On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:13:32PM -0800, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Sometime in 2011 would be a fair bet.
John
On Feb 27, 2011, at 7:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Seriously though.
Nothing wrong with asking.
Its been discussed "several" time to an order of magnitude.
No word, not even a peep, at least that I can gather.
We're all frustrated in anticipation so I daily check the main page.
Meanwhile, dl Scientific Linux and mess around.
Believe me, when it happens, the moon will shine like Michelob.
I dunno, just felt like sayin it.
- aurf
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:29:16PM -0800, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
We're all frustrated in anticipation so I daily check the main page.
"We" are? Funny, I don't feel frustrated.
John
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 21:46 -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously. Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.
-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist
Over here we are perhaps a little more aware he was one of us and he wrote in 'our' language. Our language is so successful at enabling expressive communications that others around the world have mutilated our language whilst attempting to improve upon it :-)
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950).
1984 arrived a few years late. With the introduction of fibre optics telecommunications in residential dwellings (coming to our town in July 2011), just how long is the TV set going to stay unidirectional ?
On Feb 27, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 21:46 -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously. Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.
-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist
Over here we are perhaps a little more aware he was one of us and he wrote in 'our' language. Our language is so successful at enabling expressive communications that others around the world have mutilated our language whilst attempting to improve upon it :-)
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950).
1984 arrived a few years late. With the introduction of fibre optics telecommunications in residential dwellings (coming to our town in July 2011), just how long is the TV set going to stay unidirectional ?
Ok that was weird.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 21:46 -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously. Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.
-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist
Over here we are perhaps a little more aware he was one of us and he wrote in 'our' language. Our language is so successful at enabling expressive communications that others around the world have mutilated our language whilst attempting to improve upon it :-)
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 - 21 January 1950).
1984 arrived a few years late. With the introduction of fibre optics telecommunications in residential dwellings (coming to our town in July 2011), just how long is the TV set going to stay unidirectional ?
Ok that was weird.
Entertaining as always...
On 02/27/2011 07:29 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 7:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Seriously though.
Nothing wrong with asking.
Its been discussed "several" time to an order of magnitude.
No word, not even a peep, at least that I can gather.
We're all frustrated in anticipation so I daily check the main page.
Meanwhile, dl Scientific Linux and mess around.
Believe me, when it happens, the moon will shine like Michelob.
I dunno, just felt like sayin it.
- aurf
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6.
A couple responses were in the good spirit of cooperation; thank you kindly.
The rest completely violated the netiquet of posting to this list. No one needs the replies of anally retentive people; and that's my $.02's worth of violating the netiquet rules.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 19:51 -0800, JD wrote:
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6.
Should that be C6 and not RH6 ?
Delivery of Centos 5.6 will precede Centos 6. The development team are doing their best.
Most of us are willing to wait without criticism or adverse comment. Like everyone else I really don't know the dates.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:51:49PM -0800, JD wrote:
On 02/27/2011 07:29 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 7:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Seriously though.
Nothing wrong with asking.
Its been discussed "several" time to an order of magnitude.
No word, not even a peep, at least that I can gather.
We're all frustrated in anticipation so I daily check the main page.
Meanwhile, dl Scientific Linux and mess around.
Believe me, when it happens, the moon will shine like Michelob.
I dunno, just felt like sayin it.
- aurf
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6.
A couple responses were in the good spirit of cooperation; thank you kindly.
The rest completely violated the netiquet of posting to this list. No one needs the replies of anally retentive people; and that's my $.02's worth of violating the netiquet rules.
Assuming you're being sincere here and not trolling, any reason _you_ didn't follow proper netiquette and search the archives (say -- back one day?) for an answer to your question?
You'd have seen discussions along this vein have been ongoing for weeks and could have anticipated the reactions you received.
CentOS will be ready when it's ready -- that's how it's always been and that's how it'll be for the next release as well.
There has NEVER been any point to asking "when" -- and asking after weeks and weeks of arguing has gone on is literally like tossing a live grenade in the midst of everything all over again. And you lecture us about netiquette?
Apologies to the rest of the list for taking the bait. No more for me I promise. :)
Ray
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:51:49PM -0800, JD wrote:
On 02/27/2011 07:29 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 7:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Nothing wrong with asking.
Its been discussed "several" time to an order of magnitude.
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6.
This is understandable, and a better answer would have been, take a look at the list archives--the somewhat harsh reaction is because there have been several acrimonious discussions about it. We do tend to forget that not everyone has been on the list through that discussion--that is why, however, part of the reaction was, Is this a joke? (When I saw the thread title, I thought it was a joke.)
The RHEL5 and CentOS 5 isn't all that good a yardstick, because, in this case, RH also made some point releases, 5.6 and 4 something--errm, 9? (sorry, not using it so haven't paid much attention.)
Seriously, you should take a look at the list archives for this month (it'll be easy to tell by title what threads are relevant), and that will, hopefully, allow you to understand why you've gotten the sorts of answers that you have received.
I honestly don't think that it's a good thing to join a list and start criticizing the answers you receive before looking at archives and getting a feeling for the particular list.
Anyway, there really isn't a short answer to the question, as you'll see if you view said archives.
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea.
"It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future". While extrapolating from past data is legitimate, it does not apply to this case, unfortunately.
The rest completely violated the netiquet of posting to this list. No one needs the replies of anally retentive people; and that's my $.02's worth of violating the netiquet rules.
Netiquette also requires to check the archives first. Google exists, too.
Just because the big G didn't spit out a date when you hit the "'I'm feeling lucky" button doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bring up that subject....
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, JD wrote:
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6.
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
On 3/1/2011 7:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, JD wrote:
OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
I find it most interesting that upstream was also 'very' late with these last releases. I'm sorry I don't have time to do a history lookup on them, but it seems like 6 was a year or more overdue and it seems like 5.6 was also very late in appearing? That said, from what I think I'm hearing, 5.6 will have user selectable versions of some software... PHP for one? I've never known of a release with this type of situation. As PHP seems to have an effect on a lot of things, it seems that there must be some sort of fork in the dependency routine based on this choice.
Anyway, I do wonder if this complexity has made the team's work more difficult. In other words, created a few new hurdles, maybe some of the reasons for why upstream was so late with their releases as well? But we can't say upstream was late, because with upstream, "it is ready when it's ready".
Dag, I assume you are packaging for both 5.6 and 6. Are you seeing any new complexities with your work?
John Hinton
5.6 was also very late in appearing? That said, from what I think I'm hearing, 5.6 will have user selectable versions of some software... PHP for one? I've never known of a release with this type of situation. As
There was already such situations. postgresql84 was introduced in CentOS 5.5 for example.
This is really great and extends the life of the platform, but as you suggest is probably not without costs in terms of complexity (we regularly run into the odd problem with PostgreSQL)
Dne 2.3.2011 01:14, Dag Wieers napsal(a):
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
RHEL5.6: 2011-01-12 Centos-5.6: TBD 50+ days
DH
On 03/02/2011 04:45 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 2.3.2011 01:14, Dag Wieers napsal(a):
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
RHEL5.6: 2011-01-12 Centos-5.6: TBD 50+ days
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/02/2011 04:45 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 2.3.2011 01:14, Dag Wieers napsal(a):
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
RHEL5.6: 2011-01-12 Centos-5.6: TBD 50+ days
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
Dave,
Wow you actually got a dev to waste time in responding to your post.
I'd say your a pie hole, the brown eyed suzie kind. Go buy RHEL for a few hundies then.
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 17:49 -0800, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
Wow you actually got a dev to waste time in responding to your post.
I'd say your .....
Can we keen this list clean and as polite as possible please? There might be children about.
By the way, it should have been "you're"
Thank you.
With best regards,
Paul. England, EU.
On 03/03/11 02:49, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/02/2011 04:45 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dne 2.3.2011 01:14, Dag Wieers napsal(a):
RHEL4: 2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days
RHEL5: 2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days
RHEL6: 2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days
Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already.
RHEL5.6: 2011-01-12 Centos-5.6: TBD 50+ days
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
Dave,
Wow you actually got a dev to waste time in responding to your post.
I'd say your a pie hole, the brown eyed suzie kind. Go buy RHEL for a few hundies then.
No! This is a lame excuse. The developer chose to respond to it. He could just have ignored that post. He is not required to give any answer. The developer *chose* to waste time giving a completely useless response. He could rather have looked another way and continued doing something else, which would be more productive in this case.
To be honest, I dislike the attitude of some CentOS developers, basically telling people to f*** off whenever a nerve is hit. If there was another CentOS alternative which stays as close to RHEL as CentOS does, I would really been using that instead.
I appreciate the work of the developers a lot. I appreciate CentOS a lot. I know and understand that there is a lot of work behind CentOS. But the developers are not gods who can do whatever they like just because of their position.
And if developers complains about lack of community help ... maybe they should look a little bit closer on how they treat the community first.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On 03/03/2011 10:01 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
I know and understand that there is a lot of work behind CentOS. But the developers are not gods who can do whatever they like just because of their position.
<bites tongue, thread-jacks>
Personally, I'm really looking forward to Cluster 3 support. It will be fun to see how Pacemaker compares to rgmanager.
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
On Mar 3, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
XFS support on boot partitions. PVOPS kernel so I can get better VGA/USB passthrough with Xen. Newer KDE. Newer MonoDevelop package (boy was this a nightmare to install on previous versions). Mebbe even messing with EXT4. Newer DHCP so I can get better failover.
I'm sure more things will come up.
I did dl RHEL 6 but my eval expired so I'm getting SL 6 to better prep myself for Centos 6 rel.
Got a few servers to roll out needing some features above.
- aurf
I do have one question about Cent OS 6. Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
Thanks
Jim
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 10:44 -0800, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
XFS support on boot partitions. PVOPS kernel so I can get better VGA/USB passthrough with Xen. Newer KDE. Newer MonoDevelop package (boy was this a nightmare to install on previous versions). Mebbe even messing with EXT4. Newer DHCP so I can get better failover.
I'm sure more things will come up.
I did dl RHEL 6 but my eval expired so I'm getting SL 6 to better prep myself for Centos 6 rel.
Got a few servers to roll out needing some features above.
- aurf
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/03/2011 11:44 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I do have one question about Cent OS 6.Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
That will depend upon how upstream wrote the item that splits the RPMs. The distros are getting so big now that it might not make sense to continue to create CDs ... CentOS 5.6 will have at least 8 (and maybe 9) CDs for x86_64. I would expect that number to grow for CentOS 6. In fact, we already had to split 5.5 x86_64 over 2 DVDs, and both arches for CentOS 6 will likely be 2 DVDs.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 03/03/2011 11:44 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I do have one question about Cent OS 6. Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
That will depend upon how upstream wrote the item that splits the RPMs. The distros are getting so big now that it might not make sense to continue to create CDs ... CentOS 5.6 will have at least 8 (and maybe 9) CDs for x86_64. I would expect that number to grow for CentOS 6. In fact, we already had to split 5.5 x86_64 over 2 DVDs, and both arches for CentOS 6 will likely be 2 DVDs.
And even the DVD's are hitting limits. The current RHEL 6 Server DVD does not contain python-docutils or audiofile-devel, they're part of a separate "optional" channel. (This just drove me insane trying to recompile nx and neatx, I was *very* surprised they weren't part of the basic channel.)
CentOS doesn't maintain all these distinct "channels" they can just leave off of the installation media, so may face a size burden trying to get all those nominally "other channel" components onto one DVD, especially that "optional" channel.
On 3/4/11 5:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/03/2011 11:44 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I do have one question about Cent OS 6.Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
That will depend upon how upstream wrote the item that splits the RPMs. The distros are getting so big now that it might not make sense to continue to create CDs ... CentOS 5.6 will have at least 8 (and maybe 9) CDs for x86_64. I would expect that number to grow for CentOS 6. In fact, we already had to split 5.5 x86_64 over 2 DVDs, and both arches for CentOS 6 will likely be 2 DVDs.
I always liked the way you could NFS-install from a directory containing the downloaded CD iso images but I could never get that to work with a dvd iso. Is there an equally easy way to install from a DVD image on a box without a DVD drive?
Greetings,
On 3/4/11, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
I always liked the way you could NFS-install from a directory containing the downloaded CD iso images but I could never get that to work with a dvd iso. Is there an equally easy way to install from a DVD image on a box without a DVD drive?
dunno if mount -o loopback <DVD.ISOPath> and the point shared over nfs works.
Regards,
Rajagopal
On 3/4/11 5:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/03/2011 11:44 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I do have one question about Cent OS 6.Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
That will depend upon how upstream wrote the item that splits the RPMs. The distros are getting so big now that it might not make sense to continue to create CDs ... CentOS 5.6 will have at least 8 (and maybe 9) CDs for x86_64. I would expect that number to grow for CentOS 6. In fact, we already had to split 5.5 x86_64 over 2 DVDs, and both arches for CentOS 6 will likely be 2 DVDs.
I always liked the way you could NFS-install from a directory containing the downloaded CD iso images but I could never get that to work with a dvd iso. Is there an equally easy way to install from a DVD image on a box without a DVD drive?
Yes, it's still possible, but needs a little bit more work. In the directory where the DVD ISO is, you have to create a directory called images and put the install.img file from the ISO there:
[someone@ftp x86_64]$ ll -R .: total 3953768 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 12 15:25 images -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 210 Nov 12 12:31 MD5SUMS -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 232761344 Oct 26 03:16 rhel-server-6.0-x86_64-boot.iso -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3431618560 Oct 26 19:09 rhel-server-6.0-x86_64-dvd.iso -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 380297216 Nov 4 21:48 rhel-server-supplementary-6.0-x86_64-dvd.iso
./images: total 119780 -r--r--r-- 1 root root 122527744 Sep 23 00:04 install.img
Regards, Simon
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:33:20AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/03/2011 11:44 PM, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
I do have one question about Cent OS 6.Sonetimes back, I remember reading that the plan was to spread the iso's over multiple cd's, rather than put it all on 1 dvd. Is that still the plan? As far as when it's released, I say take all the time you need. I'd rather have an os that works, than something that's just thrown together, and is about as stable as windows me, or vista.
That will depend upon how upstream wrote the item that splits the RPMs. The distros are getting so big now that it might not make sense to continue to create CDs ... CentOS 5.6 will have at least 8 (and maybe 9) CDs for x86_64. I would expect that number to grow for CentOS 6. In fact, we already had to split 5.5 x86_64 over 2 DVDs, and both arches for CentOS 6 will likely be 2 DVDs.
How reasonable would it be to offer DVD images that fit on DL media? I know I don't own any DL media, and probably most others don't either, but I at least do have DL-capable optical drives. If a good enough reason came up, e.g., my favorite distro making DL isos available, I'd probably go buy some.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
The whiners stop whining is what I'm most looking forward to.
John
On Thursday, March 03, 2011 03:55:48 pm John R. Dennison wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
The whiners stop whining is what I'm most looking forward to.
+10^googolplex
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:55 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
The whiners stop whining is what I'm most looking forward to.
John
--
Yea, I agree with you on that one.
Guys, please stop complaining. The CentOS dev team has done an awesome job so far. Stop complaining and enjoy what they do for us.
--- On Thu, 3/3/11, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
From: John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 - What are you looking forward to? To: "Digimer" linux@alteeve.com Cc: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org, "David Sommerseth" dazo@users.sourceforge.net Date: Thursday, 3 March, 2011, 20:55 On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking
forward to in CentOS 6
when it is released?
The whiners stop whining is what I'm most looking forward to.
The sycophants stopping whining about the whiners is what I am looking forward to.
On 03/03/2011 06:19 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/3/11, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
From: John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 - What are you looking forward to? To: "Digimer" linux@alteeve.com Cc: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org, "David Sommerseth" dazo@users.sourceforge.net Date: Thursday, 3 March, 2011, 20:55 On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking
forward to in CentOS 6
when it is released?
The whiners stop whining is what I'mmost looking forward to.
The sycophants stopping whining about the whiners is what I am looking forward to.
We have to go deeper...
j/k.
Apparently my attempt to thread-jack and get back on topic failed though. Perhaps the best suggestion is for the devs to just ignore this channel for the time being. We're all apparently incapable of leaving them alone to do their thing.
I, for one, pledge to simple ignore any further complaints about the release speed of CentOS. I ask others to take the same pledge. Those left to complain can fall of deaf ears. :)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
On 03/03/2011 10:01 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
I know and understand that there is a lot of work behind CentOS. But the developers are not gods who can do whatever they like just because of their position.
<bites tongue, thread-jacks>
Personally, I'm really looking forward to Cluster 3 support. It will be fun to see how Pacemaker compares to rgmanager.
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
What does the new GSSAPI support do for you?
jh
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:57 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
What does the new GSSAPI support do for you?
Single sign-on. Your Windows clients, in the right environment, can have their Kerberos tickets managed to allow Kerberos tickets, not authorized_keys, to be used very effectively and reduce typing !@#$!@#$ passwords or manipulating SSH keys. The "development" version of Putty also has this built right in, though it's not made it to the production version yet.
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:57 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
What does the new GSSAPI support do for you?
Single sign-on. Your Windows clients, in the right environment, can have their Kerberos tickets managed to allow Kerberos tickets, not authorized_keys, to be used very effectively and reduce typing !@#$!@#$ passwords or manipulating SSH keys. The "development" version of Putty also has this built right in, though it's not made it to the production version yet.
But that works just nicely with CentOS 5. I use GSSAPI together with kerberos tickets plucked out of Active Directory. Enable GSSAPIDelegateCredentials and it'll throw your ticket to the remote side, so you can merrily use your kerberos ticket there too.
jh
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:53 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:57 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
What does the new GSSAPI support do for you?
Single sign-on. Your Windows clients, in the right environment, can have their Kerberos tickets managed to allow Kerberos tickets, not authorized_keys, to be used very effectively and reduce typing !@#$!@#$ passwords or manipulating SSH keys. The "development" version of Putty also has this built right in, though it's not made it to the production version yet.
But that works just nicely with CentOS 5. I use GSSAPI together with kerberos tickets plucked out of Active Directory. Enable GSSAPIDelegateCredentials and it'll throw your ticket to the remote side, so you can merrily use your kerberos ticket there too.
Have you backported OpenSSH 5.x to CentOS 5? Because I don't see the full features set without OpenSSH 5.x, such as "GSSApiKeyExchange".
Hmm. What you've described is an ssh_config option, which is set to "no" by default. I'll have to look into that. There have been some interesting..... traction issues with using the backported OpenSSH 5.x I'm currently reliant on for CentOS 5 and RHEL 5.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Have you backported OpenSSH 5.x to CentOS 5? Because I don't see the full features set without OpenSSH 5.x, such as "GSSApiKeyExchange".
Nope, I like the simple life.
Hmm. What you've described is an ssh_config option, which is set to "no" by default. I'll have to look into that. There have been some interesting..... traction issues with using the backported OpenSSH 5.x I'm currently reliant on for CentOS 5 and RHEL 5.
I'm stock 5.5:
openssh-server-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1 openssh-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1 openssh-clients-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1
Server needs:
GSSAPIAuthentication yes GSSAPICleanupCredentials yes
Most probably you also want:
AllowGroups blah
Client needs:
GSSAPIAuthentication yes
If you want key forwarding, you also need:
GSSAPIDelegateCredentials yes
Works like a charm, and GSSAPI auth works with putty, delegation doesn't seem to.
jh
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:14 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Have you backported OpenSSH 5.x to CentOS 5? Because I don't see the full features set without OpenSSH 5.x, such as "GSSApiKeyExchange".
Nope, I like the simple life.
Hmm. What you've described is an ssh_config option, which is set to "no" by default. I'll have to look into that. There have been some interesting..... traction issues with using the backported OpenSSH 5.x I'm currently reliant on for CentOS 5 and RHEL 5.
I'm stock 5.5:
openssh-server-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1 openssh-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1 openssh-clients-4.3p2-41.el5_5.1
Server needs:
GSSAPIAuthentication yes GSSAPICleanupCredentials yes
Most probably you also want:
AllowGroups blah
Client needs:
GSSAPIAuthentication yes
If you want key forwarding, you also need:
GSSAPIDelegateCredentials yes
Works like a charm, and GSSAPI auth works with putty, delegation doesn't seem to.
If this works, you've just solved a *BIG* problem for me: I'd been handed (ordered before I arrived on the site) the issues of getting Centrify OpenSSH to play nicely, and this avoids the "OpenSSH 5.x does not read .bashrc and read user aliases for remote ssh commands" problem I've been facing, while preserving the effective GSSAPI credentials handling.
*Good* admin. And are you coming to the Boston are, so I can buy you a decent local beer? (I'm not in London anymore.) Why aren't you over on the comp.security.ssh?
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
If this works, you've just solved a *BIG* problem for me: I'd been handed (ordered before I arrived on the site) the issues of getting Centrify OpenSSH to play nicely, and this avoids the "OpenSSH 5.x does not read .bashrc and read user aliases for remote ssh commands" problem I've been facing, while preserving the effective GSSAPI credentials handling.
Tested this with regular MIT kerberos under CentOS some time ago, but am actually running it against Active Directory currently.
*Good* admin. And are you coming to the Boston are, so I can buy you a decent local beer? (I'm not in London anymore.) Why aren't you over on the comp.security.ssh?
Too many groups, too little time. Tell you what, solve all the niggly little problems I've had with kerberised NFSv4 with CentOS5, and we'll call it quits.
jh
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:56 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
If this works, you've just solved a *BIG* problem for me: I'd been handed (ordered before I arrived on the site) the issues of getting Centrify OpenSSH to play nicely, and this avoids the "OpenSSH 5.x does not read .bashrc and read user aliases for remote ssh commands" problem I've been facing, while preserving the effective GSSAPI credentials handling.
Tested this with regular MIT kerberos under CentOS some time ago, but am actually running it against Active Directory currently.
*Good* admin. And are you coming to the Boston are, so I can buy you a decent local beer? (I'm not in London anymore.) Why aren't you over on the comp.security.ssh?
Too many groups, too little time. Tell you what, solve all the niggly little problems I've had with kerberised NFSv4 with CentOS5, and we'll call it quits.
Ahh, I'll just trade you this fine lease on swampland in Florida for your first born, shall I?
NFSv4 is *NOT* your friend, and Kerberizing it effectively is not trivial. I'm using Centrify for that and to have a reliable upstream vendor who can actually support it. (I'm on a contract.) What's the issue you're encountering, besides the lack of "nfs4-acl-editor" in the RPM's.
nfs4-acl-editor is actually built into the nfs4 tools source tree, it's just not compiled. It's not a perfect tool, but I think well worth getting into the "extras" repository for CentOS.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
NFSv4 is *NOT* your friend, and Kerberizing it effectively is not trivial. I'm using Centrify for that and to have a reliable upstream vendor who can actually support it. (I'm on a contract.) What's the issue you're encountering, besides the lack of "nfs4-acl-editor" in the RPM's.
With a CentOS 5 server and a CentOS 5 client, I've yet to manage to get it play nicely for long periods without deciding that I'm evil. Sometimes it works fine, then a reboot or a minor tinker that I'm sure shouldn't affect anything will leave it refusing to mount with Operation not permitted. Or it'll let me mount it as root, but as soon as I use it with a kerberos ticket will have a big long pause before deciding it doesn't like me. Client works fine against an EMC box, and I've had the server working before I started using Active Directory.
nfs4-acl-editor is actually built into the nfs4 tools source tree, it's just not compiled. It's not a perfect tool, but I think well worth getting into the "extras" repository for CentOS.
nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.3-1.el5, standard in CentOS. That not do what you need?
jh
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
Contemporary versions of git, subversion, and OpenSSH built-in. I'm particularly looking forward to the built-in chroot capabilities and GSSAPI support in OpenSSH, and the major release improvements to git and subversion.
Minor point, but RHEL 5.6 finally bumped subversion to 1.6.X, so at least we'll see that in CentOS 5.6 too.
-Greg
--On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:11 AM -0500 Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
A new Ruby so I can deploy a Diaspora "pod" for my friends, allowing them to escape Facebook. (I tried building Ruby from Rawhide but the dependencies soon went deep, too deep for a simple, isolated update.)
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:11 AM -0500 Digimer <linux@alteeve.com
wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
A new Ruby
+1
Having issues installing Earth;
http://open.rsp.com.au/projects/earth
- aurf
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:11 AM -0500 Digimer <linux@alteeve.com
wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
A new Ruby
I just realized that the earth link I ref'd is dead.
Here is the new link in the event any one was wondering.
https://github.com/bdeluca/earth2
- aurf
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
Personally, I'm really looking forward to Cluster 3 support. It will be fun to see how Pacemaker compares to rgmanager.
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution.
Also, the new multipath configuration tools will make my life easier.
Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
Personally, I'm really looking forward to Cluster 3 support. It will be fun to see how Pacemaker compares to rgmanager.
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution.
Really? So IBM ported VM into native AIX? I missed that.
mark
On 03/04/11 11:59 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it
some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution.
Really? So IBM ported VM into native AIX? I missed that.
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
In addition, AIX 6.1 and newer have Workload Partitions (WPAR), which are similar to Solaris Zones, these allow subdividing an AIX install into an arbitrary number of apparently different systems that all share the same kernel.
LPAR plus VIOS (Virtual IO System, actually a stripped down preconfigured AIX system) corresponds to the Xen model, however the base hypervisor capability is built right into the CPU and IO hardware, VIOS just provides management and optional virtualized IO. You can assign IO adapters directly to partitions, whereupon the partitions (VMs) run even if VIOS is shut down. The newer Power6 and 7 servers have Ethernet adapters that provide each LPAR with its own hardware-virtualized ethernet adapter so you don't need a cage full of cards, or run all the networking through VIOS.
On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:11 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
In addition, AIX 6.1 and newer have Workload Partitions (WPAR), which are similar to Solaris Zones, these allow subdividing an AIX install into an arbitrary number of apparently different systems that all share the same kernel.
LPAR plus VIOS (Virtual IO System, actually a stripped down preconfigured AIX system) corresponds to the Xen model, however the base hypervisor capability is built right into the CPU and IO hardware, VIOS just provides management and optional virtualized IO. You can assign IO adapters directly to partitions, whereupon the partitions (VMs) run even if VIOS is shut down. The newer Power6 and 7 servers have Ethernet adapters that provide each LPAR with its own hardware-virtualized ethernet adapter so you don't need a cage full of cards, or run all the networking through VIOS.
Wow, thats awesome, thanks for the John.
- aurf
John R Pierce wrote:
On 03/04/11 11:59 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it
some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution.
Really? So IBM ported VM into native AIX? I missed that.
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
<snip> Neat! Thanks - around '06 I was working as a developer on a big AIX system, but never administered one.
mark (who worked under VM on a mainframe, years back)
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
[informative text snipped]
Yes, it is some nice stuff...
In particular, having the hardware partitioning capability plays nice with Oracle licensing. Under KVM or Xen we still have to license the entire system. This probably won't change with the newer kvm, but one can hope.
On the Linux side I would like to see how KSM (kernel memory merge) stacks up against memory compression on the Power7 side. Not sure if this made it into RHEL6, but hope springs eternal...
Storage management is always a big issue for me. AIX has some really great tools for managing disks. In Linux the LUN, block and fs layer are still relatively decoupled which gives an enormous amount of flexibility but certain types of changes require multiple commands on Linux.
On the desktop side I've been running RHEL6 as my primary environment since release. Transition was easy. My old kickstart files needed tweaking, but so far it's been a breeze.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:33:10PM -0500, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
[informative text snipped]
Yes, it is some nice stuff...
In particular, having the hardware partitioning capability plays nice with Oracle licensing. Under KVM or Xen we still have to license the entire system. This probably won't change with the newer kvm, but one can hope.
It's kind of funny since OracleVM *is* Xen, and it's counted as "hardware partitioning" :)
-- Pasi
On the Linux side I would like to see how KSM (kernel memory merge) stacks up against memory compression on the Power7 side. Not sure if this made it into RHEL6, but hope springs eternal...
Storage management is always a big issue for me. AIX has some really great tools for managing disks. In Linux the LUN, block and fs layer are still relatively decoupled which gives an enormous amount of flexibility but certain types of changes require multiple commands on Linux.
On the desktop side I've been running RHEL6 as my primary environment since release. Transition was easy. My old kickstart files needed tweaking, but so far it's been a breeze. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen pasik@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:33:10PM -0500, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
[informative text snipped]
Yes, it is some nice stuff...
In particular, having the hardware partitioning capability plays nice with Oracle licensing. Under KVM or Xen we still have to license the entire system. This probably won't change with the newer kvm, but one can hope.
It's kind of funny since OracleVM *is* Xen, and it's counted as "hardware partitioning" :)
-- Pasi
On the Linux side I would like to see how KSM (kernel memory merge) stacks up against memory compression on the Power7 side. Not sure if this made it into RHEL6, but hope springs eternal...
Storage management is always a big issue for me. AIX has some really great tools for managing disks. In Linux the LUN, block and fs layer are still relatively decoupled which gives an enormous amount of flexibility but certain types of changes require multiple commands on Linux.
On the desktop side I've been running RHEL6 as my primary environment since release. Transition was easy. My old kickstart files needed tweaking, but so far it's been a breeze.
What did you hve to tweak? I noticed the new use of the '%end' flag to mark the end of a section, and the new partitioning structure which names the LVM based volumes and groups things which contain the hostname. (This is a big deal if you have multiple virtual hosts on a machihe and want to compare their internal LVM's side by side from the virtualization server.)
We are a data shop.
nfs v4 support native XFS support ext4
Hopefully by 6.4 they will have native brtfs :-)
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen pasik@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:33:10PM -0500, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
[informative text snipped]
Yes, it is some nice stuff...
In particular, having the hardware partitioning capability plays nice with Oracle licensing. Under KVM or Xen we still have to license the entire system. This probably won't change with the newer kvm, but one can hope.
It's kind of funny since OracleVM *is* Xen, and it's counted as "hardware partitioning" :)
-- Pasi
On the Linux side I would like to see how KSM (kernel memory merge) stacks up against memory compression on the Power7 side. Not sure if this made it into RHEL6, but hope springs eternal...
Storage management is always a big issue for me. AIX has some really great tools for managing disks. In Linux the LUN, block and fs layer are still relatively decoupled which gives an enormous amount of flexibility but certain types of changes require multiple commands on Linux.
On the desktop side I've been running RHEL6 as my primary environment since release. Transition was easy. My old kickstart files needed tweaking, but so far it's been a breeze.
What did you hve to tweak? I noticed the new use of the '%end' flag to mark the end of a section, and the new partitioning structure which names the LVM based volumes and groups things which contain the hostname. (This is a big deal if you have multiple virtual hosts on a machihe and want to compare their internal LVM's side by side from the virtualization server.) _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/06/11 5:50 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
It's kind of funny since OracleVM*is* Xen, and it's counted as "hardware partitioning" :)
OracleVM(tm) is a brand name now, being used for anything that remotely resembles virtualization, from Xen to Solaris Zones to hardware partitioning on the M series of big Sparc64 boxes.
:-/
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 05:28:13 pm John R Pierce wrote:
On 03/06/11 5:50 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
It's kind of funny since OracleVM*is* Xen, and it's counted as "hardware partitioning" :)
OracleVM(tm) is a brand name now, being used for anything that remotely resembles virtualization, from Xen to Solaris Zones to hardware partitioning on the M series of big Sparc64 boxes.
:-/
Aehm, OracleVM for Sparc is the Sun LDom (Logical Domains) software and does not work on anything but T servers. M servers use "Dynamic Domains", a completely different technology. Containers/Zones or Dynamic Domains don't have a OracleVM name...
Either way, Oracle counts Oracle VM (for x86/x64) as a hard partitioning technology when you use cpu affinity (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/virtualization/ovm- hardpart-167739.pdf)... Its just another case where Oracle is favoring their own products with licensing.
Peter.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 03/04/11 11:59 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it
some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution.
Really? So IBM ported VM into native AIX? I missed that.
IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite).
In addition, AIX 6.1 and newer have Workload Partitions (WPAR), which are similar to Solaris Zones, these allow subdividing an AIX install into an arbitrary number of apparently different systems that all share the same kernel.
LPAR plus VIOS (Virtual IO System, actually a stripped down preconfigured AIX system) corresponds to the Xen model, however the base hypervisor capability is built right into the CPU and IO hardware, VIOS just provides management and optional virtualized IO. You can assign IO adapters directly to partitions, whereupon the partitions (VMs) run even if VIOS is shut down. The newer Power6 and 7 servers have Ethernet adapters that provide each LPAR with its own hardware-virtualized ethernet adapter so you don't need a cage full of cards, or run all the networking through VIOS.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This is why I'm not totally impressed with virtualization today, but I've used it ions ago in enterprise solutions. =) There's a reason why IBM solutions are so expensive sides the amount of people they staff on projects. You also get technology that the industry never new existed.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:11:52PM +0000, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
For me the big wins with CentOS 6 should be SSSD to simplify and centralise (on the machine) network authentication and (hopefully!) graphics drivers which work with our hardware out-of-the box.
Laurence
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Laurence Hurst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:11:52PM +0000, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
For me the big wins with CentOS 6 should be SSSD to simplify and centralise (on the machine) network authentication and (hopefully!) graphics drivers which work with our hardware out-of-the box.
Yes, SSSD is of interest to me too. The last version I used was sufficiently less adept at matching winbind or nss_ldap in functionality that it wasn't all the good for use against Active Directory. I'm assuming nested group handling has improved somewhat since I last tried it with CentOS 5, which was the killer when I last tried.
It certainly sounds like a massively improved model compared to nss_ldap, you'd hope for much better resilience and performance.
I'm not sure I see graphics drivers as a big deal. Have your own local repo, add in a suitable package from elrepo, and install it at kickstart time.
jh
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Laurence Hurst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:11:52PM +0000, Digimer wrote:
How about the rest of you? What are you looking forward to in CentOS 6 when it is released?
For me the big wins with CentOS 6 should be SSSD to simplify and centralise (on the machine) network authentication and (hopefully!) graphics drivers which work with our hardware out-of-the box.
Yes, SSSD is of interest to me too. The last version I used was sufficiently less adept at matching winbind or nss_ldap in functionality that it wasn't all the good for use against Active Directory. I'm assuming nested group handling has improved somewhat since I last tried it with CentOS 5, which was the killer when I last tried.
It certainly sounds like a massively improved model compared to nss_ldap, you'd hope for much better resilience and performance.
I'm not sure I see graphics drivers as a big deal. Have your own local repo, add in a suitable package from elrepo, and install it at kickstart time.
Graphics drivers can be a big deal. For some netbook hardware I really need Intel GMA3150 support but AFAIK that's a no go with EL5. I may be wrong but, has anyone got it to work?
Simon
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
No! This is a lame excuse. The developer chose to respond to it. He could just have ignored that post. He is not required to give any answer. The developer *chose* to waste time giving a completely useless response. He could rather have looked another way and continued doing something else, which would be more productive in this case.
(1) The developers are community volunteers. Without their invaluable contribution none of us would have a working Centos - certainly not the quality product we use and appreciate.
(2) The volunteers have other things in their lives yet they deliberately yield those just to create an undisputed marvellous product which which benefits us.
(3) Anyone with any ability to sense things will appreciate the developers seem to be under some strain certainly one in particular. Stress and strain are the inevitable consequences of our 'modern' western life styles. It would be uncharitable to ignore the fact that all of us, at different times in our lives, are likely to suffer at least once from stress and strain.
(4) One of the so-called 'safety valves' for stressed people is to 'let-off steam'. It is an invaluable mechanism.
(5) Why is anyone wasting their time trying to continue this non-productive series of accusations and counter-accusations? It is not helping the eventual release of new and exciting versions of our favourite operating system.
(6) Centos Users are part of a big family. It is in the family's best interests that each member shows restraint, understanding, forgiveness (if necessary) and gratefulness to the few whose contributions are awesome.
On 03/02/2011 08:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
If I may say;
The vast majority of CentOS users understand the hard work you guys and gals are putting into this. The vast majority are ecstatic that you're doing it for us and are certainly happy to wait.
Please don't let a few people take away from our community. Remember how many appreciate your work. :)
Waiting patiently on the sidelines...
Digi
I'm happy to wait rather is works properly. Thanks to the Team/Community for a great product
Greg Machin Systems Administrator - Linux Infrastructure Group, Information Services
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Digimer Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:11 p.m. To: CentOS mailing list Cc: Johnny Hughes Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6
On 03/02/2011 08:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as
we
possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
If I may say;
The vast majority of CentOS users understand the hard work you guys and gals are putting into this. The vast majority are ecstatic that you're doing it for us and are certainly happy to wait.
Please don't let a few people take away from our community. Remember how many appreciate your work. :)
Waiting patiently on the sidelines...
Digi
Me too. Who cares if it comes out within the next 3 months. As long as they keep releasing the security updates quickly.... I've given up on waiting for new releases :(
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Machin, Greg < Greg.Machin@openpolytechnic.ac.nz> wrote:
I'm happy to wait rather is works properly. Thanks to the Team/Community for a great product
Greg Machin Systems Administrator - Linux Infrastructure Group, Information Services
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Digimer Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:11 p.m. To: CentOS mailing list Cc: Johnny Hughes Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6
On 03/02/2011 08:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
AND?
Do you think we can't count?
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as
we
possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
If I may say;
The vast majority of CentOS users understand the hard work you guys and gals are putting into this. The vast majority are ecstatic that you're doing it for us and are certainly happy to wait.
Please don't let a few people take away from our community. Remember how many appreciate your work. :)
Waiting patiently on the sidelines...
Digi
-- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/02/2011 09:31 PM, robert mena wrote:
Me too. Who cares if it comes out within the next 3 months. As long as they keep releasing the security updates quickly.... I've given up on waiting for new releases :(
If you've given up, use something else. Red Hat can serve you well right away, if you wish to pay the toll. CentOS folks are doing what they can, when they can.
The passive-aggressive ":(" is kinda not cool.
As someone who manages a fairly big program, which is dwarfed in scale by the CentOS team, I am left amazed that they can do what they do at all. I'm happy to wait because I'm not able to do it myself. More than that, I am certainly not paying them anything. They owe no one anything whereas all of us who use CentOS owe *them*.
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So there is no point in making questions or expecting answers that actually helps.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
On 03/02/2011 09:31 PM, robert mena wrote:
Me too. Who cares if it comes out within the next 3 months. As long as they keep releasing the security updates quickly.... I've given up on waiting for new releases :(
If you've given up, use something else. Red Hat can serve you well right away, if you wish to pay the toll. CentOS folks are doing what they can, when they can.
The passive-aggressive ":(" is kinda not cool.
As someone who manages a fairly big program, which is dwarfed in scale by the CentOS team, I am left amazed that they can do what they do at all. I'm happy to wait because I'm not able to do it myself. More than that, I am certainly not paying them anything. They owe no one anything whereas all of us who use CentOS owe *them*.
-- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
robert mena wrote:
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So there
<snip> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to deal with before?
Note that this is a question about the problemss, *not* about how y'all are going about it, nor whining that I Want It Yesterday!!! As someone who spent a lot of years as a developer (and let's not talk about the death march at a former Baby Bell), I like to know the kinds of problems that are ongoing, so I can get some feel for what's going on.
mark "sorry, no time to do some of the real work, RL is overwhelming at the moment"
On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
robert mena wrote:
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So there
<snip> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to deal with before?
Note that this is a question about the problemss, *not* about how y'all are going about it, nor whining that I Want It Yesterday!!! As someone who spent a lot of years as a developer (and let's not talk about the death march at a former Baby Bell), I like to know the kinds of problems that are ongoing, so I can get some feel for what's going on.
mark "sorry, no time to do some of the real work, RL is overwhelmingat the moment"
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I saw this posted yesterday on h-online.com.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfus...
On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
robert mena wrote:
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So there
<snip> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to deal with before?
Note that this is a question about the problemss, *not* about how y'all are going about it, nor whining that I Want It Yesterday!!! As someone who spent a lot of years as a developer (and let's not talk about the death march at a former Baby Bell), I like to know the kinds of problems that are ongoing, so I can get some feel for what's going on.
mark "sorry, no time to do some of the real work, RL is overwhelmingat the moment"
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I saw this posted yesterday on h-online.com.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfus...
I don't think it makes the work for CentOS harder, why should it? The CentOS kernel are 99.9% the same like RedHat's kernel, only very little changes are made to the src package (it may affect the centosplus kernels, but not the main one I guess).
Simon
Jason Brown wrote:
On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
robert mena wrote:
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So there
<snip> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to deal with before?
Note that this is a question about the problemss, *not* about how y'all are going about it, nor whining that I Want It Yesterday!!! As someone who spent a lot of years as a developer (and let's not talk about the death march at a former Baby Bell), I like to know the kinds of problems that are ongoing, so I can get some feel for what's going on.
mark "sorry, no time to do some of the real work, RL is overwhelmingat the moment"
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I saw this posted yesterday on h-online.com.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfus...
Once again Oracle business practices screw it up for the rest of the world.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Jason Brown wrote:
On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
robert mena wrote:
Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no plans to change the way things are handled (lack of communication,
treat this
as personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it.
The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So
<snip> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to deal with before?
<snip>
I saw this posted yesterday on h-online.com.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfus...
Don't know h-online, but that's *real* interesting, and explains a lot: not us, but Them (Oracle). Having had my recent experience with Oracle (which I posted here a month or so ago), I can understand why they don't want to help them....
mark
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 22:31 -0400, robert mena wrote:
Me too. Who cares if it comes out within the next 3 months. As long as they keep releasing the security updates quickly.... I've given up on waiting for new releases :(
Do try not to forget Centos is completely free and brought to all of us by altruistic volunteers giving their free time, their brain power and their efforts to the world for no tangible reward.
I am *definitely* very grateful and I have absolutely no intention of criticising such marvellous people or contributing to the pressure they may experience. Until you and I can do the same as these people and do it better, we and others should refrain from uttering anything minutely adverse.
I encourage everyone to reflect on the reasonableness of this posting.
With best regards,
Paul. England, EU.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
Good answer!
:)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Tom H Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:26 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6
You have my permission to use something else. Does that help?
Good answer!
"Me too!"
I think the CentOS-dev-team work miracles for us non-paying non-contributing end-users. I appreciate that very much. I can wait for a free *good* thing. Take your time devs, make it right rather than fast! 8-)
Now, can we please not say anything about "when..." in a while? It's rather tiresome seeing adult people trolling and having fights like three-year-olds in a sandbox... 8-P
On Wed, March 2, 2011 20:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
The problem here is fear.
I am not now asking, nor to the best of my ability to recall have I ever asked, for when a particular version of CentOS will be made available. I have nothing but admiration for those who contribute meaningfully to producing something that I value highly, including the folks at RedHat. Nor do I feel that the CentOS project is in trouble.
On the other hand, the first indication that a project is in trouble is usually prolonged and unexpected delay in getting the next anticipated release out. As that time drags on the anxiety level of those who have committed themselves, and their companies, to a project naturally rises. Most of us take these things with more than a grain of salt. We have seen it before and we will see it again. I came to CentOS through through CAOS which I came to from WhiteBox. And, if the need arises, I will no doubt find acceptable alternatives to CentOS.
But other may feel, sometimes with good reason, their competence questioned or job security threatened if their selection turns out to be a dead end. These people desire some sort of assurance that their choice will still prove correct however things appear now. That is what they are looking for.
Their question, when will it be ready? is not really what they want answered. They are looking for assurance in a form that they can show others. A due date seems to satisfy that desire but something else, a schedule of milestones, a status report, that shows activity might well suffice.
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On Wed, March 2, 2011 20:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
The problem here is fear.
Your fear is not shared by me, in the least.
And, if the need arises, I will no doubt find acceptable alternatives to CentOS.
RHEL and Scientific Linux come to mind. So does *assisting* rather than *handwringing* about CentOS.
But other may feel, sometimes with good reason, their competence questioned or job security threatened if their selection turns out to be a dead end.
This is *speculating* about a reasonable basis of fear on the parts of "Anonymous Others".
These people desire some sort of assurance that their choice will still prove correct however things appear now. That is what they are looking for.
The choice is "a free alternative packaging of RHEL". Make that choice, and you're in the good.
Johnny: Killfile the thread, we (loyalists) got you covered.
Insert spiffy .sig here
//me ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On Wed, March 2, 2011 20:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Do you think we are not trying or damnedest to get it done as fast as we possibly can?
What, exactly, is the problem here?
The problem here is fear.
I am not now asking, nor to the best of my ability to recall have I ever asked, for when a particular version of CentOS will be made available. I have nothing but admiration for those who contribute meaningfully to producing something that I value highly, including the folks at RedHat. Nor do I feel that the CentOS project is in trouble.
On the other hand, the first indication that a project is in trouble is usually prolonged and unexpected delay in getting the next anticipated release out. As that time drags on the anxiety level of those who have committed themselves, and their companies, to a project naturally rises. Most of us take these things with more than a grain of salt. We have seen it before and we will see it again. I came to CentOS through through CAOS which I came to from WhiteBox. And, if the need arises, I will no doubt find acceptable alternatives to CentOS.
I'm not sure that's true. You have to understand that at the same time everybody should have worked on EL6.0, both EL5.6 and EL4.9 came out and for very good reason those responsible for CentOS decided to build those first. Just remember, the folks doing SL have been a bit faster with 6.0, but they did IIRC not do the 5.6 nor the 4.9 yet (maybe they rebuilt some packages to still be secure, but I think they didn't finish the full distribution). So, I'm quite sure it's not as bad as you think.
Simon
On Friday, March 04, 2011 09:48:03 am Simon Matter wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. You have to understand that at the same time everybody should have worked on EL6.0, both EL5.6 and EL4.9 came out and for very good reason those responsible for CentOS decided to build those first. Just remember, the folks doing SL have been a bit faster with 6.0, but they did IIRC not do the 5.6 nor the 4.9 yet (maybe they rebuilt some packages to still be secure, but I think they didn't finish the full distribution). So, I'm quite sure it's not as bad as you think.
Personally, I'd rather have my fixes for an older release (such as my in- production CentOS 4.x and 5.x servers) than get the latest stuff for development and new deployment while leaving older, still-in-production systems vulnerable.
I wonder, though, if this wasn't intentional? By releasing all three at once, RH gang has delayed anybody deploying EL6 with any of the "free as in beer" solutions for at least a few months, giving them a sales edge. We may see this more in the future, because even if it wasn't intentional this time, they have undoubtedly seen the effect it has caused and may want to repeat it.
Not that I mind that all much, it's their dime and they can do what they want with it. And the end result is still everything I'm looking for: stable, secure, reliable, even if not punctual.
I'm curious to see if this represents the start of a trend.
-Ben
JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Yes [1].
[1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-February/106135.html
On 02/27/2011 09:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
The real answer is that 4.9 is ready for release (Already tested by QA).
We are testing 5.6 right now in QA.
There was a particularly nasty bug in anaconda for 5.6 that we were working on for almost a week with new distro/iso spins at least once a day during this period. We seem to have finally fixed this problem and we are getting good tests with the i386 now.
We expect both of these distros to be released in the upcoming week (barring any unforeseen issues).
That would then make 6.0 the focus of the team.
Johnny,
Seriously. You guys are awesome! Thank you for your continued hard work!
Kudos to the Centos team..
Matthew
On 02/28/2011 03:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 02/27/2011 09:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
The real answer is that 4.9 is ready for release (Already tested by QA).
We are testing 5.6 right now in QA.
There was a particularly nasty bug in anaconda for 5.6 that we were working on for almost a week with new distro/iso spins at least once a day during this period. We seem to have finally fixed this problem and we are getting good tests with the i386 now.
We expect both of these distros to be released in the upcoming week (barring any unforeseen issues).
That would then make 6.0 the focus of the team.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/28/2011 03:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 02/27/2011 09:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
The real answer is that 4.9 is ready for release (Already tested by QA).
We are testing 5.6 right now in QA.
There was a particularly nasty bug in anaconda for 5.6 that we were working on for almost a week with new distro/iso spins at least once a day during this period. We seem to have finally fixed this problem and we are getting good tests with the i386 now.
We expect both of these distros to be released in the upcoming week (barring any unforeseen issues).
That would then make 6.0 the focus of the team.
Cheers!
When you guys get some down time (lol, I know), I hope you get a chance to look at an official structure that would facilitate contributions from companies. I know that I would like to contribute.
Someone floated the idea of a "hardware wish list", iirc. Perhaps have a funky little webpage where all the hardware, down to cables, up to servers and all the bits in between could be clicked on. Then let people say "I'll buy that for the CentOS folks", click on it, pay for it and have it shipped directly to you.
Anyway, the hard work of you guys it much appreciated. The antryness of many is a sign of just how much your work is needed. Please do keep up the good work and don't mind the rumblings from the crowd. :)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Digimer linux@alteeve.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 03:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 02/27/2011 09:13 PM, JD wrote:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
The real answer is that 4.9 is ready for release (Already tested by QA).
We are testing 5.6 right now in QA.
There was a particularly nasty bug in anaconda for 5.6 that we were working on for almost a week with new distro/iso spins at least once a day during this period. We seem to have finally fixed this problem and we are getting good tests with the i386 now.
We expect both of these distros to be released in the upcoming week (barring any unforeseen issues).
That would then make 6.0 the focus of the team.
Cheers!
When you guys get some down time (lol, I know), I hope you get a chance to look at an official structure that would facilitate contributions from companies. I know that I would like to contribute.
Someone floated the idea of a "hardware wish list", iirc. Perhaps have a funky little webpage where all the hardware, down to cables, up to servers and all the bits in between could be clicked on. Then let people say "I'll buy that for the CentOS folks", click on it, pay for it and have it shipped directly to you.
Anyway, the hard work of you guys it much appreciated. The antryness of many is a sign of just how much your work is needed. Please do keep up the good work and don't mind the rumblings from the crowd. :)
-- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org _______________________________________________
There's already a page for this: http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute ;)
Check this one out as well: http://wiki.centos.org/Donate
2011/2/28 JD jd1008@gmail.com:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Cheers,
Scientific Linux already released version 6. take it and then upgrade to centos, when it is available ..
-- Eero
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Eero Volotinen eero.volotinen@iki.fi wrote:
2011/2/28 JD jd1008@gmail.com:
Any word on approximate release date of Centos 6?
Cheers,
Scientific Linux already released version 6. take it and then upgrade to centos, when it is available ..
Re-install, not upgrade. Components with the same name compiled for different systems will occur, and may wind up presenting fascinating incompatibilities.
I've written tools to turn an RHEL 5 box to CentOS 5, and back. It's a pain and I don't recommend it.
Am 04.03.2011 13:50, schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
Re-install, not upgrade. Components with the same name compiled for different systems will occur, and may wind up presenting fascinating incompatibilities.
Can you elaborate? RHEL5's and C5's packages were known to be interchangeable. Without having tried it RHEL6/SL6 this is FUD.
I've written tools to turn an RHEL 5 box to CentOS 5, and back. It's a pain and I don't recommend it.
For how many boxes do you need to do this? I did this with some boxes and never run into issues.
Rainer
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Rainer Traut tr.ml@gmx.de wrote:
Am 04.03.2011 13:50, schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
Re-install, not upgrade. Components with the same name compiled for different systems will occur, and may wind up presenting fascinating incompatibilities.
Can you elaborate? RHEL5's and C5's packages were known to be interchangeable. Without having tried it RHEL6/SL6 this is FUD.
I've written tools to turn an RHEL 5 box to CentOS 5, and back. It's a pain and I don't recommend it.
For how many boxes do you need to do this? I did this with some boxes and never run into issues.
Rainer
I don't need to, anymore. I did it as a proof of concept for a few hosts of different architecute, offering to do it for a Beowulf cluster of roughly 100 hosts while we were arguing about licensing costs with upper management. This was a ways back, but the integration of yum for RHEL 4 was a particular adventure.
-
Always Learning -
aurfalien＠gmail.com -
Benjamin Smith -
Brunner, Brian T. -
compdoc -
Dag Wieers -
David Hrbáč -
David Sommerseth -
Digimer -
Eero Volotinen -
fred smith -
Garry Dale -
Greg Bailey -
Ian Murray -
James B. Byrne -
James Nguyen -
Jason Brown -
JD -
Jimmy Bradley -
John Hinton -
John Hodrien -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
Kenneth Porter -
Kwan Lowe -
Lamar Owen -
Laurence Hurst -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Machin, Greg -
Mag Gam -
Mathieu Baudier -
Matthew Feinberg -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Peter A -
Rainer Duffner -
Rainer Traut -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Ray Van Dolson -
Rob Kampen -
robert mena -
Rudi Ahlers -
Scott Robbins -
Simon Matter -
Sorin Srbu -
Stephen Harris -
Tom H