Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

3 participants
34748 discussions

What I miss in yum.conf
by Petr Klíma 20 May '05

20 May '05

Is there an chance how to include an package from "checking" of repository? I can do exclude, but especialy from so big repositories as DAG I want include just a that few which are interesting for me. Is there any way how to do it? [dag] name=Dag RPMs for RHEL-3 exclude=mozilla* baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el3/en/$basearch/dag -- Petr Klíma JIHOMILK a.s. Rudolfovská 246/83 370 50 České Budějovice Czech Rpublic phone: +420 389 136 209 e-mail: petr.klima(a)jihomilk.cz

4 3

Timezone Configuration
by kracker 19 May '05

19 May '05

Greetings All, How to does one go about reconfiguring centos's time zone configuration (to the eastern time zone (us)), via the command line? I have tested other GNU/Linux distribution's documentation, tools, files and relevant details with centos and have thus far been unable to find a compatible solution. My apologies if my question is very simple, I have done a fair amount of searching on the subject but have yet to find the command or text file which to use to achieve my goal. Also, I am using Centos 4 (C4) Respectfully, //kracker Sole: Dumb This Down

4 6

OT mod_security
by Franki 19 May '05

19 May '05

Hi guys, I've planning out my upgrade to CentOS4 and one of my plans for security is to impliment the mod_security apache module to filter out unwanted malicious intent. Not having used it before, I wanted to see if anyone here has implimented it and did it block any legit traffic or cause resource traffic/serious slowdowns of their systems? I've asked on the forum about secure virtual hosting and have considered many options but what I have decided on is a combination of vsftp/TLS to chroot users and mod_security to reduce the risk of outside intrusion attempts via HTTP. Is mod_security available as a package on CentOS4/RHEL4 ? I found packages for 3 but thus far none for 4. many thanks rgds Franki

4 6

Re: [CentOS] RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

From: Martyn Drake <martyn(a)drake.org.uk> > When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable > impression. However, that's just my opinion. It's good enough that HP is losing lots of clients because HP (among other tier-1 OEMs short of IBM) is finding that Linux their support is sub-par. Even Dell and others are just farming support out to Red Hat. > Others wil no doubt have really benefitted from it. What I really > needed was the errata and updates rather than support, The Fedora Core and Legacy do a fine job for several years. Just not 5+ years like RHEL or SLES. Other than the Debian Project, I've yet to see another distro break 2 years of support. Red Hat used to support the last ".2" for a long time. Unfortunately, by RHL7, they got very popular. Companies where standardizing on ".1" and even, gasp, ".0" relesaes. At one point Red Hat was supporting Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7[.0], 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9 _simultaneously_. That was overkill and a waste. I like the current Core-Legacy strategy now. Basically the latest 2 versions are supported as "current," and the Legacy team supports the most popular of the old versions. Companies who want more than 1 year of guaranteed updates on any arbitrary version can now pay for it. > and an overall better overall lifecycle that RHEL promises and indeed, > delivers. I could have gone down the Fedora route, but wasn't too > thrilled with it's overall lifecycle. How was it any different than when Red Hat announced it would no longer support Red Hat Linux more than 1 year _well_before_ the Fedora Project was announced or Red Hat Linux became Fedora Core? I honestly don't blame Red Hat for not wanting to simultaneously support 6-7 revisions simultaneously. Dead beat companies who want to standardize on a release for 2+ years should pay for it. Those of us who either "keep current" _or_ use a very stable/popular release (e.g., Red Hat Linux 7.3, or Fedora Core 1) can stick with Fedora Legacy instead. > I'm a non-commercial user (but neither a charity or educational > establishment) and that $300 per year is a lot of money to pay for a > stable and constantly updated OS. You are paying for subscription, not a license. If you don't want the subscription, run a stable version of Fedora Core that will be supported by Fedora Legacy for a long time. That's what I do with my Fedora Core 1 systems. > You could argue I could use Debian or some other free distribution, Debian, like Fedora, is supported on contributors, in addition to the commercial companies that put paid development on it. Fedora Core is still primarily developed by Red Hat because Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability is based on it. As such, a lot of Fedora Legacy packages are released by people at Red Hat along side RHEL package releases (although they are often in "testing" because it's up to the community to support them). I have no problem with this sub-1 year "official" support model, and it was announced well before the "name change." Red Hat got tired of expecting people them to support their free product for 3+ years. > but having been a Red Hat Linux user for many years it's what I know > best and feel the most comfortable around. You're talking to someone who started on Yggdrasil and, later, Slackware, and has been installing Red Hat Linux on corporate networks for more than just web services since Red Hat Linux 4.2. I have installed both RHEL as well as RHL/FC at financial companies. I've put a lot of Fedora Core into pilot production, and then when SLAs were required, we switched to RHEL. FC also makes a great "next RHEL generation" evaluation platform, and thanx to Fedora Core 2/3 deployments, many of my clients were able to evaluate how RHEL 4 would operate well in advance. > Now I didn't actually mind PAYING for RHEL, of course not, but I just > find they need to find a sweet spot price for those that may not need > the install/configuration support (like me), Haven't you see the $99 Red Hat Professional Workstation / Red Hat Desktop at your local CompUSA? It's RHEL WS in a shrink wrap package. > or the SLAs, but want the lifecycle the product delivers and the stability > it offers. Is $340 per year worth it for that? Actually, subscriptions are just $179/year. I haven't checked to see if it's only $99 for people who buy the retail shrink-wrapped version at CompUSA or other superstores. > I was paying ï¿½65 a year for the RHN for the last available versions of > the Red Hat Linux and that suited me just fine. That price is now > ï¿½184, and includes features I don't actually need or want. Again, check out your local CompUSA and look for the shrink wrapped version of RHEL WS for $99. ;-> As Michael Tiemann said (and was mis-quoted), at the volume right now, it is cheaper to give away their time in developing Fedora Core and not charging for it than to make a boxed product like Red Hat Linux. The expectations of support at the volume they sell is just not worth their bother. It's cheaper to give away Fedora Core and support it for less than a year, even if they still put people on Fedora Legacy and release updates for longer than that based on popularity and testing support (which they leave to the community). And I don't blame them. > Of course CentOS has now came along, and that's meeting my needs just > fine. Hence why I'm more than happy to make the odd donation when I can. And that's great! But just don't feel the need to demonize Red Hat at the same time. > I'm not bashing Red Hat. Bashing Red Hat would be something along the > lines of "Red Hat sucks; they've done nothing for the community; > they're just another greedy organisation" which would be wrong on all > accounts. Red Hat is also a business and needs to be profitable like > any other business. I recognise that. I also recognise what they've > done for the community as well. They are a good company. Okay. But don't make statements like the one you did then. ;-> > I'm sorry to have come across 'bashing' Red Hat. Not my intention, > most definately. Understood. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [OT] FOSS or Freedomware? -- WAS: pronunciation/Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > MUCH more FOSS oriented I've been taking an informal survey on this for awhile now. I know the new, official acronym is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). But even before that acronym was popular, I had long argued that Stallman's insistence on calling it "Free Software" when that could be confused with "Freeware" or, worse yet, "Shareware" was a disseervice. I liken that problem to people who like to use the term "Hacker" in general, even though the original term was used to designate someone of creative or other technical skill. "Open Source" doesn't dictate that the source code is free of IP either. And the whole term "open" is overused, especially when people are thinking of "Open Systems" (at least one major Microsoft executive had an entire interview when he confused "Open Source" with "Open Systems") and people argue standards. Which is why I like the term, which I have been using for a long time, of "Freedomware." It conveys that it isn't free of cost, while conveying that it is freedom from many things in the way that at least Americans (if not many others) typically understand -- not always positive either. I actually have a slew of license categorizations on a 2D plot against source and standards: - Freedomware (open source, open standard) - Standardware (proprietary source, open standard) - Sourceware (open source, proprietary standard**) - Commerceware (proprietary source, proprietary standard) **NOTE: E.g., IP or other requirements. I like to differentiate between vendors who adhere to open standards but with proprietary source. E.g., I call the nVidia "nvidia" driver as "Standardware" because it is a standard GLX implementation. I also want to differentiate between "good" vendors who maintain proprietary standards over time, because they value their customers and their own property, and those who purposely don't even maintain internal, proprietary standards, and purposely change file formats regularly, and incompatibily. The former I call "Commerceware." The later is what I call intentional Hostageware: - Hostageware (unmaintainable source, unmaintainable standard) Any software can become Hostageware. If it is unmaintained, eccentric, etc..., that's a risk to the data contained in/produced by the software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Open Standard, or that the software will be a common standard. There are a lot of Open Source programs out there with eccentric formats. So any software is really about mitigating risk and not some philosophical non-sense. And I find that sells much better to clients than anything. And most seem to like the term Freedomware too. Because freedom can be both great, and a burden at the same time. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

> Ubuntu and Knoppix can say they use Debian sources ... SLAX can say it > uses Slackware sources. Those guys have trademarks too. Debian and Slackware don't sell "enterprise" products. And many such projects are non-profit or otherwise. Unless Debian plans to establish itself as a commercial player, they don't need to defend their trademark. In fact, the commercial entity behind Debian is not named Debian, but Progeny. Ian Murdock was smart in this regard. Red Hat was not. Before Red Hat changed their trademark rules and introduced Fedora(TM), Sun could _legally_ distribute anything it wanted and call it "Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux." Why? Because Sun had grounds to state that Red Hat had failed to enforce their trademark. Especially given the fact that Sun now owned Cobalt, and could show that history directly under their own ownership. That's the reality of US Trademark Law. And because German Trademark Law is even worse (Remember the KIllustrator issues? They weren't even brought to court by Adobe either -- but companies are allowed to sue on behalf of another company without being so empowered), SuSE used to do the same. However, it's becoming clear that Novell may be turning SuSE into a more "Fedora-like" trademark and has publicly made comments on possibly turning it into a non-product project too. The first 100% freely redistributable version of SuSE Linux was 9.2 -- available in full ISO format, and not just FTP without many things. The reality is that Red Hat needed 2 trademarks: One to defend, one to still allow free redistribution, hence Fedora Core. Most of the endeavors in the greater Fedora Project were already set 1-2 years before the name change. With the SuSE purchase, Novell now has 2 as well. The Novell Linux 10 and SuSE Linux 10.x releases will be interesting to watch. In fact, it's funny to see Red Hat and SuSE flip-flop back and forth, following each other's lead (e.g., SLES first, then RHEL, 18-month RHPW/RHD replaced 6-month RHL Prof. on the retail shelf, now 18-month NLD is replacing 6-month SL Prof., etc...). > If Toyota and Honda both got an engine for a car from the same place ... > Honda could certainly say: > Uses the same engine as the Toyota XXXX ... even if Toyota provided them > with the engine. However, Honda or Toyota could _not_ brand the car as the original company without a license. Furthermore, they cannot market the engine as that company, not without a license to do so. Lastly, Honda and Toyota would likely have already had to license the engine in the first place, and such rights to use of the trademark probably would have been included. Red Hat is the first and _only_ (and the last ;-) majority Linux distributor to allow anyone to use their trademarks without a license, and they have an entire history of profilerated forking without enforcement they now much fight retro- actively. That's the reality of the US trademark system and the burden they created for themselves. No one else will ever do the same. What Red Hat reguarly ran up against -- especially with Cobalt and Sun -- is that people assumed they were distributing Red Hat's product, unmodified. They were not and actually distributing a radically different version that was heavily modified. I even had this discussion with a guy who hates RPM and Red Hat, and once he finally realized that his _entire_ viewpoint was based on Cobalts, he _finally_ saw the whole reason for the trademark issues Red Hat now has. It was quite an epiphany. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

RE: [CentOS] web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap problems
by Marc Powell 19 May '05

19 May '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf Of Johnny Hughes > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:48 AM > To: CentOS ML > Subject: Re: [CentOS] web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap problems > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > I am perhaps going about this the hard way of getting SAMBA all running > on > > my Centos 4 install... > > > > These scripts are set up to work with Fedora Core 3 or K12LTSP 4.2 > > > > I got the install to work. It did not seem to hard. > > > > Then the docs tell me to install apt from Fedora project. Well I am > using > > yum so I ignore that. > > > > Next step is to run: > > > > perl -MCPAN -e -shell > > > > perl -MCPAN -e shell > > > (but using CPAN to update perl will break things) I use CPAN all the time and haven't had any problems. Are you saying this because yum/rpm wouldn't know they were installed? Can you expand on your concerns? -- Marc

4 3

pronunciation?
by Todd Blake 19 May '05

19 May '05

Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?

12 14

Re: [CentOS] Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V
by Bogdan Nicolescu 19 May '05

19 May '05

Thanks for the detailed information. Starting to make sense. Bogdan --- "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 20:23 -0700, Bogdan Nicolescu > wrote: > > My first attempt at RAID... > > I purposely call it Fake/Free RAID (FRAID) for a > reason. > It is a _regular_ ATA controller with *0* extra > hardware. > There is a "trick" 16-bit BIOS that can setup some > RAID > organization. > > It is _useless_ once a 32/64-bit OS boots. > > > Tried a different distribution with the latest > kernel, > > and indeed the PTA drives on the Promise > controller > > were recognized but they were recognized as two > > separate drives while the controller was in RAID > mode > > (rather than IDE mode). > > Correct. Because the system sees the "raw" ATA > channels. > There must be a "trick" 32/64-bit driver to match > the > "trick" 16-bit BIOS. > > This "trick" 32/64-bit driver contains _all_ of the > RAID functionality. *0* is in the hardware, because > the > hardware has *0* RAID firmware other than the > ultra-simple > stripe/mirror access when the 16-bit BIOS is > booting. > > About the same 2-3 companies write these drivers, > and > _all_ vendors license that code. Because it is the > core > IP of those companies, they will _never_ release it. > As such, the drivers are _always_ "closed source" > and > really only available for Windows. The few > companies that > do release Linux drivers release kernel > version-specific > ones that are binary-only, no source code. > > There is a "clean-room" GPL ATA RAID driver in > ataraid.c. > And then interface drivers in hptraid.c, pdcraid.c > and > silraid.c, but they _rarely_ work with most "FRAID" > cards accept for very old ones. And they are > _slower_ > than the OS' RAID (NT LDM, Linux LVM/MD, etc...). > > > Are you saying that even if the drives are > recognized, > > I will not be able to implement RAID in hardware > mode? > > There is _no_ "hardware" mode. The system _always_ > sees > the drives. There must be a "trick" driver to > "hide" the > drives and make them seem organized. > > A _true_ hardware RAID controller _always_ has > on-board > intelligence that directly controls the drives, and > has > the RAID firmware on-board. In those cases, the > system > talks to that on-board intelligence (e.g., > microcontroller > or ASIC) and _never_ actually sees the drives. > Because > all of the RAID intelligence is in the firmware, the > OS > driver is just a basic block driver, so they are > GPL. > > Examples of true hardware ATA RAID include Promise > SuperTrak > (_not_ the FastTrak), Adaptec 2400A/2800A, some (but > not > all) LSI Logic MegaRAID and 3Ware Escalade products. > > These cards cost between $125-$500+. You will _not_ > find a _true_ hardware RAID controller on a > mainboard. ;-> > > > Any other options installing CenOS 4 on > unsupported hd > > controller besides: > > a. install CentOS 4 while drive in recognized hd > > controller > > b. get new kernel > > c. compile/install new kernel (without pulling my > hair > > out) > > d. move drives to unsupported hd controller > > e. set controller to IDE mode > > f. boot using new kernel (while praying) > > g. do software RAID > > Yes, software RAID is typically _faster_ than these > FRAID cards. > Why? Because instead of using the logic of the > FRAID controller, > you get the logic of the OS' buffering. The OS' > buffering will > commit writes and interleave reads far better than a > FRAID > controller's "trick" driver logic. > > > -- > Bryan J. Smith > b.j.smith(a)ieee.org > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Beware of those who define their preference in terms > of hate of > another option, and not on the positive merits of > their selection > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >

1 0

httpd and krb5.conf
by Aleksandar Milivojevic 19 May '05

19 May '05

I've noticed that SELinux blocks httpd (standard CentOS httpd, simply installed from RPM) from writing to krb5.conf file. Question. Why on earth would httpd need write access to krb5.conf file?! Sure, it might need read access if it is configured to use Kerberos for authentication, but write!? I mean, web server that modifies one of the critical files (which is used for authentication/authorization)?

4 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