Discuss August 2013

discuss@lists.centos.org

147 participants
142 discussions

Re: [CentOS] Restoring deleted files.
by Johan Vermeulen 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

Hello, I think the commandline filemanager can reunite you with deleted files. Greetings, j. Clive Hills <discordianuk(a)gmail.com>schreef: >There's also PhotoRec included in the testdisk package. > > >Clive > > >On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Joseph Spenner <joseph85750(a)yahoo.com>wrote: > >> >From: Ahmed <ahmed.daud500(a)gmail.com> >> >> >To: CentOS mailing list <centos(a)centos.org> >> >Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:44 AM >> >Subject: [CentOS] Restoring deleted files. >> >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> > is it possible to Restore files deleted with " rm rf " from ext4 or >> > ext3 filesystem by mistake. >> >> There is something called lazarus: >> >> http://www.fish2.com/tct/help-recovering-file >> >> Make backups! I recommend bacula. :) >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> If life gives you lemons, keep them-- because hey.. free lemons. >> "♥ Sticker" fixer: http://microflush.org/stuff/stickers/heartFix.html >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS(a)centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > > >-- >Clive > -- 077222971491 >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Les Mikesell 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: > >> Sorry, but that quote does not appear in any copy of the GPL that I >> can find. And it's not true, either. Everything it says is about >> 'works as a whole' and anything that can be considered a copy or >> derivative work under copyright law > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > and now *show me* the word *binary* or *binaries* in any paragraph And that is exactly the point. They are not considered differently in terms of restrictions you can apply or adding to 'works as a whole' in copyright terms. If the distribution of any part of a work is only permitted by the GPL and you don't follow the GPL terms (say, by adding restrictions of your own), you would not be permitted to distribute at all. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Les Mikesell 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: > >>> redistribution of SOURCE. have you READ the GPL ? >> >> Please quote the section that you think exempts binaries > > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED* > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED* > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED* Sorry, but that quote does not appear in any copy of the GPL that I can find. And it's not true, either. Everything it says is about 'works as a whole' and anything that can be considered a copy or derivative work under copyright law. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Les Mikesell 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: >>> >> So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being >> considered derived works with the same requiremnets? > > OK you are really that stupid > > the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

6 13

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Les Mikesell 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: > >> So, what about redistribution of copies? > > learn the difference between trademarks and software licences So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", it really means that you can add something that adds restrictions. >> I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead >> of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat >> baited us with > > so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason I have my reason. You don't have to like it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

4 5

minimal X applications needed to export to remote server?
by Joseph Spenner 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

I'm running a piece of network backup software called 'bacula', on a minimal CentOS 6.4 install. I got everything working pretty well, but there's one piece giving me some problem-- a component which gives status info via a GUI. In the past, on previous installations, I could ssh to the bacula server with the -X option, and run the application (called 'bat'), and it would display back. I'd have to make sure the sshd_config permits Xforwarding, but that was all. On my new CentOS 6.4 minimal, I always get: bat: cannot connect to X server I tried the usual tricks of exporting the display to my system where I want to see the GUI, which shouldn't be necessary anyway due to the 'ssh -X', but I thought I'd give it a shot. Still no go. I figured something was missing, since it is a minimal install, with no X. So I installed 'xlogo', thinking maybe all the X stuff needed to display that would be installed. By installing xlogo, I got a bunch of X stuff, including: xorg-x11-apps-7.6-6.el6.x86_64 I also have: libXau-1.0.6-4.el6.x86_64 libX11-1.5.0-4.el6.x86_64 libXrender-0.9.7-2.el6.x86_64 libXcursor-1.1.13-2.el6.x86_64 libXft-2.3.1-2.el6.x86_64 libXxf86vm-1.1.2-2.el6.x86_64 libXi-1.6.1-3.el6.x86_64 libXmu-1.1.1-2.el6.x86_64 libXaw-1.0.11-2.el6.x86_64 libX11-common-1.5.0-4.el6.noarch libXext-1.3.1-2.el6.x86_64 libXfixes-5.0-3.el6.x86_64 libXdamage-1.1.3-4.el6.x86_64 libXrandr-1.4.0-1.el6.x86_64 libXinerama-1.1.2-2.el6.x86_64 libXv-1.0.7-2.el6.x86_64 libXt-1.1.3-1.el6.x86_64 libXpm-3.5.10-2.el6.x86_64 But I still get the error. Anyone know which package/rpm/lib I am missing? Thanks! Regards, Joseph Spenner ______________________________________________________________________ If life gives you lemons, keep them-- because hey.. free lemons. "♥ Sticker" fixer: http://microflush.org/stuff/stickers/heartFix.html

4 5

Re: [CentOS] minimal X applications needed to export to remote server?
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

Joseph Spenner wrote: > I'm running a piece of network backup software called 'bacula', on a minimal CentOS 6.4 install. > I got everything working pretty well, but there's one piece giving me some problem-- a component which gives status info via a GUI. > In the past, on previous installations, I could ssh to the bacula server with the -X option, and run the application (called 'bat'), and it would display back. I'd have to make sure the sshd_config permits Xforwarding, but that was all. > > On my new CentOS 6.4 minimal, I always get: > > bat: cannot connect to X server > > I tried the usual tricks of exporting the display to my system where I want to see the GUI, which shouldn't be necessary anyway due to the 'ssh -X', but I thought I'd give it a shot. Still no go. > > I figured something was missing, since it is a minimal install, with no X. So I installed 'xlogo', thinking maybe all the X stuff needed to display that would be installed. By installing xlogo, I got a bunch of X stuff, including: > > xorg-x11-apps-7.6-6.el6.x86_64 <snip> I'd start out with yum groupinstall "X Window System" mark

1 0

RocketRAID cards (actually, solved)
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

If anyone's got old RocketRAID cards, I just had to deal with one. They are years behind in updating their drivers - googling, I find the last time some were supported was CentOS 5.2. At any rate, I have just managed to build 1.8 of rr232x successfully, and am building filesystems on the drive as I type. I d/l the compressed tarballs from HighPoint's site. The changes to make it compile were: 1. /* if (bdev && blkdev_get(bdev, FMODE_READ, 0 __BDEV_RAW)==0) { # Above for < 2.6.28 */ if (bdev && blkdev_get(bdev, FMODE_READ)==0) { Note that the last two parms from the original call were removed. 2. /* blkdev_put(bdev __BDEV_RAW); (or, in another case, just BDEV_RAW) # above < 2.6.28 */ blkdev_put(bdev, FMODE_READ); 3. In osm_linux.h, their definition redefines what the Linux header files say. I made the following change. Note that I wanted to make sure IRQ_HANDLED was defined, presuming it's in use elsewhere, and I'm making minimal changes to the code. /* #ifndef IRQ_HANDLED */ #ifndef _LINUX_IRQRETURN_H 4. In osm_linux.c, I changed from the first line below to the second. /* SCpnt->result = ((DRIVER_INVALID|SUGGEST_ABORT)<<24) | (DID_ABORT<<16); */ SCpnt->result = ((DRIVER_INVALID|TASK_ABORTED)<<24) | (DID_ABORT<<16); Again, some defines are long gone. I chose TASK_ABORTED because it had the same hex value as SUGGEST_ABORT, 0x20, and seemed appropriate. Then it was cd into rr232x-linux-src-v1.8/product/rr232x/linux/, make clean, make, make install. The install does the depmod and modprobe. mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Les Mikesell 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: > >>> learn the difference between trademarks and software licences >> >> So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole >> must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any >> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted >> herein", it really means that you can add something that adds >> restrictions. > > are you really that stupid? > > do you think the CentOS packages are falling from heaven? > no, they are built from the RHEL srpms So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being considered derived works with the same requiremnets? > >>>> I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead >>>> of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat >>>> baited us with >>> >>> so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason >> >> I have my reason. You don't have to like it > > so be man enough and do not use it instead whine like a teen girl Breaking compatibility would go against everything I like about Linux and it's not like the alternatives are perfect either. But regardless of how much you care about my opinion, can you seriously say that you like the fact that the community of free users that helped take the Red Hat product from something that barely worked up to the fairly robust and usable 7.x version has been split into a set that favors stability using CentOS where there is really no way to contribute improvements and the wild and crazy fedora set that doesn't care about stability or maintaining compatible interfaces across versions. With the fedora set driving new development... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
by Andrew Wyatt 16 Aug '13

16 Aug '13

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>wrote: > > > Am 16.08.2013 14:07, schrieb Andrew Wyatt: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Giles Coochey <giles(a)coochey.net> > wrote: > >>> While I agree that CentOS will always have support while it is > community > >> driven, and has an upstream - without RedHat, no Centos... the truth of > the > >> matter (when it comes to $$$): > >> > > > > It wouldn't be impossible to continue CentOS without RedHat, the > community > > would be capable of pushing it forward. That's not to say that RedHat > > isn't doing a great job, but if they were to stop the CentOS project > could > > and probably would go on IMHO. > > it would be impossible > > rebuild mostly srpms and do the development are completly different worlds > it would be a *complete* different distribution, the current userbase > is not interested in community developed distribution, if they would > than the would not use CentOS - period > > RedHat Linux is largely a community distribution, it is a collection of upstream community sources with RedHat developers and engineers assigned as package maintainers. Their product is support and not software. I think we all know that rebuilding SRPMS and development are different worlds but that doesn't mean that the community wouldn't come together to continue moving it forward. I know I'd try to help... The biggest challenge would be in developing the next major iteration but for a product already deep into its cycle like CentOS 6 it wouldn't be very difficult at all. It may shed a number of CentOS users on the front end, but a large number of them would come back.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss August 2013