Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

5 participants
34752 discussions

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)
by Bryan J. Smith 31 May '05

31 May '05

From: Dag Wieers > Bryan, stop generalising and dramatising. What dramatising? At some point, several people decide that anything they dislike was said by me. Several other people said far more negative comments about CIPE than myself. Those comments have now been attributed to me. I purposely avoided making it about whether or not CIPE should or shouldn't not be included, just why it wasn't based on what I found. I recognize 99% of the people on this list didn't do that. > It's not you against the world. Who said it wasn't. But I regularly find that some people, even if only 1%, don't care about solving problems. They want to complain, so I start trying to explain why. Eventually these people don't stop, and others join my position. And that's when these few people start taking anything said they disagreed with and attribute it to me. There's plenty to dislike about me than to make up stuff. ;-> > Much of the commotion is related to the manner you > communicate and interprete what people say, But it doesn't excuse them for taking what _others_ said, even if it was defending my position, and saying I did. So as I said, that's what I hate about these lists and such meta-discussions. It totally results in making myself a focal point for things I didn't even say. > regardless of some good points you make. > Your above statement is a perfect example of that. Agreed. Sorry, it's just something I despise, because I have had some illegal things attributed to me on other lists by some, select people. > BTW I'm not saying this to attack you, but to help you. Why would I consider this an attack? Despite what you might think, I don't think the list is against me. I just know that all it takes is 1% of a list to start attributing all sorts of things to me. > I tried being diplomatic in private and in public, but it did not help much. I appreciate your continued professionalism. In fact, I let this thread go for several hours, letting others respond. Unfortunately, what those other said from a familiar position has now been attributed to me. Sorry I got upset about it, but I'm still hearing about things I never said or did on other lists. So I didn't want it to stand here.

5 4

Newbie Query about Centos: where it is going...
by Sanjay Arora 30 May '05

30 May '05

Hi all Just joined this list. Am presently a whitebox 4 & FC 3 user. Have some questions about this distro...hope someone...maybe the list-owner or the power centers in this list will deign to reply ;-) - Site seems to say...Basic Centos will remain same as RHEL...is that absolute code/binary /naming & path compatibility? Is this for ever. ConfirmedDDD? - Somewhere else it says addons will be there....again sure that these will be seperate in extras but will keep the RHEL conventions? ConfirmedDDD? - Now about creating a local repository...I create a local repository of all software I use and other computers installed in our company can use. At this time we are charged by the MB, so can't be public. So what repository do I rsync with? East US woulb be best for me...but I don't think I should hog on layer 1 repositories...so please do guide.

7 10

Multiple sound cards
by Jeffrey B. Layton 30 May '05

30 May '05

Afternoon, I recently upgraded a machine to CentOS 4.0 and it has two sound cards: built-in VIA, Cmedia PCI card. The OS recognizes both and I can use the tool, system-config-soundcard to test them. However, I can't seem to get any sound out of the VIA card, but the Cmedia plays the test sound just fine. The problem is that I can't get any sound apps to use the Cmedia card, particularly xmms. Any hints or helpful comments? TIA! Jeff

3 3

Package dependancy
by Kyle Gordon 30 May '05

30 May '05

Hey folks, I'm running CentOS4 (excellent work btw :-) here, and have apt installed and configured to pull from http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el4/en/i386/ It's all working swimmingly, other than when I try to install nagios-plugins, whereupon it bails out looking for perl(Net::SNMP) Am I missing a repository here, or has something gone amiss with dependancies? Regards Kyle

3 4

real used RAM!
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 30 May '05

30 May '05

List, I've installed my CentOS Server running progress 9.1D database system, with only 15 users working every day, this server has 2GB RAM, so, my question is: Why the 2GB of RAM is always used? Even with only one user connected... How can I messuare the real RAM MEM used by my system split in proccess? Is there another tools which I use to compare the results from top. Or vmstat? Regards, Israel

5 4

PostgreSQL/SELinux Error - relation "pg_catalog.pg_user" does not exist
by Matt Arnilo S. Baluyos (Mailing Lists) 30 May '05

30 May '05

hello everyone, i'm trying to run a postgresql service on my newly-installed centos4 box. i have been able to recreate my users, set up the permissions, and restore the database dump. also, i can already log-in to my databases. there is, however, one annoying problem. whenever i type \du (or \d or \l) on the psql prompt, i get the following error: ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_user" does not exist after some googling, i'm beginning to suspect that this is a SELinux issue. i then try to disable SELinux on the postgresql daemon by doing: # setsebool postgresql_disable_trans true that does not work unfortunately as i'm still stuck with the same error. while i can definitely just disable SELinux on this box, i would want a more elegant solution that solves this annoying problem. can anyone help me on this? thanks in advance! matt -- Stand before it and there is no beginning. Follow it and there is no end. Stay with the ancient Tao, Move with the present.

12 27

VPN
by Simone 30 May '05

30 May '05

Hi list, I am trying to create a VPN between two different locations. On the first location we have a cisco pix 525 Natting the internal 192.168.100.x network, while on the second location we have a Centos3 box Natting via iptables the internal 192.168.10.x netowrk. My goal is to connect this 2 over the internet via IPsec. I created the IPsec Net2Net via the network configuration graphic tool, and I configured the cisco following the howto http://www.johnleach.co.uk/documents/freeswan-pix/freeswan-pix.html . From my understanding, I should have an ipsec0 network device showing up, so that I could route all traffic from 192.168.10.x directed to 192.168.100.x through it. The thing is that when I try to ifup ipsec0 I get the following errors: modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module ripemd160 modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module cast128 modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module lzs modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module lzjh So, after googling and reading a lot with no success, I would like to ask for advice on this, and successfull story :). I really need to have this VPN running, and I am not tied to this one solution only, linux-to-linux VPN, openVPN or anything else you could suggest would be great. Thanks in advice Simone

4 6

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)
by Bryan J. Smith 30 May '05

30 May '05

There's nothing like asking someone to "give it a rest" while taking the opportunity to make fun of them. Lucky for you (and the list), I can laugh at myself, because I can seem comical at times. But in all seriousness, just remeber to hold us all to the same standard. And we are all responsible for what we say and how we say it, and I'll never claim to be better than the worst of the list. If anything, I'm the one who draws them out from time to time, because I'm the one who occassionally gets sick of the rheotic so I'll challenge them. And an annoying thread results, as I'm sure many found it to be. Otherwise, your statements are noted to be a fairly accurate portral of myself. And I'm sure my over-use of underline emphasis won't be the only thing that offends many sometime in a future thread as well. ;-> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Mauritz Date: 05-5-29 23:23 To: CentOS mailing list Subj: Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make) Bryan J. Smith wrote: >From: Dag Wieers > > >>Bryan, stop generalising and dramatising. >> >> > >What dramatising? At some point, several people decide that anything they dislike was said by me. >Several other people said far more negative comments about CIPE than myself > > How about just giving it a rest? Your comments are often abrasive. Fortunately, there is also some good information sprinkled in there for people who can overlook the attitiude (or challenged social skills). Finding some happy medium where you express your opinion without insulting the people you're trying to "help" would be a good thing. You do get bonus points for the profuse usage of underlining in your posts though.... Can't we all just get along???? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

OSCAR for Centos vote
by Morten Kjeldgaard 30 May '05

30 May '05

Those of you who would like to see Centos on the supported-list for the clustering software OSCAR, head over to http://oscar.openclustergroup.org/register and cast your vote! Cheers, Morten -- Morten Kjeldgaard, Asc. professor, Ph.D. Department of Molecular Biology, Aarhus University Gustav Wieds Vej 10 C, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Lab +45 89425026 * Mobile +45 51860147 * Fax +45 86123178 Home +45 86188180 * ICQ 27224900 * http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok

4 4

Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- the _real_ history of Red Hat Linux support
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> > Here's a classic example: somewhere in the updates of RH 7.2, > the apache DSO module for mod_perl was finally compiled with > the correct options and became usable as shipped so people > running web sites with it no longer had to recompile apache > with mod_perl included statically. This was also supplied > in the 7.3 release. Unfortunately it broke again when RH 8.0 > moved to apache 2.0 but that's beside the point - or perhaps > it was the beginning of the new era. Yes, it's a ".0". We've been through this. At this point, I could care less what you think of the 2-2-2, 6-6-6 model. I _never_ said it's the "best." I just said that many of us believe it's the best we know of, and several vendors agree. > What, in fedora, is ever going to be equivalent of that > RH 7.2 -> RH 7.3 transition where features weren't exactly > frozen but there was a focus on getting existing things > right without introducing new problems. First off, I've been very critical of Red Hat's decision to drop revisions as of RHL8.0->9. But, Fedora Core 1 was pretty much the ".2" from Red Hat Linux 9, the ".1" from Red Hat Linux 8.0, the ".0" There were _some_ "sanity checks" in Fedora Core 1, but it was pretty much a "drop in" for Red Hat Linux 9. That's why I call them in my configuration management system: CL3.0: Red Hat Linux 8.0 CL3.1: Red Hat Linux 9 CL3.2: Fedora Core 1 Then Red Hat changed things with CL4.0, Fedora Core 2. But then they matured in CL4.1, Fedora Core 3. Now I wish Red Hat would have used a revision to warn us that Fedora Core 2 was a ".0" -- but it was well known that they were switching the kernel, among other things common to ".0" (like SELinux, udev -- although not totally until FC3, etc...). The reality here is that Red Hat _must_ continue to keep something aligned with the 2-2-2, 6-6-6 model in Fedora Core's development. So far, they have pretty much done this. Fedora Development-Test-Core replaces Red Hat Rawhide-Beta-Linux. Fedora Core _continues_ to hit a 6 month release schedule, just like Red Hat Linux before it (with exception of the "switchover" from Red Hat Linux 10 to Fedora Core 1 -- which added 2 months). There was basically a "maturity" in Fedora Core 1 beyond Red Hat Linux 9, which several things fixed in Fedora Core 1 also being applied in RHEL 3 updates. Fedora Core 4 hasn't been released yet, but it looks to be a CL5.0, which several changes (e.g., GCC 4.0). I wish Red Hat would stick with GCC 3.4 for one more release, and making it a CL4.2, and then change GCC in Fedora Core 5 (which would be CL5.0). But the quality of Fedora Core is reduced, it _will_ affect RHEL. Red Hat knows this, although I think the lack of revisions starting with Red Hat Linux 9 is starting to cause some concern. I'm one of the people that has been vocal on this. So don't you assume for a moment that I am not critical of Red Hat. In fact, I'm using Novell 9-10 / SuSE 9-10.x as an example that there is _no_reason_ Red Hat shouldn't be using revisions on Fedora Core. > No one here is interested in SLA's, or we wouldn't be having this > discussion on the mail list of a distribution that doesn't offer them. But the discussion is _why_ CentOS doesn't have this or that. This is what I mean by "ignorance" -- people don't stop to realize that it's based on RHEL, several maintainers have stated it will continue to be based on RHEL, and RHEL is SLA-focused, completely. Because Red Hat _does_ take owernship of anything it ships with it. > We just want a product that mostly works and isn't too far behind > the developers. Then if you're talking anything Red Hat developed, then you want Fedora Core. What I designate as CL4.1, Fedora Core 3, is _very_ _stable_ IMHO. Of course CL4.0, Fedora Core 2, was not, and I avoided it. And yes, I sure wish Red Hat would re-introduce versioning in the Fedora Core releases, after that stopped with Red Hat Linux 9. > Come on - I would have guessed that you still had some RH 7.3 boxes > in production too. Or do you only work with companies that will > pay for vendor support on everything? First off, Red Hat Linux 7.3 is _still_ supported by Fedora Legacy. But that's not the point here. The point is _please_ show me any release that Red Hat supported for 4 years other than Red Hat Linux 6.2 and Red Hat Linux 7.3? Pretty much Red Hat's unofficial history has been "support the last .2 release for 2 years, drop most of the .0/.1 releases." Red Hat's unofficial policy has _never_ been to support Red Hat Linux releases a long time. When Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out, and Red Hat Linux 6.2 dropped, Red Hat was also going to drop Red Hat Linux 7, 7.1 and was considering 7.2. All of the sudden, people bitched and moaned. Why? Because a lot of companies had standardized on Red Hat Linux 6.2 nad Red Hat Linux 7.1. And that's when this whole "myth" of Red Hat supposedly supporting .0/.1 releases for 2+ years began, let alone .2 releases for seemingly forever. The reality is that people had sold companies on the fact that Red Hat was Microsoft, and 5+ years support was going to be maintained so they could get Linux in companies. That was _never_ true. So when bosses started questioning why, the buck was passed onto Red Hat. In fact, Red Hat _rarely_ did it more than 2 years for a ".2" release. E.g., the second Red Hat Linux 7 came out, Red Hat dropped 5.2 -- and they had dropped 5.0 and 5.1 well before that (by Red Hat Linux 6.1). At various points of Red Hat Linux 7.x releases, they started dropping Red Hat Linux 6.x releases. But by the time Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out, Red Hat Linux 6.2 and 7.1 were so widely adopted, people didn't want to budge. The old, unwritten rule of upgrade to the last .2/.3, and the previous version's .2/.3, was no longer being accepted by users when Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out. They expected Red Hat to support there distros longer -- a total _waste_ at bugfixes for 7 simultaneous revisions. Which is why the new 1 year support policy was announced -- over 18 months _before_ the Fedora Project was announced. Now Red Hat continued to support Red Hat Linux 7.3, because it was the "last .3," but they wanted a blanket policy of "don't expect us to support it more than one year." That's always been their "underpromise, overdeliver." They just wanted people to stop expecting them to do things they _never_ did. I still can't believe people still proliferate things they _never_did_ do before they introduced Red Hat Linux 8.0. Companies that want a 5+ year supported distro need to pay for RHEL. And those same consumers were the ones already complaining that Red Hat Linux was "too experimental." Hence the SLA ownership. Now, after all this, am I just an asshole? Or am I merely trying to explain the realities of Red Hat's _real_ history? People who believed that Red Hat would support .2/.3 releases more than 2 years, or every little .0/.1 release more than 1 year were lying to themselves. Red Hat never ran into that _until_ they tried to introduce Red Hat Linux 8.0 and drop support for at least 6.2, 7 and 7.1, as well as 7.2 now that 7.3 had been out. Not even SuSE promised to support their releases more than 2 years, and have typically fallen short. And only the Debian project seems to have a history of support on-par with Red Hat (but they also aren't as adopting as Red Hat simultaneously either). So, when is this going to end? When I've decided to live in this "When Red Hat was 'good'" fantasy that many others seem to live in? -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss