Just FYI:
I had several problems to install CentOS 7 with 512 MB RAM. No log showed me that problem (I would expect a system check before).
With 1 GB RAM everything runs fine. Don't know, what they do with more than 512 MB RAM on a text only system during installation ...
Best Regards Oli
On 2014-09-07, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
With 1 GB RAM everything runs fine. Don't know, what they do with more than 512 MB RAM on a text only system during installation ...
Could switch to a different console and bounce on top, if you're interested.
512MB seems really small these days, so I'm guessing you're using this as a small appliance box like a NAT router. Is there a reason you prefer CentOS over a distro targeted to your application? If it's a NAT router, for example, there are a bunch of slim-profile distros which are designed specifically for NAT routing on a small system.
--keith
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:08:18 -0700 Keith Keller kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2014-09-07, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
With 1 GB RAM everything runs fine. Don't know, what they do with more than 512 MB RAM on a text only system during installation ...
Could switch to a different console and bounce on top, if you're interested.
512MB seems really small these days, so I'm guessing you're using this as a small appliance box like a NAT router.
No, a basic box for common services like DHCP, DNS, SMTP, Nginx, ... doesn't need much RAM, so 512 MB is really enough.
Is there a reason you prefer CentOS over a distro targeted to your application?
I don't see a reason, why I should have a zoo of distros. A productive basic installation of CentOS 7 needs ~ 100 MB RAM. Why the installation needs more than 5 times that is really interesting question.
Best Regards Oli
On 9/7/2014 11:31 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
No, a basic box for common services like DHCP, DNS, SMTP, Nginx, ... doesn't need much RAM, so 512 MB is really enough.
a $50 beaglebone black has 512MB ram, and is best run with ucLinux and busybox.
That is not the target market of RHEL7 and therefore CentOS 7.
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:38:36 -0700 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:31 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
No, a basic box for common services like DHCP, DNS, SMTP, Nginx, ... doesn't need much RAM, so 512 MB is really enough.
a $50 beaglebone black has 512MB ram, and is best run with ucLinux and busybox.
That is not the target market of RHEL7 and therefore CentOS 7.
If you have 1.000 or 10.000 machines it *is* a reason to think about every fucking dollar per machine you can save each month.
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM, only the installer is br0ken. Is it a java installer? *g*
Best Regards Oli
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says. What matters is to think about ressources, even in a linux distro with long term support and enterprise features.
Enterprise doesn't mean waste your money. And really, to double the memory to install a machine - are you kidding me? They've never thought about it and I really hate this attitude.
Best Regards Oli
On 2014-09-07 2:56 pm, Oliver Schad wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says. What matters is to think about ressources, even in a linux distro with long term support and enterprise features.
Enterprise doesn't mean waste your money. And really, to double the memory to install a machine - are you kidding me? They've never thought about it and I really hate this attitude.
Best Regards Oli
Oli...perhaps instead of taking out your anger and frustration on the CentOS packagers, you might wish to vent at the Upstream...because, when all is said and done, CentOS is a repackaged RHEL. Whatever the requirements are for the upstream are the requirements for CentOS. Whatever the installer looks for in RHEL is going to be the same thing that the installer looks for in CentOS.
I will leave you with this minor piece of wisdome, which I've seen repeated in this list many times: if you don't agree with the requirements or feel that there's a bug in the installer, you are more than welcome to file a bug report with the upstream.
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:04:12 -0400 Mike Burger mburger@bubbanfriends.org wrote:
Oli...perhaps instead of taking out your anger and frustration on the CentOS packagers
My first statement was a simple "FYI" so that you know this requirement during installation.
I found one problem with the initramfs file which has 300 MB in a tmpfs. The rest of the memory is used by processes, round about 300 MB.
tmpfs: /run/, 311 MB used
Anaconda is fat with ~ 200 MB, rest are our best friends, systemd, polkit and other new bloat.
Best Regards Oli
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:19:01 +0200 Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
tmpfs: /run/, 311 MB used
That is really funny: inside of this ramdisk is a tmp dir, with 279 MB inside, where the biggest part is the squashfs image and some files which are generated after start of installation.
├── curl_fetch_url0 ├── curl_fetch_url1 │ └── squashfs.img ├── curl_fetch_url2 ├── curl_fetch_url3 ├── dhclient.eth0.dhcpopts ├── dhclient.eth0.lease ├── dhclient.eth0.pid ├── F3ilzP-ks.cfg ├── ifcfg │ └── ifcfg-eth0 ├── ifcfg-leases │ └── dhclient-fb2320f7-4d9f-417f-ad33-33105024ca08-eth0.lease ├── ks.cfg ├── ks.cfg.done ├── ks.info ├── net.52:54:00:7b:80:c7.did-setup ├── net.eth0.dhcpopts ├── net.eth0.did-setup ├── net.eth0.gw ├── net.eth0.hostname ├── net.eth0.hwaddr ├── net.eth0.lease ├── net.eth0.manualup ├── net.eth0.pid ├── net.eth0.resolv.conf ├── net.eth0.up ├── net.ifaces └── net.lo.manualup
That means that the squashfs is packed inside a initramfs during installation? I don't get the idea because we *have* a running system with a initramfs, that is the primer for the whole boot.
Best Regards Oli
Ok, final result: deleting the initramfs files results in a clean installation. So we waste ~300 MB RAM during installation with a file nobody needs. Great.
Best Regards Oli
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:45:40 +0200 Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:19:01 +0200 Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
tmpfs: /run/, 311 MB used
That is really funny: inside of this ramdisk is a tmp dir, with 279 MB inside, where the biggest part is the squashfs image and some files which are generated after start of installation.
├── curl_fetch_url0 ├── curl_fetch_url1 │ └── squashfs.img ├── curl_fetch_url2 ├── curl_fetch_url3 ├── dhclient.eth0.dhcpopts ├── dhclient.eth0.lease ├── dhclient.eth0.pid ├── F3ilzP-ks.cfg ├── ifcfg │ └── ifcfg-eth0 ├── ifcfg-leases │ └── dhclient-fb2320f7-4d9f-417f-ad33-33105024ca08-eth0.lease ├── ks.cfg ├── ks.cfg.done ├── ks.info ├── net.52:54:00:7b:80:c7.did-setup ├── net.eth0.dhcpopts ├── net.eth0.did-setup ├── net.eth0.gw ├── net.eth0.hostname ├── net.eth0.hwaddr ├── net.eth0.lease ├── net.eth0.manualup ├── net.eth0.pid ├── net.eth0.resolv.conf ├── net.eth0.up ├── net.ifaces └── net.lo.manualup
That means that the squashfs is packed inside a initramfs during installation? I don't get the idea because we *have* a running system with a initramfs, that is the primer for the whole boot.
Best Regards Oli
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/14 16:06, Oliver Schad wrote:
Ok, final result: deleting the initramfs files results in a clean installation. So we waste ~300 MB RAM during installation with a file nobody needs. Great.
Best Regards Oli
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:45:40 +0200 Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:19:01 +0200 Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
tmpfs: /run/, 311 MB used
That is really funny: inside of this ramdisk is a tmp dir, with 279 MB inside, where the biggest part is the squashfs image and some files which are generated after start of installation.
├── curl_fetch_url0 ├── curl_fetch_url1 │ └── squashfs.img ├── curl_fetch_url2 ├── curl_fetch_url3 ├── dhclient.eth0.dhcpopts ├── dhclient.eth0.lease ├── dhclient.eth0.pid ├── F3ilzP-ks.cfg ├── ifcfg │ └── ifcfg-eth0 ├── ifcfg-leases │ └── dhclient-fb2320f7-4d9f-417f-ad33-33105024ca08-eth0.lease ├── ks.cfg ├── ks.cfg.done ├── ks.info ├── net.52:54:00:7b:80:c7.did-setup ├── net.eth0.dhcpopts ├── net.eth0.did-setup ├── net.eth0.gw ├── net.eth0.hostname ├── net.eth0.hwaddr ├── net.eth0.lease ├── net.eth0.manualup ├── net.eth0.pid ├── net.eth0.resolv.conf ├── net.eth0.up ├── net.ifaces └── net.lo.manualup
That means that the squashfs is packed inside a initramfs during installation? I don't get the idea because we *have* a running system with a initramfs, that is the primer for the whole boot.
Best Regards Oli
Sounds like you've figured out exactly what to write in your bug report to the upstream.
On another slant, why don't you consider increasing the RAM to 1G, making the install, then cloning the disk on the other 9.999 machines?
- -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ****
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 09:36:07PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On another slant, why don't you consider increasing the RAM to 1G, making the install, then cloning the disk on the other 9.999 machines?
I've typically run into the memory limit in VMs, where it is trivial to change the memory allocated to it on the fly, so I bump up the memory, then lower it after the install.
On Sun, September 7, 2014 2:04 pm, Mike Burger wrote:
On 2014-09-07 2:56 pm, Oliver Schad wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says. What matters is to think about ressources, even in a linux distro with long term support and enterprise features.
Enterprise doesn't mean waste your money. And really, to double the memory to install a machine - are you kidding me? They've never thought about it and I really hate this attitude.
Best Regards Oli
Oli...perhaps instead of taking out your anger and frustration on the CentOS packagers, you might wish to vent at the Upstream...
I wouldn't even do that, because what they do they do for their customers, right?
Valeri
because, when all is said and done, CentOS is a repackaged RHEL. Whatever the requirements are for the upstream are the requirements for CentOS. Whatever the installer looks for in RHEL is going to be the same thing that the installer looks for in CentOS.
I will leave you with this minor piece of wisdome, which I've seen repeated in this list many times: if you don't agree with the requirements or feel that there's a bug in the installer, you are more than welcome to file a bug report with the upstream. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org
"It's always suicide-mission this, save-the-planet that. No one ever just stops by to say 'hi' anymore." --Colonel Jack O'Neill, SG1
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Mike Burger mburger@bubbanfriends.org wrote:
Oli...perhaps instead of taking out your anger and frustration on the CentOS packagers, you might wish to vent at the Upstream...because, when all is said and done, CentOS is a repackaged RHEL. Whatever the requirements are for the upstream are the requirements for CentOS. Whatever the installer looks for in RHEL is going to be the same thing that the installer looks for in CentOS.
Well they did have the opportunity to make changes in the minimal iso since that doesn't directly correspond to a RHEL version. I haven't used it yet because I already had the dvd downloaded, but if you have reasonable internet bandwidth, I think a minimal initial install makes sense, followed by telling yum to install whatever else you might need since there's a good change you'll download them as updates anyway.
On 9/7/2014 3:40 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well they did have the opportunity to make changes in the minimal iso since that doesn't directly correspond to a RHEL version. I haven't used it yet because I already had the dvd downloaded, but if you have reasonable internet bandwidth, I think a minimal initial install makes sense, followed by telling yum to install whatever else you might need since there's a good change you'll download them as updates anyway.
the RPMs are all the same RPMs. they woudl have had to build a completely new installer rather than just a kickstart that specifies the minimum packages
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 3:40 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well they did have the opportunity to make changes in the minimal iso since that doesn't directly correspond to a RHEL version. I haven't used it yet because I already had the dvd downloaded, but if you have reasonable internet bandwidth, I think a minimal initial install makes sense, followed by telling yum to install whatever else you might need since there's a good change you'll download them as updates anyway.
the RPMs are all the same RPMs. they woudl have had to build a completely new installer rather than just a kickstart that specifies the minimum packages
It might be possible to trim the size of the ramdisk that is a large part of the requirement.
On 9/7/2014 11:56 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Piercepierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says.
Take it up with Red Hat. They state it requires 1GB, that was their choice. it installs in 1GB just fine.
John R Pierce wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:56 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Piercepierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says.
Take it up with Red Hat. They state it requires 1GB, that was their choice. it installs in 1GB just fine.
In my experience with the installation of Fedora 19/20 (same sort of anaconda installator, F19 has v19.30.13, F20 v20.25.16, Centos 7 has v19.31.79), RAM requirements also depend on the number of packages and their size. On some slightly larger installation (kickstart install from 8 repositories with over 50000 RPMs, 3600+ packages was installed, highest rpm package file had over 200 MB in size) was 1.5 GB RAM insufficient, with 2 GB RAM installation was successful.
Franta Hanzlik
Am 07.09.2014 um 20:56 schrieb Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:48:36 -0700 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 9/7/2014 11:44 AM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits says 1GB minimum for x86_64.
It doesn't matter what it says. What matters is to think about ressources, even in a linux distro with long term support and enterprise features.
Enterprise doesn't mean waste your money. And really, to double the memory to install a machine - are you kidding me? They've never thought about it and I really hate this attitude.
i would suggest to install it offsite e.g. yum provides a "installroot" option.
-- LF
On Sep 7, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM, only the installer is br0ken. Is it a java installer? *g*
The installer (anaconda) is written in python. The memory limit is hard-coded into the installer, not based on how much memory the installer needs (although the limits for the GUI installer is more than the non-GUI, iirc).
-- Jonathan Billings billings@negate.org
How much memory does it take to run and install from a live CD?
What about a clone of a partition that has CentOS installed?
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby mihamina.rakotomandimby@rktmb.org wrote:
If you have 1.000 or 10.000 machines it*is* a reason to think about every fucking dollar per machine you can save each month.
You could *just* *install* with 1GB and then get down to 512 at runtime.
First, if you are running 10,000 machines with 512K RAM, you are doing something really, really weird or you just like managing a lot of machines that can't do very much each - and supplying a lot more power than you would need for fewer, more capable hosts.
But, if you have even more than a few, you are probably already doing some sort of image installs. So just install on a machine or VM with 1GB, then use ReaR or Clonezilla to back it up and restore onto the target boxes. Or for brute force, use dd to copy the drive and swap them into place.
On Mon, September 8, 2014 9:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby mihamina.rakotomandimby@rktmb.org wrote:
If you have 1.000 or 10.000 machines it*is* a reason to think about every fucking dollar per machine you can save each month.
You could *just* *install* with 1GB and then get down to 512 at runtime.
First, if you are running 10,000 machines with 512K RAM, you are doing something really, really weird or you just like managing a lot of machines that can't do very much each - and supplying a lot more power than you would need for fewer, more capable hosts.
But, if you have even more than a few, you are probably already doing some sort of image installs. So just install on a machine or VM with 1GB, then use ReaR or Clonezilla to back it up and restore onto the target boxes. Or for brute force, use dd to copy the drive and swap them into place.
... which will be a lot of drive swapping for 1000 or 10000 machines. With this number of machines the only workable option I can think of is netboot + kickstart (with hard drive then network boot order in BIOS so no need to change anything after system is installed)... But it is true what was mentioned 1000+ weak machines are unlikely to be able to pay their electric bills.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Mon, September 8, 2014 9:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
But, if you have even more than a few, you are probably already doing some sort of image installs. So just install on a machine or VM with 1GB, then use ReaR or Clonezilla to back it up and restore onto the target boxes. Or for brute force, use dd to copy the drive and swap them into place.
... which will be a lot of drive swapping for 1000 or 10000 machines. With
Hence the term, "brute force".
this number of machines the only workable option I can think of is netboot
- kickstart (with hard drive then network boot order in BIOS so no need to
change anything after system is installed)... But it is true what was mentioned 1000+ weak machines are unlikely to be able to pay their electric bills.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Mon, September 8, 2014 9:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby mihamina.rakotomandimby@rktmb.org wrote:
If you have 1.000 or 10.000 machines it*is* a reason to think about every fucking dollar per machine you can save each month.
You could *just* *install* with 1GB and then get down to 512 at runtime.
First, if you are running 10,000 machines with 512K RAM, you are doing something really, really weird or you just like managing a lot of machines that can't do very much each - and supplying a lot more power than you would need for fewer, more capable hosts.
But, if you have even more than a few, you are probably already doing some sort of image installs. So just install on a machine or VM with 1GB, then use ReaR or Clonezilla to back it up and restore onto the target boxes. Or for brute force, use dd to copy the drive and swap them into place.
... which will be a lot of drive swapping for 1000 or 10000 machines. With this number of machines the only workable option I can think of is netboot
- kickstart (with hard drive then network boot order in BIOS so no need to
change anything after system is installed)... But it is true what was mentioned 1000+ weak machines are unlikely to be able to pay their electric bills.
Drive swapping is pretty easy on servers with hotswap bays. If you can rack the machines you would be able to swap the drives. But, Clonezilla with the DRBL server has a multicast option that will install the same image on a bunch of machines at once - and it is fairly agnostic about the OS it is loading so it is useful in a heterogeneous environment.
On 09/07/2014 07:44 PM, Oliver Schad wrote:
And CentOS 7 runs perfectly with 512 MB RAM, only the installer is br0ken. Is it a java installer? *g*
you can either do an image install, or install the media on a different device and move it over. if you have thousands of machines, you likely have some level of automation around this already
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/2014 01:31 PM, Oliver Schad wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:08:18 -0700 Keith Keller kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2014-09-07, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
With 1 GB RAM everything runs fine. Don't know, what they do with more than 512 MB RAM on a text only system during installation ...
Could switch to a different console and bounce on top, if you're interested.
512MB seems really small these days, so I'm guessing you're using this as a small appliance box like a NAT router.
No, a basic box for common services like DHCP, DNS, SMTP, Nginx, ... doesn't need much RAM, so 512 MB is really enough.
Is there a reason you prefer CentOS over a distro targeted to your application?
I don't see a reason, why I should have a zoo of distros. A productive basic installation of CentOS 7 needs ~ 100 MB RAM. Why the installation needs more than 5 times that is really interesting question.
Best Regards Oli
As soon as you throw in a web server and/or MySQL, you need more. The RAM is really defined by what the system is going to be doing.
- -- - -- Steve
On 2014-09-07, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
I don't see a reason, why I should have a zoo of distros. A productive basic installation of CentOS 7 needs ~ 100 MB RAM. Why the installation needs more than 5 times that is really interesting question.
Are you volunteering to organize a SIG around low-memory installations?
--keith
On Sun, September 7, 2014 1:08 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2014-09-07, Oliver Schad centos@automatic-server.com wrote:
With 1 GB RAM everything runs fine. Don't know, what they do with more than 512 MB RAM on a text only system during installation ...
Interestingly: I just looked up FreeBSD 64 bit (amd64 they call what Linux calls x86_64) installation requirements: you need at least 64 MB of RAM for installation ;-) Of course, you will need _much_ more just to run Xwindow system on that box...
Somehow it comes to my mind what someone called M$ Windows somewhere around Windows XP: "bloated pig" ;-)
Could switch to a different console and bounce on top, if you're interested.
512MB seems really small these days, so I'm guessing you're using this as a small appliance box like a NAT router. Is there a reason you prefer CentOS over a distro targeted to your application? If it's a NAT router, for example, there are a bunch of slim-profile distros which are designed specifically for NAT routing on a small system.
--keith
-- kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 14:00 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Somehow it comes to my mind what someone called M$ Windows somewhere around Windows XP: "bloated pig" ;-)
Starting with Windoze 95, it has been "bloatware".
-
Always Learning -
Frantisek Hanzlik -
John R Pierce -
Jonathan Billings -
Karanbir Singh -
Keith Keller -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
Mark LaPierre -
Michael Hennebry -
Mihamina Rakotomandimby -
Mike Burger -
Oliver Schad -
Steven Stern -
Valeri Galtsev