Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

1 participants
34730 discussions

Betr.: [CentOS] Centos and SAMBA
by Thom van der Boon 25 May '05

25 May '05

Hi, I've setup a SAMBA PDC on Centos 4 last weekend and migrated my NT4 PDC (Users, Groups, etc) to the new Centos Server in a matter of a couple of hours. I've used the scripts and howto from: http://samba.idealx.org/smbldap-howto.en.html#htoc89 Thom van der Boon E-Mail: Thom.van.der.Boon(a)vdb.nl ===== Thom.H. van der Boon b.v. Havens 563 Jan Evertsenweg 2-4 NL-3115 JA Schiedam Tel.: +31 (0)10 4272727 Fax: +31 (0)10 4736620 E-Mail: info(a)vdb.nl Home Page: http://www.vdb.nl/ >>> rgm(a)htt-consult.com 25.05.2005 20:03:41 >>> Is anyone here doing real use of SAMBA as an NT domain controller? I have been attempting to follow: http://web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap/ Which is set up to work with Fedora core 4 (how is this equiv to centos 4?) It looks like I am rather far along. Hit my first obvious problem with the IMC populate script. It would be nice to have a centos version of all this.... _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: Centos and SAMBA
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 25 May '05

25 May '05

From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm(a)htt-consult.com> > I meant what is Centos equiv to in terms of Fedora. > As the scripts I am using are set up for core 4. Fedora Core 4 isn't even out yet. Test 3 just hit the other week. I've been calling it the first version (.0) of a new EL5 series (CL5.0) because it switches to GCC 4.0. I haven't looked at it deep enough to see if other things have changed, but it's safe to say at this point, with RHEL4 out, Red Hat is looking to "shake things up" so don't expect FC4 to have the same compatibility as FC2-FC3-RHEL4. [ BTW, I caught a typo in my EL0-EL4 reference I posted before. Both EL3 and EL4 use GLibC 2.3, as does this new EL5. ] -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Centos and SAMBA
by Robert Moskowitz 25 May '05

25 May '05

Is anyone here doing real use of SAMBA as an NT domain controller? I have been attempting to follow: http://web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap/ Which is set up to work with Fedora core 4 (how is this equiv to centos 4?) It looks like I am rather far along. Hit my first obvious problem with the IMC populate script. It would be nice to have a centos version of all this....

2 2

Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 25 May '05

25 May '05

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> > I'm still wondering about that... If anyone except Linus himself > even suggested that changing kernel interfaces in a way that would > break device drivers was a good thing, I can't imagine the reaction. > I could see that the changes through 2.4 were improving things, but > is there anything that is measurably better in 2.6 (at least compared > to the RH-patched 2.4)? I've been too busy trying to make some > firewire drives work as well as they did on FC1 to notice any other > changes. Agreed. But even Red Hat stands on the shoulders of Linus and the kernel developers. No matter how many people Red Hat puts on the kernel, there are still things outside of Red Hat's control. If you don't like what does or doesn't go into RHEL/CentOS, then you need to get involved with Fedora Core and make a case of what should. And one way to do that is to donate time. Because if it's not proven in Fedora Core to Red Hat's tastes, it doesn't go into RHEL/CentOS. So the most effective way you can influence RHEL, and therefore CentOS, is to get involved with Fedora Core. Red Hat is _not_ going to "force" something that it can't get to work with Fedora Core into RHEL arbitrarily. So if you don't see something in RHEL/CentOS as standard, you need to see why it didn't make it into Fedora Core. Once again, I will remind people that several people here _are_ indeed complaining about what doesn't come with RHEL, and not aware that it _does_: A) Not work in Fedora Core, and failure after failure keeps it out B) And is, subsequently, not going into RHEL where SLAs are involved C) Does _not_ come with pretty much _all_ other, similar distros Red Hat Enterprise Linux, like SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, are _not_ about features. Both 18 month releases are subsets of their 6 month revisions (even locales not supported in SLA are often removed). You are not paying for R&D and inclusion in the "Enterprise" flavor (although the funds _do_ pay for extensive GPL development, R&D and other integration attempts in Fedora Core and SuSE Linux). > Or with the logic of asking customers to pay extra to get something with > features removed... Again, the people who actually _pay_ for RHEL/SLES are _not_ paying for features. ;-> You are complaining about CentOS not coming with things standard, and then assinging blame for that to Red Hat, because you believe they are supposedly paid and should have more features. I can only label this as "ignorance" of how RHEL (as well as SLES) is developed, because anyone can go out to Bugzilla and see the detail of why something is not included. If you want the most features, then Fedora Core + { FE+Lorg, DAG, etc...} is your baby, maybe CentOS + additives if you don't mind waiting a year later. I think it's great that CentOS is trying to be the best of both worlds: SLA- quality with added features. But it really is "demonizing" when all I see is people making complaint after complaint about RHEL not having something when many, many, _many_ Fedora Development manhours were made trying to get exactly what you wanted working. At some point Red Hat has to say "this doesn't work, even if it works in 2-3 months, it still won't have time to 'bake' in usage, so we're dropping it from consideration for this version of RHEL." > I haven't seen anyone demonizing RedHat here. I see some people > reporting painful experiences, But people are going beyond reporting painful experiences. They are making conclusions and get "upset" when I give the technical details of why something wasn't included. If you care enough to want something I assume people are open enough to understand why it wasn't included. Microsoft is the company that doesn't do something unless their is at least 250,000 users. Red Hat, SuSE and others often try to do everything they can, even for maybe only 1,000 users, in their 6 month revisions. But at some point, if something really doesn't work, has security issues and just isn't something they want to stake their time and money on in a SLA (which can get _very_expensive_ for software company), they have to drop it. After all, after a thousand man-hours of attempted integration for even their Fedora Core release, are they really going to sign themselves up for yet another thousand-plus hours and nagging re-fix after re-fix when maybe only a couple hundred licenses of RHEL are actually going to hold them to it? Just remember what CentOS is based on, and how much work not only goes into that, but into making sure the distro works as advertised because SLAs are involved and that can get really costly for Red Hat if it ships something that is not well tested. Especially if only a few companies want it. > but I don't think anyone expects perfection and the best thing is to > learn from them. If people here should understand one thing from the Windows world, it is that features and quality can be mutually exclusive -- especially the farther you move away from the economies of scale. I just find it humorous that several people who use CentOS, a free redistribution of RHEL (where Red Hat doesn't see a dime), are not complaining about Linus & co. for the kernel, not complaining about the CIPE team and their lack of movement on kernel 2.6, not volunteering to even look at the Bugzilla reports to find out what issues were blantantly repeatable, let alone other distros that have the same issues ... But blaming solely Red Hat for this issue (and this is just one example). But I expect that because some people just blame Microsoft for things outside of their control too. Sometimes the only person to blame is the lack of interest by anyone. If that isn't ignorance, I don't know what is. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

OSS install problem
by Adrian Coman 25 May '05

25 May '05

Hi, I want to install the commercial version of OSS and test if Skype works better with it. The problem is that after I compile 2.6.9-5.0.5.EL without sound support and then install oss3992d-linux-x86-v26-regparm and make it start at boot, at boot time OSS fails because it can not find /dev/dsp /dev/mixer and some other /dev sound devices. Indeed they do not exist. What do I need to do? Did I do something wrong or I have to manually add the /dev sound devices? Thanks, Adrian

2 3

CORRECTION: I must modify/clarify my statement about .0 releases ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 25 May '05

25 May '05

In looking through Red Hat's FTP site, I can find no such statement with regards to "do not use on production servers" in any README or Release Notes of Hurricane, Hedwig, Guinness or Psyche (Red Hat Linux 5.0, 6.0, 7 and 8.0, respectively). What I have found in my archives is a cutting from the official Red Hat Network (RHN) announcement of Psyche (8.0) that says two things: 1) It is an "early adopter" release, and 2) Do not upgrade "production systems" from Red Hat Linux 7.3 I cannot find the full version of it on-line. I know I do have an archived copy of at least the full Guinness and Psyche release announcements from the RHN and will search for them in my archives tonight. I kept _all_ official RHN messages, although I fear they are in an archive at a former employer that I do not have a copy of. It very much bothers me that I cannot find the same in at least the "Release Notes" of Guinesse or Psyche because I could have swore I saw them on CD #1 in one of my sets (and not a Rawhide or Beta release). If anyone has the original Guinness or Psyche announcements from their RHN subscriptions, please send them to me off-line. I'd like to confirm I'm not going senile after all, although some would love to have proof of that. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.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> 25 May '05

25 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > We would not build and distribute either of these things if they were > not released via the GPL. The RPMS/SRPMS that we are distributing are > indeed GPL. We firmly agree with RedHat on this issue (that only GPL > things should be distributed). The problem is that many distros are statically building MySQL 4 with some non-GPL components. Some of the terms/definitions on static v. dynamic building changed from MySQL 3 to MySQL 4. I'll look into some of the latest Fedora Development and see if they are approaching such now. But one thing Red Hat seems to be doing is avoiding a lot of the MySQL 4 developments because of MySQL AB's changes. > CentOS will also not include in our repos anything that is not allowed > to be re-distributed due to patents or US DMCA. And I've noted that. I said that's why I don't use "pure" Fedora (Core, Extras) or Debian-bases (both RHEL and CentOS fall into that as well), and avoid both Livna.ORG and DAG in a commercial environment. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Mini-centOS
by kenkensmile＠netscape.net 25 May '05

25 May '05

I am using centOS for my server and centOS is extremely stable. I almost love centOS more than my wife. However, centOS is a bit heavy to run on my notebook (P III 1G, 256MB RAM). I need gnome, firefox, openoffice, realplayer, gaim, acrobat and thunderbird on my notebook, but if I install all of them (plus base-system), my notebook becomes very slow. I wish I could have a lighter version of centOS for notebooks and old desktops. Is there any project that I could have a mini-centOS in the future??? Joe __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

8 8

Re: [CentOS] Custom kernel needed for ndiswrapper? (for Linksys WPC54G wireless pcmcia)
by Lee Parmeter 25 May '05

25 May '05

Michael: I can recommend the Netgear WG511. This one has a prism chipset; ndiswrapper is NOT required! Outpost.com sells the WG511 so you can probably find it at Fry's as well for around $45. Note: I do not recommend the WG511T which is a different chipset!. --- Michael <addymin(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > Greetings: > > I'm just installed Centos-4 on an IBM T-21 laptop. So > far so good. Now > I'd like to pop in a wireless lan adapter. I'm looking > at a buying a > Linksys WPC54G adapter (although I haven't done so yet). > > After doing some searching, it looks like the best way to > get this card > working is via ndiswrapper > [http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net] and then > to use Windoze drivers. > > So I downloaded ndiswrapper and during the install, I > received a warning > message referring to "4K Stacks" and that NOT disabling > 4k stacks can > cause some drivers to crash. The docs went on to suggest > I recompile the > kernel to disable CONFIG_4KSTACKS. > > Question: For really like to stick to the stock CentOS-4 > kernel and not > create/use a custom one. Has anyone had a problem using > the Linksys > WPC54G Cardbus adapter + Centos-4 and NOT had to use a > custom kernel? > > For that matter, since I haven't purchased the card yet, > can I get a > recommendation or two about a workable wlan cardbus (g) > adapter that > could most likely be found at Best Buy/CompUSA/Fry's ? > I'd like to be > able to easily return the card if things don't work... > > I did some searching a decent card and it seems that a > number of good > wlan chipsets are discontinued or hard to find, so I'm > slightly confused > as to what to get. > > Thank you. > Michael Chinn > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Lee Parmeter Emperor, linXos - The Flying Penguin http://www.linXos.com Linux Registered User #337161 'It's free. It works. Duh.'" - Eric Harrison The United States is NOT a democracy, it was founded as a Republic! God is not a republican or a democrat nor is His government a democracy! - Lee Parmeter __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: [CentOS] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 25 May '05

25 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC > has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we > have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year). Oh, sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or .1 Fedora Core releases that a new version of RHEL/CentOS is based on. E.g., FC2 came out in May 2004, FC3 in November 2004. RHEL/CentOS 4 didn't follow until 2005. > We even have some features (mysql compiled postfix, NX/freeNX, > and soon MySQL-Administrator / MySQL-Query Builder) that are not > yet part of FC or FC Extras at all. Actually, some of this stuff will _never_ be included in FC/RHEL because of licensing issues with the fact that MySQL is GPL. This is well documented in a lot of places. Red Hat is the only distributor (although I haven't checked Debian) fully honoring the terms MySQL AB sets on its GPL releases of MySQL 4, which include not building and redistributing certain items. It's one of those things that Red Hat also gets chastized on, and one of the reasons I don't use DAG (or Livna.ORG) at businesses. Anything that has GPL licensing/mixing issues, "only for non-profit use" or otherwise is "questionable" use of patents is the reason why I stick with "pure" Fedora Core+Extras or Debian. -- 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