Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

5 participants
34752 discussions

Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Collins Richey <crichey(a)gmail.com> > I roll my eyes when I hear how good and great and all-virtuous > RedHat is, On GPL. That's all. On GPL. IBM is praised while HP, Red Hat and Sun are demonized. Companies have their agendas, and we need to be _cautious_. But one thing remains: Stallman's Moral Delima Which means that the only thing that matters in the end is GPL. As long as Red Hat is a 100% GPL company, nothing else matters. Same deal with IBM. If they go 100% GPL, I'll love them too. Heck, I'd just be happy if they'd drop the CPL and IPL on their donations. They virtually have no GPL, at least Sun can claim some major ones. > and I roll my eyes when I hear some of the complaints about > RedHat. As is always (at least since the time of ancient Greece) the > case, somewhere in the middle lies truth. I'm just thankful that > CentOS makes the RedHat software with all its benefits AND warts > available to a wider audience. Agreed. Did I ever disagree with that? > I'm essentially a believer in FOSS. I prefer to use the term Freedomware, which doesn't need a definition to those not familiar. ;-> > I would never purchase a shrink-wrapped RedHat were it still available, > nor do I have any need for an SLA, As is your choice. No one at Red Hat is forcing you to do so. Tiemann basically said in not so few words that they don't want you as a consumer, only possibly a user of Fedora Core if you wish. > but I'm very thankful that RedHat fully subscribes to the GPL and makes its > SRPM's available. Which is why, taking everything else away because it's "subjective" to many people from different views, is why Red Hat is a "friend" and not so much of a "partner." > As a wiser person than I said in another post, it doesn't help much to > tell someone who is used to having a particular feature that he can't > have that any more and why. Of course it does. If they would have looked at early Fedora Core 2 development, they would have known what to expect. Then they would have known what to tell their clients, and how to come up with a solution that minimizes risk to existing operations. Blaming Red Hat for something outside their control does nothing. Or should I put it this way, if you _complain_ about something, there is nothing wrong with someone else explaining why you shouldn't. You can't complain about me trying to explain things any more than someone who is just complaining in the first place. > Even less does it help to tell that person that he is an ignorant fool I reserved the word "ignorant" until it got to the point that they just didn't care why, how or how to accommodate such very likely and similar changes in the future. At some point, if you choose to be ignorant, you are only hurting yourself. > and better off without that feature. I _never_ said he was "better off without that feature." I *NEVER* SAID THAT! At least 2 _other_ people did, as well as the Red Hat rationales. I never said either way whether CIPE was good or bad -- I _purposely_avoided_ doing so! This is what I really _hate_ about these lists. All of the sudden, _anything_ negative said by _anyone_ in a thread is attributed only to me -- and I'm the focal point for 100% of what people don't like. REGARDLESS IF I SAID IT OR NOT! 100% GETS PUT ON MY NAME! At this point, you are not bothering to accurate listen to what I actually said. There is a "method to my madness" and I'm pretty darn ethical in my approach. And that includes _reserving_opinion_ of whether or not something should or should not be included. And just trying to understand why decision are made by others. It's funny, people say I don't try to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I'm quite the opposite. Whether it's a client, vendor or individual, I step into their shoes. In fact, one of the reasons I try to explain things is so people don't fall into the same assumptions again. Because assumptions are the biggest problems of all. And I really think some people would rather hate than to stop and be tolerant of people and projects who typically don't have the same focus as they. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: centos] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: R P Herrold <herrold(a)owlriver.com> > Bryan - Please don't overstate this and make a problem where > none exists. There is an infinity of choices of which you > list three ... > Nor does one _have_ to 'get involved' with either the > RH-Fedora or Centos project to do effective distribution > building, or add-on packaging. There are independent > packagers who have packaged for years and years outside of > RH's Fedora and its required representations and paperwork to > be a committer, outside of Centos. Tummy, Matthias (pre-his > move to RH Fedora Extras), Dag, again my longstanding archive. > RPMForge offers a home. You too my statement out of context. I was talking about how to affect CentOS _directly_! I didn't say those were the only ways to help Linux in general. Because, after all, the people I have a problem with aren't complaining about what is or isn't available in the Linux world. They are complaining why CentOS doesn't have this, and typically blaming Red Hat. So given the criteria of CentOS, my 3 major options are pretty much it. 1. Get involved with Fedora, so things change early 2. Get involved with CentOS, to help out the additional projects 3. Or just complain and nothing changes RHEL is pretty much about what we make in Fedora. CentOS is pretty much what we add around RHEL. Complaints don't do anything, they are generally destructive. And they are even more so a "slap in the face" to those who actually take the time to be constructive and help out these projects. If you don't like Red Hat, tell them so in Bugzilla! They want to _know_ what poeple are having issues with -- they _will_ respond and try to please. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Collins Richey <crichey(a)gmail.com> > It's just too bad that there is really nothing on offer for these > former customers. Please don't suggest Fedora. The customers who are > complaining the loudest are not interested in experimental versions. To me, the quality of Fedora Core is no better or no less than Red Hat Linux before it. One thing I _do_ find is that people are making claims on Red Hat Linux that were _never_ true. SLAs were _never_ offered, except on Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E". Support was virtually never offered as standard beyond installation. Yes, there were and still are professional services, but they are typically more for development anyway (which includes Fedora). Updates were typically cut off for all releases except the last .2 once the next series came out. This all changed in the version 7 series, because companies and users started demanding it. But after the version 7 series, 2 years before Fedora, Red Hat switched back to no more updates beyond one year. So as far as "abadonment," I never saw anything Red Hat did above and beyond as unofficial charity. And I rather tire of claims that Red Hat did this or did that on Red Hat Linux when they _never_ did. Which is why I scratch my head. Especially when you compare what people want and the fact that there's virtually no other company that offers it. Even SuSE doesn't make it's 2 year guarantees, and they are yanking support on SuSE Linux 7. It's almost like there is this Red Hat Linux product that existed like a myth, a word-of-mouth fairy tale. And that's what just makes me roll my eyes. At the same time, people still complain about the GLibC 2.0 change, the GCC 2.96/3.0 change, the NPTL change, etc... It's like even the critics sometimes contradict themselves -- much like I also see done with Microsoft as well. It's not that Red Hat doesn't have its issues or focus. It's just that people need to focus on those details that are actual issues, and not invent things. Like this Red Hat Linux product I never knew existed. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

Re: [CentOS] logrotate
by William Warren 29 May '05

29 May '05

Where are currently used .conf files kept? the /etc/logrotate.conf file does not contain any useful information. This is Centos 4 BTW. replies-lists-centos(a)listmail.innovate.net wrote: > between the man page for logrotate, the /etc/logrotate.conf file and > some of the files in the logrotate.d directory you should be able to > see all the bits necessary to accomplish what you're after. > > the /etc/logrotate.d/exim file gives you an example of wildcarding > the files that are included. > > by default, gzip deletes the file when compression is complete, so > you don't have a file delete issue. > > you'll probably need to use the "force" option during setup and > testing. > > > ------------ Original Message ------------ > >>Date: Sunday, May 29, 2005 10:06:20 AM -0400 >>From: William Warren <hescominsoon(a)emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> >>To: CentOS mailing list <centos(a)centos.org> >>Subject: [CentOS] logrotate >> >>I am googgling right now but am unable to find a simpler >>description of how to get logrotate to do what i want it to do. >> >>I have a cs 1.6 server that generates quite a bit of logs. That >>log generation is going to increase significantly with one of my >>plugins i am going to be installing(logD and the impressive >>plugin). I want to tell logrotate to daily rotate all the logs >>inside my /servers/hlds/cstrike/logs folder. A new log is >>generated every map change and when any on-the-fly configuration is >>changed. Over the past 5 days there are 350 logfiles. How can i >>tel logrotate to rotate all of the individual logs in the folder, >>when rotating to compress them, store the compressed files in the >>same directory..delete the uncompressed logs..and not to delete any >>old logs for 6 months? >> >> >>-- >>Computer House Calls, Networks, Security, Web Design: >>http://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com >>What businesses are in Brunswick, Maryland? Check Brunswick First! >>http://www.checkbrunswickfirst.com >>My "Foundation" verse: >>Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and >>every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt >>condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and >>their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. >> >>-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" >>CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) >> >>Linux user #322099 >>Machines: >>206822 >>256638 >>276825 >>http://counter.li.org/ >>_______________________________________________ >>CentOS mailing list >>CentOS(a)centos.org >>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > ---------- End Original Message ---------- > > -- Computer House Calls, Networks, Security, Web Design: http://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com What businesses are in Brunswick, Maryland? Check Brunswick First! http://www.checkbrunswickfirst.com My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/

2 2

logrotate
by William Warren 29 May '05

29 May '05

I am googgling right now but am unable to find a simpler description of how to get logrotate to do what i want it to do. I have a cs 1.6 server that generates quite a bit of logs. That log generation is going to increase significantly with one of my plugins i am going to be installing(logD and the impressive plugin). I want to tell logrotate to daily rotate all the logs inside my /servers/hlds/cstrike/logs folder. A new log is generated every map change and when any on-the-fly configuration is changed. Over the past 5 days there are 350 logfiles. How can i tel logrotate to rotate all of the individual logs in the folder, when rotating to compress them, store the compressed files in the same directory..delete the uncompressed logs..and not to delete any old logs for 6 months? -- Computer House Calls, Networks, Security, Web Design: http://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com What businesses are in Brunswick, Maryland? Check Brunswick First! http://www.checkbrunswickfirst.com My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Dag Wieers <dag(a)wieers.com> > I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some, > someone can only be with or against Red Hat. Yes, that was my major complaint too. > I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and > are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure > even Red Hat employees (like with any other distributor) would recognize > this. Agreed. If you attempt to please all people, you will fail utterly. Red Hat has its focus, pretty much all SLA-related on RHEL. Some people may demonize it as "that's where the money is" but in reality, it's because it's designed for paying customers who pay for those SLAs. At the same time, we still have Fedora Core. While people will debate over the merits of the greater Fedora Project in general, Fedora Core and RHEL are designed for two completely different sets of users. Just like RHEL was once it came out alongside RHL. Are there places in-between? Hell yes! And I like what I see in the CentOS project, where Red Hat has not addressed. But Red Hat already has 2 levels of focus, and I don't see them changing it. It seems to work, and work well for them. Novell-SuSE seems to be similar. But in the end, this is the reality that some people don't wake up to. They've got 3 choices: 1. Get involved with Fedora Core, which affects RHEL 2. Get involved with CentOS, which affects add-ons for their rebuild 3. Complaint, and nothing will change at all ;-> In reality, I typically ignore #3. The problem is when people do #3 and they just don't care to understand anything technical with FC-RHEL development and focus, and just get things dead wrong. Especially things that have redistribution and/or licensing issues, or the fact that sooner or later, newer versions have to be adopted. In fact, many people seem to be "wishy washy" on whether Red Hat should "hold back/backport" or "adopt newer" releases. The reality is that Red Hat doesn't ship anything in RHEL that hasn't been through Fedora Core prior (with rare exception, like MySQL 4 in RHEL4 that wasn't in FC2/FC3 -- kinda shocked even me). > But just pointing things out does not put you on one or the other side, > I may hope. Yes and no. No in the fact that your posts have made me aware of some considerations I never looked at before. That is a good thing. But yes, when people don't stop to understand the technical and licensing issues, let alone what RHEL's purpose is -- things that will _never_ change -- it's just bitching. It's one thing to complain in the hope of change, and even better to get involved. But bitching is just that -- the complaint that people are upset that CentOS doesn't do something out-of-the-box. And that means they blame Red Hat -- no matter where the actual blame _may_ fall. Worse yet, I've just sat back and actually let others attempt to explain how Red Hat wasn't involved in a decision (other projects did, which Red Hat merely simply complied with), and these "bitchers" will simply continue, and just make more comments that just show they have no interest in anything other than "bitching." It's beyond not being constructive, it's just flat out ignorance. That's what really gets to me. I can accept people aren't happy and wish for things. But when they want to blame Red Hat when there's nothing Red Hat can do about them, or they would radically change RHEL's focus to something that breaks the entire SLA model, then I just have to recognize that some people just won't see anything from another viewpoint. > I always have a sour taste in my mouth if you have to pick sides, because > that kills healthy rationalizing/critizing and often this has a hidden > agenda attached to it. Agreed. The problem is that many people who are "explaining" Red Hat are considered a "side" in the first place. I have been labeled a "Red HAt apologist" just for merely explaining many things that people will not believe is anything but a "Fedora Core / Red Hat-only bug." It doesn't matter how you explain it, there is always an avenue for them to assign blame to Red Hat -- and no one else. Ironically, if you have a SLA with Red Hat, they do take ownership of everything. Which is why RHEL is designed the way it is, to absolutely minimize anything that is not well package and integration tested. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Centos 4 on a portable hard drive..help!!
by Hugh Tollan 29 May '05

29 May '05

G'day one and all, I would like to install Centos 4 on a freecom classic hard drive (usb) ..the box I want to use can boot from removable devices. Any ideas how to go about installing onto the portable drive? If not can anyone point me in the right direction? I have tried to google but have not come up with much info....or info that I understand anyway!!!!! As usual, many thanks in advance. _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- GPL, LGPL, kernel and user ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > Sorry ... I was talking about the SRPM from SL ... it also build the > kernel modules ... Oh, right, sorry -- understand what you mean now. BTW, one of the worst assumptions I've seen is that because a distro or project ships something, its users believe it was done legally or with permission. I've seen many cases where things were never allowed to be redistributed, and they are no longer because the distro or project finally received a cease-and-desist letter. Not good if you're working in a company where people have installed it. Which is why I appreciate projects like Debian, Fedora, CentOS, etc... -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org>" <thebs413(a)earthlink.net> > Which is why I scratch my head. Especially when you compare what > people want and the fact that there's virtually no other company that > offers it. Even SuSE doesn't make it's 2 year guarantees, and they > are yanking support on SuSE Linux 7. Sorry, that last part should read "yanking support early on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 7." Underpromise, overdeliver, that's always been the Red Hat way. Unfortunately, people seem to have taken their occassional past overdeliveries as policy. Especially since they were largely just short-lived, and never promised. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS and SL, together?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Lamar Owen <lowen(a)pari.edu> > Referencing SL3 and CentOS 3 (as I haven't run SL4 as yet) there were some > scientific applications and some Java stuff, eclipse for one, You do understand the redistribution issues with Java, correct? It's a Sun problem (a typical thorn for Red Hat in general), not a Red Hat one. > part of cluster suite for another, included. > Lessee, > https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/30x/features/ is the reference. > GFS, Eclipse, Cluster Suite, OpenAFS, ksh93, a set of 'tweak' RPMs (my > favorite being the serial console tweak RPM). Red Hat is pushing to get GFS in the stock kernel. They bought out Sistina for a reason, to keep it GPL. These things don't happen overnight. ;-> GFS was introduced as an add-on, and probably will until it is in the stock kernel -- Red Hat is trying to avoid heavily patching the kernel nowdays (for various reasons). As far as OpenAFS, I assume you mean the server? Or you don't like Red Hat's included client in the kernel? As always, make a Bugzilla request if you want something. > For SL4, the doc is at > https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/4x/features/ and includes fewer > addons. OpenAFS is the biggest of these, I guess. And I too have deployed OpenAFS. The server is 100% userspace, so it shouldn't be too difficult to get it included, at least in Fedora Core (possibly the next RHEL5). > Once the cluster suite and eclipse are available they probably will be rolled in. Eclipse is now in Fedora Core 4. One thing to always remember that Eclipse's licensing is outside the control of Red Hat, and is IBM. It is also released under a non-GPL compatible license by IBM, and is similar in restriction to Sun/Mozilla licenses, so I'm sure Red Hat was hesitant to include it before. > The Fermi version of SL 3 had included a packaged JRE and was very attractive > for that, but later releases have not had that and rather have pointers to > download from sun. It is illegal to redistribute the JRE for Linux without a license. Again, see Sun for details. ;-> > Pine also is in the SL dists. Pico/Pine also changed licenses awhile back and is considered "non-free." Nano replaced Pico, can't remember what replaced Pine. Once again, I will remind people that an "enterprise/SLA" focused distro will rarely be focused on features. At the same time, it's clear that it requires many "enterprise" software packages built upon an "enterprise" distro -- which is not uncommon. Red Hat can't ship an "all-in-one" distro for enterprises -- and a SL solution is going to be on the other side of the spectrum from, say, a financial industry focused Linux. So Red Hat would rather ship a common base, supported by SLAs, and then sell add-ons with SLAs for a more specific configuration. If you want an industry-specific Linux, you're not going to find it from a generic distribution vendor. And you shouldn't wonder why they don't throw in things -- especially not things like Java which are _illegal_ to bundle freely. -- Bryan P.S. As always, maintain your own APT/YUM repository internally, and mix in any required RPMs. I virtually _never_ install from CD/DVD, almost always via NFS -- possibly with some post-install APT/YUM. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 3

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