistake!
I log into the Asterisk@Home box and run <tt>yum update</tt> and it nicely downloads and installs all of the updates for my system, including a new kernel.
Now, I've been through this before. Asterisk uses a kernel module driver called zaptel for the POTS interface card, which is basically just a cheap modem. This driver module, like so many other Linux drivers, must be compiled for the specific version of the kernel that is being booted on the system. Knowing this, the Asterisk@Home developer conveniently includes a script that, though executed manually, recompiles and installs the zaptel kernel module after you update your kernel. I've updated the kernel on this system before and the script works so, on with the update.
After my <tt>yum update</tt> has finished, I reboot to load the new kernel and, as expected, the zaptel driver fails to load. No sweat, I think. I run the <tt>rebuild_zaptel</tt> script and the system grinds through the compile script for a few minutes before terminating abnormally with errors. It's complaining about references in the <tt>zaptel.c</tt> source file. That can't be right so, I rerun the recompile but, it still errors out. Oof! Still undeterred, I proceed to look through the <tt>zaptel.c</tt> file to see if there is anything that my small amount of C knowledge can figure out and fix.
After a while with no luck, logic starts to take over. This source file and compile script have worked several times before. The thing that has changed is the kernel and its source code. Well, I might be able to pull off a <tt>Hello World</tt> C program but, I'm no kernel hacker so, it's time for another plan as my phones have been out of commission for nearly an hour.
The obvious choice is to drop back to the old kernel. A quick reboot and I select the old kernel from the grub menu that Red Hat/CentOS has thoughtfully placed there for just such emergencies. I thought that it would boot right up to where I was before and my phones would work again. Silly me!
The system boots but fails to load the zaptel driver for some gobbledy-goop reason. That's because the previously failed half compile deleted some things and recompiled others, none of them successfully. So, I again run <tt>rebuild_zaptel</tt> to recompile the zaptel module for the older kernel that I am back to running again. Success! The driver compiles without a hitch and I reboot, expecting a running system but, I instead get an error about unable to find or access<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/zap. Doh!!!
The phones have been down for over an hour now, I can't get the system to boot properly, I no longer have a clue what the problem is and my sphincter is starting to ache due to the tension. In an act of desperation, I decide to reconfigure the zaptel/modem thinking that perhaps its configuration was hosed by the botched recompile from earlier. It's been 99 days since last I had to configure a zaptel/modem card and my memory isn't photographic so, I was really greatful to find the <tt>genzaptelconf</tt> script from Asterisk@Home that automatically configures the card for you, provided you know to manually execute it in the first place. When it completes I <tt>modprobe</tt> the zaptel driver and it sees the card so, fingers crossed, I reboot again.
An hour and a half after the first reboot, my system finally comes up and the phones come to life. I'm elated and relieved. But, wait. I'm still running a kernel with known security bugs, what to do? Well, tough tomatoes! I need my phones to work and I don't have the knowledge/patience to fix whatever is wrong in the kernel source, or even the zaptel source that the system is blaming, seemingly incorrectly. It'll have to do without any further updates!
That's why I hate Linux.
First of all, your comment has nothing to do with the article and is obviously posted on the wrong forum, if you wanted any help at all.
Secondly, you're obviously trolling with a vague title to discredit Linux in general. Maybe to scare off some interested people ?
And finally, did you get your Microsoft payement of last month ?
Secondly, you're obviously trolling with a vague title to discredit Linux in general. Maybe to scare off some interested people ?
And finally, did you get your Microsoft payement of last month ?
First of all, your comment has nothing to do with the article
The article was about the choice of CentOS 4.2. My rant was based around CentOS 4.3 specifically and Linux in general. That sounds related to me.
you're obviously trolling with a vague title to discredit Linux in general.
I suppose that you are entitled to an opinion. But, I wasn't trolling for help or defamation. I was simply offering a very valid counterpoint to a syrupy article that positively gushes about Linux and CentOS. Just because my experience was different from his does not make my point invalid or a troll.
did you get your Microsoft payement of last month ?
No. If Microsoft(or anyone else) were to pay me to post my real world experiences, such as I did here, that would be a great day indeed. But, the reality is that I haven't drank the Kool-Aid that you seem to have. I remain pragmatic and objective enough to realize that a security update, even to the kernel should not render a system inoperable.
Hopefully, developers of Linux and open source software will not be so quick, as you, to write me off as a troll and will instead see this as a recurring issue and an opportunity to improve the operating system and its applications. Those that choose to ignore or deny the existence of the problem are, in my opinion, destined for failure.
The article was about the choice of CentOS 4.2. My rant was based around CentOS 4.3 specifically and Linux in general. That sounds related to me.
you're obviously trolling with a vague title to discredit Linux in general.
I suppose that you are entitled to an opinion. But, I wasn't trolling for help or defamation. I was simply offering a very valid counterpoint to a syrupy article that positively gushes about Linux and CentOS. Just because my experience was different from his does not make my point invalid or a troll.
did you get your Microsoft payement of last month ?
No. If Microsoft(or anyone else) were to pay me to post my real world experiences, such as I did here, that would be a great day indeed. But, the reality is that I haven't drank the Kool-Aid that you seem to have. I remain pragmatic and objective enough to realize that a security update, even to the kernel should not render a system inoperable.
Hopefully, developers of Linux and open source software will not be so quick, as you, to write me off as a troll and will instead see this as a recurring issue and an opportunity to improve the operating system and its applications. Those that choose to ignore or deny the existence of the problem are, in my opinion, destined for failure.
Many people have at least two computers. One for "production" and one for "development". That way you can do your testing and plan your update strategy without major interruption to your users.
I'm not developing software but, I agree. That's also easier said than done. In an ideal world, everyone would have a test network to test patches and applications prior to deployment. However, cost, space, time, practicality, typically preclude most businesses and individuals from such "luxuries" and force them to rely on the developers/vendors to test and make sure that their patches are not broken prior to releasing them.
In my experience, very few companies actually have test environments that parallel their production environment and these are typically just the largest and richest companies. Most companies can barely afford that $60,000 Cisco switch or $100,000 Nortel PBX for their production network, let alone redundant systems for a test environment. Likewise, the $3,000 server and the Digium cards were a big pill for my small business. I couldn't afford nor justify doubling that expense. The Asterisk@Home system was supposed to be a cost savings not a cost increase. If I had that much money to spend on the phone system, I would have purchased a Nortel MICS in the first place and been done with it.
In my experience, very few companies actually have test environments that parallel their production environment and these are typically just the largest and richest companies. Most companies can barely afford that $60,000 Cisco switch or $100,000 Nortel PBX for their production network, let alone redundant systems for a test environment. Likewise, the $3,000 server and the Digium cards were a big pill for my small business. I couldn't afford nor justify doubling that expense. The Asterisk@Home system was supposed to be a cost savings not a cost increase. If I had that much money to spend on the phone system, I would have purchased a Nortel MICS in the first place and been done with it.
Umm, you neglected to mention the reason why you (should) LOVE Linux and Open Source software: it provides you with a telephony system without having to purchase a "$60,000 Cisco switch or $100,000 Nortel PBX." It won't kill you to say "thank you" to the developers who have made this possible.
A development server need not be a separate box: there are numerous virtualization options such as qemu, VMware, Xen, and User-Mode Linux (though admittedly I do not know whether they will work correctly with the zaptel cards). Or you could install a second hard drive for little money and put your test system on that. You will need to take the server down to do testing, but at least you'll have a fallback if something goes wrong.
Vance
A development server need not be a separate box: there are numerous virtualization options such as qemu, VMware, Xen, and User-Mode Linux (though admittedly I do not know whether they will work correctly with the zaptel cards). Or you could install a second hard drive for little money and put your test system on that. You will need to take the server down to do testing, but at least you'll have a fallback if something goes wrong.
Vance
Nothing is perfect. In General, yum update work just fine. with Windows Update happens the same. I remember one time IE Explorer stop working on my site because of some update that blocked session cockies.. it was a day off until microsoft said there was a bug in the update. Everyboy recomends to have a test pc to try things.. in real life that is often not posible, so we have to live with this limitations. But, at the end, its not Linux what is what you have to hate, it the real world.. shit happens!
Why no one cares of your life story...
Some info and corrections...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 11:39 PMA "Extras" yum repo is available at centos.karan.org. It's run by one of CentOS's developers. It's equivalent for livna would be at:
<a href="http://sangrah.in/el4/" title="sangrah.in">http://sangrah.in/el4/</a sangrah.in> . Of course, you could just use dag.wieers.com, or whatever else your taste may be.
Correction on OpenOffice.org included with CentOS... it's only version 1.1.2. But you can download and install the official OOo RPMs at www.openoffice.org. It works great and fast. You can have both OOo versions installed or, like me, uninstall OOo 1.1.2 that came with CentOS.
#