I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
I am thinking of going ubuntu server but at the same time I have this feeling centos team will pull through, make a new method to streamline this, and redhat will back down and stop being REDa$$-hats.
Redhat thinks us 'freebie' people will move to them to get the quicker updates and releases. I look at the pricing and I say they must be out of their minds. The server comes at 1,999 a year for 2 sockets and more than 4 guests...which is what I would need. The virtualization package, which may or may not be needed is thousands more. All for one server.
that ain't gonna happen.
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
I am teetering tonight. I have downloaded it and am thinking of wiping my new centos6 install and trying it out.
How do you all feel about this turn of events and what is your gut feeling on where this is going? And how about them hard drive prices?!!
2011/11/1 Bob Hoffman bob@bobhoffman.com:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
You can get updated php and mysql from ius community repo.
br, -- Eero, RHCE
On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
2011/11/1 Bob Hoffmanbob@bobhoffman.com:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
You can get updated php and mysql from ius community repo.
I don't think the real question here is whether you can get updated packages from somewhere but if it's worthwhile to build upon centos when it's becoming increasingly difficult for centos to make releases.
People like me are going to install a lot of systems in the coming months and years and upgrade older ones as well. Given that the problems we are seeing now don't seem to be temporary but are going to be around and probably get worse due to the upstream changes it is just prudent to consider to move to a more sustainable base.
Lack of communication from the core team in these matters doesn't improve the situation either. I would expect some sort of announcement that the CR repo will fully replace the point releases as that seems to be the case now. The only thing that is missing then is ISO releases of updated versions and perhaps more importantly installation ISOs with updated kernels (you cannot install centos/rhel 6 on some systems with intel NICs due to a kernel bug but this is fixed in 6.1).
Given that the status of 6.1 on the 1st of Sept. was "CentOS 6.1 current status : 16 packages still don't built/link like they should. So no installable tree/ISO is currently available for the QA team to test. no ETA for that" I don't see much hope for the future of point releases in centos.
Regards, Dennis
2011/11/1 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn dennisml@conversis.de:
On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
2011/11/1 Bob Hoffmanbob@bobhoffman.com:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
You can get updated php and mysql from ius community repo.
I don't think the real question here is whether you can get updated packages from somewhere but if it's worthwhile to build upon centos when it's becoming increasingly difficult for centos to make releases.
Well, I mainly use RHEL on production systems - for many reasons. You can also try use scientific linux..
br, -- Eero
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Eero Volotinen eero.volotinen@iki.fi wrote:
2011/11/1 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn dennisml@conversis.de:
On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
2011/11/1 Bob Hoffmanbob@bobhoffman.com:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
You can get updated php and mysql from ius community repo.
I don't think the real question here is whether you can get updated packages from somewhere but if it's worthwhile to build upon centos when it's becoming increasingly difficult for centos to make releases.
Well, I mainly use RHEL on production systems - for many reasons. You can also try use scientific linux..
br, Eero
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
-☙ Brian Mathis ❧-
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
Pity... perhaps RH have had a change of manager somewhere...
Cheers Tony
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
Pity... perhaps RH have had a change of manager somewhere...
Cheers Tony
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:57:29PM -0400, Rob Kampen wrote:
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
Pity... perhaps RH have had a change of manager somewhere...
Can someone point me to some place where I can learn what the "new" AUP restrictions are? I'm sure there's a docuyment somewhere on the RH web site, but how would I know which parts are new (since I haven't been faithfully reading it from time to time.) ??
Also, one wonders, since most of it is GPL (or gpl-compatible), how can they place acceptable use policies on it? (some of the non-gpl parts, sure, but...)
On 11/01/11 12:09 PM, fred smith wrote:
Also, one wonders, since most of it is GPL (or gpl-compatible), how can they place acceptable use policies on it? (some of the non-gpl parts, sure, but...)
the AUP is on the services that RH provides.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen rkampen@kampensonline.com wrote:
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
I know it's more fun to blame the evil lawyers for everything, but it sounds more like they respect the project and took special effort to reach out and make sure they were aware and fully understood the changes. That is far more likely given the history and widespread usage of CentOS.
-☙ Brian Mathis ❧-
On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen rkampen@kampensonline.com wrote:
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
I know it's more fun to blame the evil lawyers for everything, but it sounds more like they respect the project and took special effort to reach out and make sure they were aware and fully understood the changes. That is far more likely given the history and widespread usage of CentOS.
================================ I said they made sure we were aware of the AUP and explained what the new AUP meant. I never said anything about anyone being threatening or being threatened.
The CentOS Project is very appreciative for the openness of the upstream provider.
It has always been our policy to stay within the upstream provider's guidelines and AUP's. We will continue to do so when the guidelines and AUP's change. ================================= We have created the CR repo ... it has not REPLACED updates, it is just an additional repo. Its purpose is to allow us to release the packages that will eventually be in the NEXT point release in stages as we get them done. You can get these changes if you chose ... or you can wait until we get everything done and released as 6.1.
We will eventually get a 6.1 release out ... in the meantime, the CR repo will have MOST of the updates (the ones that are done now) while we fix the problem updates. ================================= We provide CentOS as is, to the best of our ability, for your use. If CentOS meets you needs, well then we certainly want you to use it. If you need it faster, or more like RHEL, then we HIGHLY recommend that you just buy RHEL. If Red Hat does not make money from RHEL then they will stop releasing it all together. CentOS can not exist without those sources. I would like to stress that we want you to use RHEL and buy RHN subscriptions for projects that require that kind of support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Hughes" johnny@centos.org To: centos@centos.org Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 2:12:15 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] redhat vs centos
On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen rkampen@kampensonline.com wrote:
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg@mail.gmail.com, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centos@betteradmin.com wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core developers).
Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by cheating.
Except that the other day, Johnny posted this:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us.
which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at CentOS too.
This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth.
I know it's more fun to blame the evil lawyers for everything, but it sounds more like they respect the project and took special effort to reach out and make sure they were aware and fully understood the changes. That is far more likely given the history and widespread usage of CentOS.
================================ I said they made sure we were aware of the AUP and explained what the new AUP meant. I never said anything about anyone being threatening or being threatened.
The CentOS Project is very appreciative for the openness of the upstream provider.
It has always been our policy to stay within the upstream provider's guidelines and AUP's. We will continue to do so when the guidelines and AUP's change. ================================= We have created the CR repo ... it has not REPLACED updates, it is just an additional repo. Its purpose is to allow us to release the packages that will eventually be in the NEXT point release in stages as we get them done. You can get these changes if you chose ... or you can wait until we get everything done and released as 6.1.
We will eventually get a 6.1 release out ... in the meantime, the CR repo will have MOST of the updates (the ones that are done now) while we fix the problem updates. =================================
My apologies if this has been addressed before. What are the plans if upstream releases 6.2 and CentOS 6.1 has not been released? Will CR just continue to get updates from 6.2? I actually love the CR and if such a scenario occurs would like that the CR to have the latest packages no matter how far behind the official release of CentOS is.
We provide CentOS as is, to the best of our ability, for your use. If CentOS meets you needs, well then we certainly want you to use it. If you need it faster, or more like RHEL, then we HIGHLY recommend that you just buy RHEL. If Red Hat does not make money from RHEL then they will stop releasing it all together. CentOS can not exist without those sources. I would like to stress that we want you to use RHEL and buy RHN subscriptions for projects that require that kind of support.
I always tell clients to use RHEL for internet facing computers/services so they can get the security patches as soon as they are available. Also use RHEL for mission critical services were they do not have the expertise of deep Linux troubleshooting and need a vendor to lean on. For internal services that should not or does not need immediate security patching use CentOS.
As always, I appreciate and thank the CentOS team for providing such a wonderful free tool.
David.
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red Hat makes have nothing to do with "throwing off" CentOS. They do what they do for reasons that, to them, make technical and business sense. Nothing more.
Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red Hat makes have nothing to do with "throwing off" CentOS. They do what they do for reasons that, to them, make technical and business sense. Nothing more.
Then Red Hat should see what problems CentOS team has and try to help them even with behind closed doors, like giving them tips what order to use to build packages, etc.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red Hat makes have nothing to do with "throwing off" CentOS. They do what they do for reasons that, to them, make technical and business sense. Nothing more.
Then Red Hat should see what problems CentOS team has and try to help them even with behind closed doors, like giving them tips what order to use to build packages, etc.
I also see that Red Hat would appreciate CentOS but may not actively provide helping hands.
One major contribution CentOS makes is to help maintain the Red Hat ecosystem as was pointed out by others. If it was not for CentOS, I would not have my current RHEL entitlement. :-)
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community. See the trend at:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux
Akemi
On 11/01/2011 12:27 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red Hat makes have nothing to do with "throwing off" CentOS. They do what they do for reasons that, to them, make technical and business sense. Nothing more.
Then Red Hat should see what problems CentOS team has and try to help them even with behind closed doors, like giving them tips what order to use to build packages, etc.
I also see that Red Hat would appreciate CentOS but may not actively provide helping hands.
One major contribution CentOS makes is to help maintain the Red Hat ecosystem as was pointed out by others. If it was not for CentOS, I would not have my current RHEL entitlement. :-)
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community. See the trend at:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux
Akemi
One thing that, I believe, would go a long way to helping CentOS would be for those of us who have purchased RHEL licenses after using CentOS to actually tell Red Hat this.
If the "bean counters" hear from customers that they *are* customers thanks to their ability to use CentOS earlier on, it would help bolster the arguments coming from the technical folk who see the value in CentOS.
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian. DH
2011/11/1 David Hrbáč david-lists@hrbac.cz:
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite
Yes, there is: http://puias.math.ias.edu/
-- Eero
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
Ever heard of WBL? :-D
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:30:57AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
Ever heard of WBL? :-D
White Box Linux?
Isn't it dead?
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:47 AM, fred smith wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:30:57AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
Ever heard of WBL? :-D
White Box Linux?
Isn't it dead?
Same thought I had when I saw someone on irc say he is using WBL...
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 23:47 -0400, fred smith wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:30:57AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
Ever heard of WBL? :-D
White Box Linux?
Isn't it dead?
---- probably not - I see Mr. Morris posting from time to time on various RH lists. He's a brilliant guy and really created it for his needs and was probably overwhelmed with the success of WBEL at the time - and then came of course hurricane Katrina, getting married and the crush of everyone's expectations.
I wonder why CentOS never brought him into the fold.
FWIW, my current employer and for that matter, my previous employer both have been steadily migrating from CentOS to Ubuntu LTS and so did I for my own server and my clients' servers and it works well. While I have been using Red Hat variations since about 1998 and am clearly more comfortable with it, the change has not been all that difficult. There are some things that I prefer Ubuntu (Their apache & bind configuration schema's are vastly better).
Clearly between the lengthy delay between upstream 5 & 6 releases and whatever various reasons for CentOS slow delivery of 6.x releases has been causing a lot of attrition in the Red Hat user base.
Craig
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 18:47, David Hrbáč david-lists@hrbac.cz wrote:
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
There is the Oracle "unbreakable" Linux (or whatever they call it), which is a RHEL clone. The recent RH packaging changes are aimed squarely at that distro from what I understand. The problem is that the changes affect *all* clones the same way, including CentOS.
I think it is time to reconsider and think on OpenIndiana.
2011/11/2 Dotan Cohen dotancohen@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 18:47, David Hrbáč david-lists@hrbac.cz wrote:
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos. We have quite large infrastructure and we want it homogeneous as possible. Because we run a few boxes with IBM, Ora stuff we need "certified" OSes, certified is only RHEL or SuSE. So we are using RHEL and Centos. We have been running happily and smoothly for a few years with this concept. Because of the lastest issues with CentOS we are really considering moving back to Debian.
There is the Oracle "unbreakable" Linux (or whatever they call it), which is a RHEL clone. The recent RH packaging changes are aimed squarely at that distro from what I understand. The problem is that the changes affect *all* clones the same way, including CentOS.
-- Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:38 PM, Marcio Carneiro wrote:
I think it is time to reconsider and think on OpenIndiana.
Er...once the illumos kernel team sorts out that zfs bug that is currently plaguing some io151a users yes.
/me not moving an inch from oi_147 till then.
On 11/02/2011 09:35 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
There is the Oracle "unbreakable" Linux (or whatever they call it), which is a RHEL clone. The recent RH packaging changes are aimed squarely at that distro from what I understand. The problem is that the changes affect *all* clones the same way, including CentOS.
To what changes are you referring?
As far as I know, the only packaging change in RHEL 6 is that the source in the kernel SRPM is now one big tarball, rather than an upstream tarball and a bunch of separate patches.
This shouldn't have any effect on anyone who is simply rebuilding the SRPM. (I just tested this by successfully building the latest kernel SRPM from ftp://ftp.redhat.com in mock's epel-6-i386 chroot on my Fedora system.)
Is there another change of which I'm unaware?
(Full disclosure: I do work for Red Hat, but I don't speak for the company. Heck, I don't even speak for myself; my wife does that.)
On Wednesday 02 November 2011 22:55:39 Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 11/02/2011 09:35 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
There is the Oracle "unbreakable" Linux (or whatever they call it), which is a RHEL clone. The recent RH packaging changes are aimed squarely at that distro from what I understand. The problem is that the changes affect *all* clones the same way, including CentOS.
To what changes are you referring?
As far as I know, the only packaging change in RHEL 6 is that the source in the kernel SRPM is now one big tarball, rather than an upstream tarball and a bunch of separate patches.
This shouldn't have any effect on anyone who is simply rebuilding the SRPM. (I just tested this by successfully building the latest kernel SRPM from ftp://ftp.redhat.com in mock's epel-6-i386 chroot on my Fedora system.)
Is there another change of which I'm unaware?
Umm, the new AUP?
Best, :-) Marko
On 11/02/2011 06:33 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 02 November 2011 22:55:39 Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 11/02/2011 09:35 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
There is the Oracle "unbreakable" Linux (or whatever they call it), which is a RHEL clone. The recent RH packaging changes are aimed squarely at that distro from what I understand. The problem is that the changes affect *all* clones the same way, including CentOS.
To what changes are you referring?
Umm, the new AUP?
OK. I was thinking that "packaging changes" meant something else.
Thanks!
Vreme: 11/01/2011 05:27 PM, Akemi Yagi piše:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevicoffice@plnet.rs wrote:
Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red Hat makes have nothing to do with "throwing off" CentOS. They do what they do for reasons that, to them, make technical and business sense. Nothing more.
Then Red Hat should see what problems CentOS team has and try to help them even with behind closed doors, like giving them tips what order to use to build packages, etc.
I also see that Red Hat would appreciate CentOS but may not actively provide helping hands.
One major contribution CentOS makes is to help maintain the Red Hat ecosystem as was pointed out by others. If it was not for CentOS, I would not have my current RHEL entitlement. :-)
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community. See the trend at:
Yeah, overall loss (RHEL+CentOS+Fedoara) is almost 7%. Too bad Red Hat is blind to this trend. It WILL hurt them in the long run.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hoffman" bob@bobhoffman.com To: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:46:57 PM Subject: [CentOS] redhat vs centos
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat making a move to throw off centos compilations. I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/microsoft_and_centos/
I have to update to centos 6 due to some needs of clients who need newer mysql and php (and installing them on centos5 was too hard for me).
I am thinking of going ubuntu server but at the same time I have this feeling centos team will pull through, make a new method to streamline this, and redhat will back down and stop being REDa$$-hats.
Redhat thinks us 'freebie' people will move to them to get the quicker updates and releases. I look at the pricing and I say they must be out of their minds. The server comes at 1,999 a year for 2 sockets and more than 4 guests...which is what I would need. The virtualization package, which may or may not be needed is thousands more. All for one server.
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
that ain't gonna happen.
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
I am teetering tonight. I have downloaded it and am thinking of wiping my new centos6 install and trying it out.
How do you all feel about this turn of events and what is your gut feeling on where this is going? And how about them hard drive prices?!!
David Miller wrote ---------------------------
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
--------------------------- From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that support/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
With redhat doing this, I think I would stay away from all redhat variants. Really close to just wiping the install and going with U.LTS (ubuntu server).
The guys at centos make it possible for people to get into redhat that are not huge businesses. I can see a small business hosting company paying 2,000 a year per server just to lease a 100/month dedicated server.
Redhat is losing vision for profits here. It is not so hard to find other avenues.
I would rather pay them something like 300 a year for each computer, that is cool....but 2,000? No thank you. The reason I went with centos is I DID try redhat. The support for redhat was terrible. It would take weeks of emails just to get someone who understood the question.
I figured why pay for all that completely useless support and just go free and figure it out myself.
Centos is fun, but I am kinda interested in more modern packages that ubu seems to offer. Worried about having to relearn a full system though.
Redhat is killing itself in my opinion, just my opinion.
On 11/01/2011 02:27 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that support/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
They still very much offer self-support versions. In Canada, I believe the MSRP is ~$350/yr or $990/3yr. Don't quote me on the prices, obviously, but you can quote me on the availability of the self-support versions.
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that support/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that support/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
On 11/01/2011 06:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away that support/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
As I understand it, you still need to buy licenses for whatever guest OS you want to create. They are, for all intent and purpose, separate servers.
Of course, best would be to ask Red Hat sales directly, or a Red Hat reseller.
On 11/01/11 3:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the*ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
afaik, its just the virtualization, not the guest licenses.
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is priced on a per-managed-socket basis. The subscription includes the license to use Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager for Servers (the management server) and the RHEV-H bare metal hypervisor on each licensed socket.
no mention of licensing of guest OS's including RHEL.
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away thatsupport/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
Obviously if you choose to install guest OSes from other vendors then you will need the appropriate licenses from those vendors.
On 02/11/11 05:34, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away thatsupport/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
And the item description for the above is called "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform" if that helps.
On 11/01/11 10:37 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to
install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on*that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
And the item description for the above is called "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform" if that helps.
I don't see anything on their site called "Advanced Platform"
https://www.redhat.com/rhel/purchasing_guide.html
?
On 11/02/2011 06:34 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with CentOS as long as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting "support" from the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and server for $350 a year. That means you will get all the updates but just can't call or open tickets with Redhat. The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they will provide are artificial. Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and x amount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away thatsupport/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or more for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
Is that the $2000 license or how much do you pay for that? I'm trying to understand if the costs of licensing RHEL are actually feasible for and right now I'm a bit perplexed that their licensing isn't all that clear. If the license indeed includes the entitlements for RHEL guests on that host then this actually looks manageable but if you have to pony up more on top of that for each VM then something like debian looks indeed more attractive.
Regards, Dennis
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml@conversis.de
wrote:
On 11/02/2011 06:34 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go
with CentOS as long
as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about
getting "support" from
the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50and server for $350 a year.
That means you will get all the updates but just can't call oropen tickets with Redhat.
The limitations imposed by Redhat for "Support" they willprovide are artificial.
Although Redhat says it will only support 2 sockets and xamount of virtual guests you can still do it.
From what I saw on the redhat site they have also taken away thatsupport/subscription model. They have standard support as minimum, for me it would be 4,000+ or
more
for my 2 little non-commercial servers...forget it.
First option, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) $49:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/
First option, Server Self-support Subscription (1 year) $349
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one
physical
system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000
are
only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number
of
guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest
on
top of that?
Regards, Dennis
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
Is that the $2000 license or how much do you pay for that? I'm trying to understand if the costs of licensing RHEL are actually feasible for and right now I'm a bit perplexed that their licensing isn't all that clear. If the license indeed includes the entitlements for RHEL guests on that host then this actually looks manageable but if you have to pony up more on top of that for each VM then something like debian looks indeed more attractive.
Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I don't work for Red Hat, but I had these same questions answered a few months ago when I wanted to move my employer from CentOS to RHEL, as we are moving ALL web hosting assets from IIS *shudder* to Linux. Unfortunately my employer confuses "open-source" with "free" and felt that $1500-$2500 (Education pricing) for unlimited guests was outrageous. Personally, I felt if they want enterprise level web services, and value continuity then it was worth it. If I ever left this organisation, it would be much easier to find someone who can use RHEL (or a phone) to get things working than to go with no commercial support.
Anyway, The Unlimited guests means you pay for one physical machine with up to two CPU sockets (not cores). If your physical host has 20 guests, it's of no extra cost. In my case I would have to pay for 2 servers as I run them in a failover cluster, but between those two servers I would pay nothing extra no matter how many virtual guests I ran.
-----
As for CentOS and it's future, even with the changes from RHN I don't see CentOS being any less useful. The fact that Red Hat took the time to make sure the CentOS devs understood the changes to the AUP shows some appreciation. They could have just never bothered and waited for someone to slip up then sue, and destroy CentOS. Red Hat is a business, and even as good as it is for their business to help CentOS, they cant make exceptions to their AUP. I think they did CentOS a big favor by communicating the changes.
I've used Linux for about 12 years now, and never once have I been able to pick up the phone and call support. However when things require enterprise level service, and business, or in my case a University, is dependent on those services, it is good to not have to rely entirely on the in house talent for solutions. Some things I've had to tackle took probably $2,000 worth of my time to solve, which is how the "bean counters" see things.
- Trey
On 02/11/11 22:36, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/02/2011 06:34 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on top of that?
Regards, Dennis
All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So unlimited entitled RHEL guests.
Is that the $2000 license or how much do you pay for that? I'm trying to understand if the costs of licensing RHEL are actually feasible for and right now I'm a bit perplexed that their licensing isn't all that clear. If the license indeed includes the entitlements for RHEL guests on that host then this actually looks manageable but if you have to pony up more on top of that for each VM then something like debian looks indeed more attractive.
Sorry Dennis, I can't personally confirm that as licenses aren't paid out of my pocket, but it looks like Trey has already confirmed it for you.
I would very much suggest you give Red Hat sales a ring or drop them an email.
In article 4EB05844.5060704@unixmail.co.uk, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Tony
2011/11/2 Tony Mountifield tony@softins.co.uk:
In article 4EB05844.5060704@unixmail.co.uk, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
A 2 socket virtualization platform is $1,999 giving unlimited virtual guests.
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
1 physical cpu socket (place to insert processor) on motherboard?
-- Eero
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
I was just asking myself this very question the other day, and I couldn't determine how many sockets you are using if you use, say, 2 _virtual_ processors.
John.
Am 07.11.2011 17:42, schrieb John Beranek:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
I was just asking myself this very question the other day, and I couldn't determine how many sockets you are using if you use, say, 2 _virtual_ processors.
in newer VMware versions (Workstation 7/8) you can assign virtual CPUs and cores per virtual CPU, i guess VMware ESXi 5 will have this feature too, but not my nested vm is currently not running and production will stay on ESXi 4.1 for some time....
On 07/11/2011 16:45, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 17:42, schrieb John Beranek:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
I was just asking myself this very question the other day, and I couldn't determine how many sockets you are using if you use, say, 2 _virtual_ processors.
in newer VMware versions (Workstation 7/8) you can assign virtual CPUs and cores per virtual CPU, i guess VMware ESXi 5 will have this feature too, but not my nested vm is currently not running and production will stay on ESXi 4.1 for some time....
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
John.
Am 07.11.2011 18:36, schrieb John Beranek:
On 07/11/2011 16:45, Reindl Harald wrote:
in newer VMware versions (Workstation 7/8) you can assign virtual CPUs and cores per virtual CPU, i guess VMware ESXi 5 will have this feature too, but not my nested vm is currently not running and production will stay on ESXi 4.1 for some time....
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
what answer are you missing? as much as you configure!
sse screenshot
On 11/07/11 9:36 AM, John Beranek wrote:
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
can you even run another VM hypervisor under vmware?!?
never mind, WHY?!?
Am 07.11.2011 19:57, schrieb John R Pierce:
On 11/07/11 9:36 AM, John Beranek wrote:
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
can you even run another VM hypervisor under vmware?!? never mind, WHY?!?
yes you can, it is called nested virtualization and exists since longer time
VMware Workstation Supports ESX4.1 and ESX5.1 as guest OS nice for building a whole test-environemnt including the network
on modern hardware even a 64bit guest will run with acceptable perforamcne
Greetins,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 19:57, schrieb John R Pierce:
On 11/07/11 9:36 AM, John Beranek wrote:
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
can you even run another VM hypervisor under vmware?!? never mind, WHY?!?
yes you can, it is called nested virtualization and exists since longer time
Yes you right.
But, (a big butt indeed), Why Proprietary Software in between?
Am 07.11.2011 20:09, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan:
Greetins,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 19:57, schrieb John R Pierce:
On 11/07/11 9:36 AM, John Beranek wrote:
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
can you even run another VM hypervisor under vmware?!? never mind, WHY?!?
yes you can, it is called nested virtualization and exists since longer time
Yes you right.
But, (a big butt indeed), Why Proprietary Software in between?
because you can use VMware-Machines on Workstation and ESXi/vSphere and no please do not tell me you have anything free out there which is compareable if you are in production far away from a home computer
why software between you can not use on Windows, Mac and Linux without changes
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 20:09, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan: because you can use VMware-Machines on Workstation and ESXi/vSphere and no please do not tell me you have anything free out there which is compareable if you are in production far away from a home computer
why software between you can not use on Windows, Mac and Linux without changes
Because FLOSS is FLOSS and they cannot bridge the gap always as they are not in commercial business. Ask RHEL support if you have one else buy one. They have RHEV, for one as a drop=on replacement.
I have played around with it for couple of months. It is worth it's price.
Don't Crucify me for suggestions. I am screwed (moneterily In India) already as am unofficial Floss advocate.
YMMV. IMHO.
I could not get a single paisa/penny/cent for instantiating GLPI and OCS Inventory NG at at least 6 instances.
and many other apps.
And they are flourishing.
So watch out before you blame me.
I will flame.
Am 07.11.2011 20:38, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan:
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 20:09, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan: because you can use VMware-Machines on Workstation and ESXi/vSphere and no please do not tell me you have anything free out there which is compareable if you are in production far away from a home computer
why software between you can not use on Windows, Mac and Linux without changes
Because FLOSS is FLOSS and they cannot bridge the gap always as they are not in commercial business. Ask RHEL support if you have one else buy one. They have RHEV, for one as a drop=on replacement.
sorry, but no one will change infrastructure having support contracts with small companyies where you know the people personally
price and FLOSS are secondary if your whole business depends
On 07/11/2011 18:57, John R Pierce wrote:
On 11/07/11 9:36 AM, John Beranek wrote:
Still doesn't answer how many sockets you're using if you have a RHEL 5/6 guest VM with 2 (or 4) virtual VMware processors...
can you even run another VM hypervisor under vmware?!?
I don't understand why people think I want to install another hypervisor in our VMware cluster.
I want to _run a RHEL box in a VMware cluster_. I can't understand the licensing model of RHEL because a VM doesn't have a "socket".
John.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Beranek john@redux.org.uk wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
I was just asking myself this very question the other day, and I couldn't determine how many sockets you are using if you use, say, 2 _virtual_ processors.
John.
-- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
The sockets refers to the literal, physical CPUs. Virtual CPUs (for guests) or cores do not count. Unless your running some kind of mainframe you will likely have a server with anywhere from 1-2 sockets. My understanding of the licensing is that you pay for the host/hypervisor/machine to have RHEL, plus however many guests the license includes. So 4 or unlimited.
Example: my server has 2 sockets, 4 cores each. If i paid for RHEL unlimited guests on 2 sockets...I could have only 2 virtual machines each with 4 virtual CPUs, or 8 VMs with 1 vCPU each. That's still within the license. Sockets is referring to the things that are LGA775 or AM3+.
- Trey
Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Beranek john@redux.org.uk wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
The sockets refers to the literal, physical CPUs. Virtual CPUs (for guests) or cores do not count. Unless your running some kind of mainframe you will likely have a server with anywhere from 1-2 sockets. My understanding of the licensing is that you pay for the host/hypervisor/machine to have RHEL, plus however many guests the license includes. So 4 or unlimited.
<snip> Heh. Depends on where you work: we've been getting in servers with 4, like the Dell PE 810, and some Penguins we've got, and I think the new ones (haven't opened any up) have more.
mark
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Beranek john@redux.org.uk wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
The sockets refers to the literal, physical CPUs. Virtual CPUs (for guests) or cores do not count. Unless your running some kind of
mainframe
you will likely have a server with anywhere from 1-2 sockets. My understanding of the licensing is that you pay for the host/hypervisor/machine to have RHEL, plus however many guests the
license
includes. So 4 or unlimited.
<snip> Heh. Depends on where you work: we've been getting in servers with 4, like the Dell PE 810, and some Penguins we've got, and I think the new ones (haven't opened any up) have more.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
<jealous> . That is very true. Your organization must also value Linux. Mine doesn't and is poor. State funded University :-/.
- Trey
Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Beranek john@redux.org.uk
wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
The sockets refers to the literal, physical CPUs. Virtual CPUs (for guests) or cores do not count. Unless your running some kind of mainframe you will likely have a server with anywhere from 1-2 sockets. My understanding of the licensing is that you pay for the host/hypervisor/machine to have RHEL, plus however many guests the license includes. So 4 or unlimited.
<snip> Heh. Depends on where you work: we've been getting in servers with 4, like the Dell PE 810, and some Penguins we've got, and I think the new ones (haven't opened any up) have more.
<jealous> . That is very true. Your organization must also value Linux. Mine doesn't and is poor. State funded University :-/.
*snarl* Cut funding to public colleges, we don't need no steenkin' po' kids getting an education and uppity....
Sorry, I feel very strongly about that.
For the moment, we have the money; what happens in a few weeks, that could well be another story, but we do *serious* scientific computing.
mark, speaking only for himself, not his employer, a US federal contractor, nor for the US gov't Dept he works at
On Monday 07 November 2011 20:13:58 Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Beranek john@redux.org.uk wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:31, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
What is a "socket" in their pricing model? The word can mean so many different things...
Afaik it refers to a physical cpu socket. So they count actual cpu's, not the amount of cores in each cpu.
I was just asking myself this very question the other day, and I couldn't determine how many sockets you are using if you use, say, 2 _virtual_ processors.
The sockets refers to the literal, physical CPUs. Virtual CPUs (for guests) or cores do not count. Unless your running some kind of mainframe you will likely have a server with anywhere from 1-2 sockets. My understanding of the licensing is that you pay for the host/hypervisor/machine to have RHEL, plus however many guests the license includes. So 4 or unlimited.
I think John was asking about the scenario where you *do* *not* have any physical hardware, like deploying RHEL on someone else's virtual environment (think cloud computing). So you sign up for a virtual machine with, say, 16 cores and your provider assigns you virtual hardware according to your spec. How would you count "sockets" on that?
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
How many RHEL licences would you need to buy for such a virtual system?
Best, :-) Marko
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
again:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances of some vendors where you can get a license with 2 vCPUs or 4 vCPUs - independent if you have your own hardware or using any hsoting service
what is there so difficulty to understand?
On 07/11/2011 22:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
again:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances of some vendors where you can get a license with 2 vCPUs or 4 vCPUs - independent if you have your own hardware or using any hsoting service
what is there so difficulty to understand?
The difficulty in understanding is that RHEL licensing is quoted solely on *SOCKETS*. My VMs don't have sockets! What is difficult to understand there!?
John.
On Monday 07 November 2011 22:23:09 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
again:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances of some vendors where you can get a license with 2 vCPUs or 4 vCPUs - independent if you have your own hardware or using any hsoting service
what is there so difficulty to understand?
Well, what I don't understand is how many vCPU's are equal to one socket.
Or, to be explicit, let me invent an example: suppose that I have leased virtual hardware from some 3rd party, and have obtained a virtual machine with 6 vCPU's. I want to buy RHEL licences to install on that machine. AFAIK, RH counts licences in sockets. How many licences should I buy? Or, iow, how many sockets is equal to 6 vCPU's?
Does RH have a formula for the number of sockets as a function of the number of vCPU's (and vice versa)?
Best, :-) Marko
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2011 22:23:09 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
again:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances of some vendors where you can get a license with 2 vCPUs or 4 vCPUs - independent if you have your own hardware or using any hsoting service
what is there so difficulty to understand?
Well, what I don't understand is how many vCPU's are equal to one socket.
Or, to be explicit, let me invent an example: suppose that I have leased virtual hardware from some 3rd party, and have obtained a virtual machine with 6 vCPU's. I want to buy RHEL licences to install on that machine. AFAIK, RH counts licences in sockets. How many licences should I buy? Or, iow, how many sockets is equal to 6 vCPU's?
Does RH have a formula for the number of sockets as a function of the number of vCPU's (and vice versa)?
Best, :-) Marko
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Socket != vCPU. There is no need for a formula. The licensing is done based on the hosting hardware. That does not mean it has to be a RHEL hypervisor. When I got my quotes it was to put 4 guests on a 2-socket VMware ESXi server. That would be a single license for 2-socket w/ 4 guests. That wouldn't change no matter how many vCPUs I used. It's much easier to ensure license compliance on the hosting hardware than on something as dynamic as the vCPU count.
I'd recommend contacting Red Hat to get a definitive answer as I am basing what I know on my talks with my campus' Red Hat rep several months ago.
- Trey
On 11/07/2011 09:17 PM, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2011 22:23:09 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted. Also, this structure may even change over time due to upgrades of the cloud hardware (by the cloud provider). You wouldn't even know about it.
again:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances of some vendors where you can get a license with 2 vCPUs or 4 vCPUs - independent if you have your own hardware or using any hsoting service
what is there so difficulty to understand?
Well, what I don't understand is how many vCPU's are equal to one socket.
Or, to be explicit, let me invent an example: suppose that I have leased virtual hardware from some 3rd party, and have obtained a virtual machine with 6 vCPU's. I want to buy RHEL licences to install on that machine. AFAIK, RH counts licences in sockets. How many licences should I buy? Or, iow, how many sockets is equal to 6 vCPU's?
Does RH have a formula for the number of sockets as a function of the number of vCPU's (and vice versa)?
Best, :-) Marko
Socket != vCPU. There is no need for a formula. The licensing is done based on the hosting hardware. That does not mean it has to be a RHEL hypervisor. When I got my quotes it was to put 4 guests on a 2-socket VMware ESXi server. That would be a single license for 2-socket w/ 4 guests. That wouldn't change no matter how many vCPUs I used. It's much easier to ensure license compliance on the hosting hardware than on something as dynamic as the vCPU count.
I'd recommend contacting Red Hat to get a definitive answer as I am basing what I know on my talks with my campus' Red Hat rep several months ago.
- Trey
The correct answer is given right there ^^^
Instead of everyone speculating what Red Hat would charge for a given situation (I have a virtual machine on the cloud with 16 VCPUs ... I have 1 machine with 8 Quad Core CPUs, I have X with Y, etc.) on the CentOS mailing list ... the answer is:
Red Hat has a whole division of people who will tell you exactly what licenses you need for your specific information. They will send you an invoice or even take your credit card information and send you the correct licenses, etc.
This whole part of the discussion belongs between an individual person and Red Hat sales. Here is a link:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/other_methods.html
Everyone feel free to call or contact Red Hat as described in the above link to get REAL answers concerning their licenses.
Vreme: 11/08/2011 03:32 PM, Johnny Hughes piše:
This whole part of the discussion belongs between an individual person and Red Hat sales. Here is a link:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/other_methods.html
Everyone feel free to call or contact Red Hat as described in the above link to get REAL answers concerning their licenses.
+1
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 14:32:06 Johnny Hughes wrote:
Instead of everyone speculating what Red Hat would charge for a given situation (I have a virtual machine on the cloud with 16 VCPUs ... I have 1 machine with 8 Quad Core CPUs, I have X with Y, etc.) on the CentOS mailing list ... the answer is:
You're right, Johnny, this thread got too OT, sorry... :-)
Best, :-) Marko
Am I missing something here, or is the conversation below just an elaborate joke on my expense?
Am 07.11.2011 22:50, schrieb Marko Vojinovic:
Typically, you have no way of knowing the physical structure of the "cloud machine" where your virtual machine is being hosted.
On Monday 07 November 2011 22:23:09 Reindl Harald wrote:
the physical structure does not matter you pay for virtaul CPUs as you do also for virtual appliances
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Well, what I don't understand is how many vCPU's are equal to one socket. Does RH have a formula for the number of sockets as a function of the number of vCPU's (and vice versa)?
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 03:17:11 Trey Dockendorf wrote:
Socket != vCPU. There is no need for a formula. The licensing is done based on the hosting hardware.
What gives?
Let me stress again: there is *no* *information* about the hosting hardware! It is "in the cloud", on some mainframe or cluster of the cloud provider. That hardware is potentially subject to change over time and at provider's discretion, without me even knowing about it. There are no sockets for me to count anywhere, only vCPU's. Damn, that's why it' called s a *virtual* machine!
RH licence model is based on the assumption that I own or otherwise have physical access to the hardware on which I am to install RHEL, and can consequently count the physical sockets of that hardware. This assumption is *false* for the situation discussed above. The hardware is *not* available for counting sockets, and in addition is a moving target (subject to changes).
If RH does not have that case covered at all, I can understand, and that's OK. It's probably best to contact a RH representative and discuss what to do on a case-by-case basis, which is also OK.
What is *not* OK is people on this list authoritatively telling me that everything is clear and that I have difficulty understanding what they are saying. When in fact it is the other way around.
Is this an April's Fool joke, or what? Yesterday when I checked the calender it said "November"... Or are some people on this list just too ignorant to read and too dense to understand the actual question when replying?
Sheesh! :-@ Marko
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 20:27, Bob Hoffman bob@bobhoffman.com wrote:
Centos is fun, but I am kinda interested in more modern packages that ubu seems to offer. Worried about having to relearn a full system though.
Ubuntu server a bit different, but not terribly so. Apache is called apache and not httpd, and there is no chkconfig. For webservers that is not a terrible thing to relearn. I'm sure that other uses will find other small, but not insignificant differences.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 20:27, Bob Hoffman bob@bobhoffman.com wrote:
Centos is fun, but I am kinda interested in more modern packages that ubu seems to offer. Worried about having to relearn a full system though.
Ubuntu server a bit different, but not terribly so. Apache is called apache and not httpd, and there is no chkconfig. For webservers that is not a terrible thing to relearn. I'm sure that other uses will find other small, but not insignificant differences.
There are things that really annoy me with Ubuntu. I've got the netbook remix, solely because it is built for that, and it does things like *not* ever removing older kernels, so my boot is currently listing about 6 or 8; I've manually had to remove them in the past, and will have to again.
I also really dislike their equivalent of grub.conf - it's a long, long script, with stuff buried in it, and it calls a bunch of other files, rather than the simple, clean one in RH/CentOS.
mark
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:52:36AM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Dotan Cohen wrote: I also really dislike their equivalent of grub.conf - it's a long, long script, with stuff buried in it, and it calls a bunch of other files, rather than the simple, clean one in RH/CentOS.
Yes, it's grub2. Welcome to the new Fedora world. Next RH version will almost certainly have it. I have a page about it for Fedora users.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~computertaijutsu/grub2.html, that covers minor modifications in Fedora, because with the advent of Fedora 16, it became the default. (On the other hand, most of what is on the web right now is for Ubuntu, which has been using it for awhile.)
Most of the differences I see are pretty minor--not good or bad, per se, just different, such as using update-rc as something similar to chkconfig, editing /etc/network/interfaces (I think), rather than /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, and so on.
Judging from job postings in the NYC area, though, RH/CentOS are still pretty much dominant.
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES); 2.) Debian Stable.
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?'
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?'
Does Debian include all the same drivers as Ubuntu these days?
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:44:27 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
Does Debian include all the same drivers as Ubuntu these days?
Sounds like a question for a Debian list, not here.
I thought you were the one who brought up the topic of using one vs. the other.
On Nov 2, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?'
Does Debian include all the same drivers as Ubuntu these days?
---- of course not - and obviously never will
Craig
On Nov 2, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES); 2.) Debian Stable.
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?'
---- for desktop usage, Ubuntu clearly has the advantage (or disadvantage as it were) of available drivers which are less than optimal license or binary blobs.
for server usage, Ubuntu has the advantage of openssl
as for having issues... I run into issues regardless of which OS, Linux or not and I don't see that any Linux is all that radically different.
Craig
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES);
We were using that about 5 years ago, and paid Novell a fair amount of money in their Partner program. Novell's support was slim to non-existent leading to our move to CentOS.
Given the recent sale to Attachmate and such, I wouldn't invest any time or money in SLES.
Bill
On Nov 2, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES);
We were using that about 5 years ago, and paid Novell a fair amount of money in their Partner program. Novell's support was slim to non-existent leading to our move to CentOS.
Given the recent sale to Attachmate and such, I wouldn't invest any time or money in SLES.
---- I gave up on any notion of SLES long before then.
Also, the one time I actually requested any kind of support from an RHEL entitlement, it took them the full 48 hours to get back to me with an answer which I solved myself about about 2 hours after I asked - so yeah, CentOS seemed to be enough for me.
With Ubuntu, you do actually have access to incident level support I guess - not that I am likely to ever use it.
Craig
Dne 2.11.2011 18:43, Bill Campbell napsal(a):
We were using that about 5 years ago, and paid Novell a fair amount of money in their Partner program. Novell's support was slim to non-existent leading to our move to CentOS.
Given the recent sale to Attachmate and such, I wouldn't invest any time or money in SLES.
Bill
Our many years experience with SLES is the very same. It is "enterprise" and certified distro, but I would not invest the cent into it. One of the reasons we are using CentOS. DH
David HrbÃ¡Ä wrote:
Dne 2.11.2011 18:43, Bill Campbell napsal(a):
We were using that about 5 years ago, and paid Novell a fair amount of money in their Partner program. Novell's support was slim to non-existent leading to our move to CentOS.
Given the recent sale to Attachmate and such, I wouldn't invest any time or money in SLES.
Our many years experience with SLES is the very same. It is "enterprise" and certified distro, but I would not invest the cent into it. One of the reasons we are using CentOS.
Last time I paid any real attention to it, a few years ago, SuSE was the big dog in Europe, and RH in the US. I'd figure RH still is, given that it's IBM's partner.
mark
OpenIndiana.org
2011/11/2 Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES); 2.) Debian Stable.
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?' _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
John R Pierce wrote:
On 11/02/11 12:19 PM, Marcio Carneiro wrote:
OpenIndiana.org
I wouldn't want to hitch my sleigh to something dependent on Oracle's good will.
I'm sorry, I'm achieving cognitive dissonance here, associating "Oracle" and "good will".
mark "try googling my posts from the beginning of the year about getting 'tech support' on Sun hardware...."
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 03:35 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 11/02/11 12:19 PM, Marcio Carneiro wrote:
OpenIndiana.org
I wouldn't want to hitch my sleigh to something dependent on Oracle's good will.
It is not dependent on Oracle's good will. Not any longer as they have switched to illumos for their base OS.
Then there is nexenta...
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 03:19:07 PM Marcio Carneiro wrote:
2011/11/2 Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not:
OpenIndiana.org
I was limiting myself to Linux, and I really should have said so. If any unix-like system is fair game, then OpenBSD would be my top alternative to CentOS or another RHEL rebuild. I prefer CentOS, personally, but if we're talking alternatives it is useful to have a good feel for what you're going to get before it becomes an issue.
Vreme: 11/02/2011 08:19 PM, Marcio Carneiro piše:
OpenIndiana.org
2011/11/2 Lamar Owenlowen@pari.edu
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 01:46:57 AM Bob Hoffman wrote:
Personally I am thinking of staying away from all red hat clones due to redhat's actions for my own security. The only thing on the horizon I see is ubuntu server as best supported and up to date.
There are really two good enterprise-grade alternatives, in my opinion, one free and one not: 1.) SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES); 2.) Debian Stable.
I've had some issues with Ubuntu LTS in the past; perhaps they've worked those out, but since they're somewhat based off of Debian, why not go to the source if you're going to go 'Debian-like?'
Marcio, please do not top post, the norm on this mailing list is to write bellow the original poster. Thanks.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Bill Campbell -
Bob Hoffman -
Brian Mathis -
Christopher Chan -
Craig White -
Craig White -
David C. Miller -
David Hrbáč -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
Digimer -
Dotan Cohen -
Eero Volotinen -
fred smith -
Ian Pilcher -
John Beranek -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Marcio Carneiro -
Marko Vojinovic -
Ned Slider -
Patrick Lists -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Reindl Harald -
Rob Kampen -
Scott Robbins -
tony＠softins.co.uk -
Trey Dockendorf