Anyone with a geode based machine want to help with some testing stuff ?
What stuff do you need testing? I have a wireless application board with a geode chip and 128MB of RAM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Anyone with a geode based machine want to help with some testing stuff ?
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Marco Aurelio wrote:
What stuff do you need testing? I have a wireless application board with a geode chip and 128MB of RAM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Anyone with a geode based machine want to help with some testing stuff ?
at the moment, the installer in C5 will detect the geode as a i586 capable cpu, and elect not to use the i686 kernel. While the i686 works fine. I have a small update to anaconda that lets it work with these geode based machines.
So, can you machine survive a c5 install ? :D
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.orgwrote:
Marco Aurelio wrote:
What stuff do you need testing? I have a wireless application board with a geode chip and 128MB of RAM
What flavor of geode are you looking for ? There's only a half dozen by the name :)
-Will
Will Langford wrote:
What flavor of geode are you looking for ? There's only a half dozen by the name :)
As many different ones we can get to test with ( and the sort of spec you would expect to be usable with CentOS-5, so 256MB ram would be a good start, 128 Might work too, definitely worth a try )
Will Langford wrote:
What flavor of geode are you looking for ? There's only a half dozen by the name :)
I am effectively looking for people who might be able to help with this issue :
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2552
At the moment it looks like there will be the need for an updates.img to change behavior install time.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.orgwrote:
Will Langford wrote:
What flavor of geode are you looking for ? There's only a half dozen by the name :)
I am effectively looking for people who might be able to help with this issue :
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2552
At the moment it looks like there will be the need for an updates.img to change behavior install time.
At the moment, I've only got access to the original Cyrix/NatSemi/AMD Geode in the 200-266MHz class range. But... I do have a slightly off topic question.
If Sally can paint a house in 4 hours and John can paint a house in 6 hours...
No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL alternative, is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as fitting with the nature of CentOS.
Note: I'm pretty much just a quiet outsider and just a user for the most part... so my opinion carries no weight.
-Will
Will Langford wrote:
If Sally can paint a house in 4 hours and John can paint a house in 6 hours...
Answer: 42 ?
No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL alternative, is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as fitting with the nature of CentOS.
That is indeed a very good question. Let me answer that in a few hours time when I am on a real computer, not over NX from my phone to the computer :D
Note: I'm pretty much just a quiet outsider and just a user for the most part... so my opinion carries no weight.
No such thing, if you are using it - you automatically become a part of the community and voices are good.
- KB
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.orgwrote:
Will Langford wrote:
If Sally can paint a house in 4 hours and John can paint a house in 6 hours...
Answer: 42 ?
Heh. Actually 2.4.
No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL alternative,
is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as fitting with the nature of CentOS.
That is indeed a very good question. Let me answer that in a few hours time when I am on a real computer, not over NX from my phone to the computer :D
I actually look forward to the answer. While I see linux or netbsd (etc) as a good swiss army knife base for alot of hardware, I don't think targeted distro's should attempt to swiss army knife it -- ya then get excessive complexity or limited features due to a low lowest-common-denominator :).
Note: I'm pretty much just a quiet outsider and just a user for the most
part... so my opinion carries no weight.
No such thing, if you are using it - you automatically become a part of the community and voices are good.
This is the 'developers' list :). As such, I'd imagine it'd be more for people working on advancing the distro heh. My only experience with CentOS is remote dedicated servers -- I don't believe I've actually ever manually installed it. I've worked with 4.x and 5.0... have yet to experience 5.1. So far I've been very very happy with CentOS in general. My 4.x box got violated a couple times, even rooted heh :(. The 5.0 installation seems to be doing much better. I've had some issues with getting up to date ant/java stuff for WowzaMediaServer/Red5, but all in all, I'd say I'm really happy with 5.0.
Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).
-Will
Sorry, I have no way of testing the centos install on my geode, because it is an embedded board without disk I/O ports.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Will Langford unfies@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Will Langford wrote:
If Sally can paint a house in 4 hours and John can paint a house in 6 hours...
Answer: 42 ?
Heh. Actually 2.4.
No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL alternative, is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as fitting with the nature of CentOS.
That is indeed a very good question. Let me answer that in a few hours time when I am on a real computer, not over NX from my phone to the computer :D
I actually look forward to the answer. While I see linux or netbsd (etc) as a good swiss army knife base for alot of hardware, I don't think targeted distro's should attempt to swiss army knife it -- ya then get excessive complexity or limited features due to a low lowest-common-denominator :).
Note: I'm pretty much just a quiet outsider and just a user for the most part... so my opinion carries no weight.
No such thing, if you are using it - you automatically become a part of the community and voices are good.
This is the 'developers' list :). As such, I'd imagine it'd be more for people working on advancing the distro heh. My only experience with CentOS is remote dedicated servers -- I don't believe I've actually ever manually installed it. I've worked with 4.x and 5.0... have yet to experience 5.1. So far I've been very very happy with CentOS in general. My 4.x box got violated a couple times, even rooted heh :(. The 5.0 installation seems to be doing much better. I've had some issues with getting up to date ant/java stuff for WowzaMediaServer/Red5, but all in all, I'd say I'm really happy with 5.0. Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh). -Will
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Marco Aurelio wrote:
Sorry, I have no way of testing the centos install on my geode, because it is an embedded board without disk I/O ports.
Thanks for looking though.
Will Langford wrote:
installed it. I've worked with 4.x and 5.0... have yet to experience 5.1.
If you're current with updates, you're on 5.2,
So far I've been very very happy with CentOS in general. My 4.x box got violated a couple times, even rooted heh :(. The 5.0 installation seems to be doing much better. I've had some issues with getting up to date ant/java stuff for WowzaMediaServer/Red5, but all in all, I'd say I'm really happy with 5.0.
Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to
You can rely on this: it's broken. If security is unimportant, fine. Otherwise, look at the nearest CentOS.
Just look at the number of updates that come out for any CentOS release, especially those that hit several releases, for a rough guide on what volume of updatea you might be missing.
hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).
If you're current with updates, you're on 5.2,
Heh! I'll throw yum at it, thanks!
Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the
field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to
You can rely on this: it's broken. If security is unimportant, fine. Otherwise, look at the nearest CentOS.
They're on closed networks with no direct internet connection. I believe they also only expose ssh and a couple house-written daemons. I do keep ssh manually patched from tar balls on the servers.
Undoubtedly, there's probably logged-in-user-rights-elevation problems, but if they get a login, the important bits of the system are already accessible so... meh.
-Will
Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).
I suppose you are still running Windows 95 on desktops?
Here at work, we still use RH9.0 on production servers that go into the
field (not broke, dont fix it). If we ever need to do a major update due to hardware limitations or similar... and a new distro makes sense, it'll be CentOS (gotta love being the top of decision making hehehe)... it's been rock solid on my remote machines (other than the poor 4.x box heh).
I suppose you are still running Windows 95 on desktops?
ROFL. No :). 95 *is* broken :). We have a mix of Win98 (two systems, for some stubborn legacy software), Slackware 12, Win2K Pro, 2K Server, 2K Advanced Server, 2003 Server Enterprise, and XP Pro. I don't believe we have a Vista system anywhere yet.
99% of our workstation/desktops need Windows for either development or artsy tools. We have a couple odd Windows based servers for some Windows software we have to communicate with in the field (gotta have local testing!). Anything that handles a 'server' aspect in house is Slack. 3 or 4 years ago, I used to Slack + vmware... but... that was clumsy at best.
For the next distro on remote servers, CentOS will definitely be my choice (being most similar to existing layout). Here in house, I might switch over to it as well during next upgrade bunch... just so that there's a cohesive layout between field and in house systems. I've just been a die hard Slack fan for about 12 years, and it's hard to let go hehehe :). I've had some flexibility in that I'm the only linux-admin in house... but... that needs to change soon, I've got too many responsibilities. CentOS seems like a perfect and natural progression. It's been a breeze to administer remotely in a non-work environment, and breeds familiarity with the RH9 servers.
-Will
Will Langford wrote:
No, seriously. Given the .... 'target' of CentOS as a RHEL alternative, is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to support such hardware ? While I can understand some energy density benefits of running an LX800, I just personally don't see it as fitting with the nature of CentOS.
The not-so-simple answer is - because we can. Because there are no support contracts signed with anyone. Because the benefits of a stable platform like CentOS/EL can easily be applied to areas not supported by upstream. Because there are people who want to run CentOS on their hardware.
So there is a lot of value add that happens within the CentOS setup that a lot of people in diverse areas benefit from. And all of this happens without the core distro being changed. eg. its possible to install CentOS-4 on i586 hardware and run it there, even though upstream dont support that. And there really *are* a lot of people using it on i586 hardware.
For a more specific example: a teacher in Scotland[1] was told they could use any OS that the local authority's management software ran on. The school has just recieved a few dozen eeepc's preloaded with windows and rather than have them face issues with [spy,mal,bot,viri]ware he wants to get Linux onto them instead. However, this $ManagementSoftware that he needs to run either runs on Windows of RHEL.... Given that the whole reason for him to look at Linux comes from that fact that they cant afford the added cost of security tools on Windows, I doubt he can afford to pay for RHEL either. CentOS, to me, looks like a perfect fit. So why not ?
And there are many many more such examples, where people are using CentOS in diverse areas, places that would not be supported by upstream policy / code / contracts. Its one of the fantastic things about open source, and the open mentality of Red Hat. Its one of the areas that I dont think they get enough recognition for.
[1]: I have emailed him asking for his permission to quote his name, establishment and $ManagementSoftware. Not had a reply back as yet.
-
John Summerfield -
Karanbir Singh -
Marco Aurelio -
Scott Silva -
Will Langford