Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Chiscan Sent: den 28 december 2014 16:22 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients Hey, ktorrent looks pretty good! Thanks for the hint! Maybe it's time to give KDE a second look :) LOL!! Well, won't hurt. I have several virtual machines to test with. ;-) -- //Sorin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer Croitoru Sent: den 28 december 2014 16:25 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just wondering to myself: What made you switch from Windows 7 to CentOS 6.6? I was never able to get samba on the homefolder server to work properly and with decent speeds, it sometimes worked sometimes not, sometimes it wanted passwords, sometimes it just worked. Opening a Word document from the samba share took like two minutes each. A PDF-document took four minutes. Also I wanted to see if I could get better network speeds generally from my client to the servers. I didn't feel this was good enough. Wifey still has the above problems from her Win7 box. Things got better after I switched her to LibreOffice, from MS Office 2010, but it's still not very smooth for some reason. 8-/ As a side note, Win7 was capable of about 150-170 Mbps on my gigabit network. On CentOS I got consistent speeds of up to 700 Mbps while e.g. syncing the local Owncloud folder! -- //Sorin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Martin Cigorraga Sent: den 28 december 2014 18:44 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Bittorrent clients Did you try Transmission? You can install just the daemon (provided you wnat to access it from elsewhere) and access it through a neat web UI. Other interesting option is rtorrent if you like console-based apps. I did. It'd be neat to have the Transmission daemon running 24/7 on the webserver and just connect to it as needed. We'll see how this goes. Want to give Deluge from the nux repo another go. Btw, my OT: from Windows 7 to CentOS 6.6? WHY!!? I mean, I use CentOS everywhere I can for my server needs but I think that for a workstation Fedora could be a better fit - my 2cents. I like tinkering and I've always been a little envious of our molecular modeling chemists at work. CentOS performs like lightning and I wanted to also see if I could squeeze out some extra power and speed while rendering the Gopro-clips I film every now and then. Pinnacle Studio in Win7 never was very fast despite running on an Intel i7 (an older version). As for Fedora - nah, don't like the default desktop environment. I know there are other DE alternatives, but never liked the bleeding edge-philososphy anyway. Prefer stability. I looked into Mint 17, but didn't like the way it handled software raid creation at install. CentOS is way better there. As for other reasons, see my previous post! -- //Sorin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Fetchmail multiple instances increasing load average
Hi, I’m running centos 5.7 with sendmail-8.13.8-8.1.el5_7, fetchmail-6.3.6-4.el5 and procmail-3.22-17.1.el5.centos. My server is having around 2000 mailboxes and this server used to fetch mails for all these users using fetchmail from the other MX server. I’ve configured the below cron job using webmin for downloading these mail 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55 * * * * /etc/webmin/fetchmail/check.pl --file /var/log/fetchmaillog. But the load average for the server goes high automatically after every 4 to 5 hours due to multiple fetchmail instances and after that I’ve to either kill all the fetchmail jobs or restart the server for making the system up again. Kindly suggest how can i reduce this load average issue or any other way out for downloading the mails from the parent server running on sendmail again. Warm Regards, Anshul Chauhan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 29/12/14 01:52, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: .. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades. What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version. * The dramatic upheaval in C7; * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly stable C6 product; all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction'). Happy New Year to all to everyone. The stability comes _within_ a product release. I don't think it's realistic to expect el7 to be the same as el6 or el5, otherwsie what's the point of the newer releases. You have 7 years of support / consistency (now 10 years). What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fetchmail multiple instances increasing load average
On 12/29/2014 10:16 PM, Anshul Chauhan wrote: Hi, I’m running centos 5.7 with sendmail-8.13.8-8.1.el5_7, fetchmail-6.3.6-4.el5 and procmail-3.22-17.1.el5.centos. My server is having around 2000 mailboxes and this server used to fetch mails for all these users using fetchmail from the other MX server. I’ve configured the below cron job using webmin for downloading these mail 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55 * * * * /etc/webmin/fetchmail/check.pl --file /var/log/fetchmaillog. But the load average for the server goes high automatically after every 4 to 5 hours due to multiple fetchmail instances and after that I’ve to either kill all the fetchmail jobs or restart the server for making the system up again. Kindly suggest how can i reduce this load average issue or any other way out for downloading the mails from the parent server running on sendmail again. get cron to call a script that establishes a lock file, thus next round of cron will not start fetchmail again until the first invocation completes. Warm Regards, Anshul Chauhan ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
Am 29.12.2014 um 10:22 schrieb Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk: On 29/12/14 01:52, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: .. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades. What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version. * The dramatic upheaval in C7; * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly stable C6 product; all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction'). Happy New Year to all to everyone. The stability comes _within_ a product release. I don't think it's realistic to expect el7 to be the same as el6 or el5, otherwsie what's the point of the newer releases. You have 7 years of support / consistency (now 10 years). What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years? Effective, 6 1/2 years - just to be precise not pedantic, for the last 3 1/2 years following applies [1]: Production 3 Phase: During the Production 3 Phase, Critical impact Security Advisories (RHSAs) and selected Urgent Priority Bug Fix Advisories (RHBAs) may be released as they become available. Other errata advisories may be delivered as appropriate. may be is here important - as the past shows up that moderate updates were not released anymore. [1] https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Production_3_Phase -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fetchmail multiple instances increasing load average
Kindly suggest is this right way to start the cronjob with lock if i've not mis undestood. */5 * * * * /usr/bin/flock -n */etc/webmin/fetchmail/check.pl http://check.pl ** --file /var/log/fetchmaillog* Warm Regards, Anshul Chauhan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fetchmail multiple instances increasing load average
Kindly suggest is this right way to start the cronjob with lock if i've not mis understood. */5 * * * * /usr/bin/flock -n */etc/webmin/fetchmail/check.pl http://check.pl ** --file /var/log/fetchmaillog* Warm Regards, Anshul Chauhan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, December 29, 2014 04:22, Ned Slider wrote: What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years? Well, despite the hype from Wall St., Bay St. and The City, a large number of organisations in the world run on software that is decades old and cannot be economically replaced. In many instances in government and business seven years is a typical time-frame in which to get a major software system built and installed. And I have witnessed longer. So, seven, even ten, years of stability is really nothing at all. And as Linux seeks to enter into more and more profoundly valuable employment the type of changes that we witnessed from v6 to v7 are simply not going to be tolerated. In fact, it my considered belief that RH in Version EL7 has done themselves a serious injury with respect to corporate adoption for core systems. Perhaps they seek a different market? Think about it. What enterprise can afford to rewrite all of its software every ten years? What enterprise can afford to retrain all of its personnel to use different tools to accomplish the exact same tasks every seven years? The desktop software churn that the PC has inured in people simply does not scale to the enterprise. If you wish to see what change for change's sake produces in terms of market share consider what Mozilla has done with Firefox. There is absolutely no interface that is as easy to use as the one you have been working on for the past ten years. And that salient fact seems to be completely ignored by many people in the FOSS community. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 KVM guests no longer get keystrokes after yum update [solved]
Fixed. I had installed a preview repository from Red Hat for some not-yet-released libguestfs features (libguestfs-RHEL-7.1-preview). There were evidently changes to some release packages in the updates repository that were incompatible with the candidate packages in the preview repository cited above. I disabled the preview repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/..., uninstalled each of its packages, and re-installed the relevant packages (libvirt qemu-kvm qemu-kvm-tools virt-* spice-gtk spice-gtk-python spice-gtk-tools spice-gtk3-vala spice-xpi). Lesson learned: When you install 3rd party repositories you should reserve time for hand-holding your package management system. -- Charles Polisher ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:02 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: So, seven, even ten, years of stability is really nothing at all. Yes exactly. Do you want your bank to manage your accounts with new and not-well-tested software every 7 years or would you prefer the stability of incremental improvements? Think about it. What enterprise can afford to rewrite all of its software every ten years? What enterprise can afford to retrain all of its personnel to use different tools to accomplish the exact same tasks every seven years? It's worse than that - since you can't just replace all of your servers and code at once, your staff has to be trained on at least two and probably three major versions at any given time - and aware of which server runs what, and which command set has to be used. And the cost and risk of errors increases with the number of arbitrary changes across versions. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, December 29, 2014 9:02 am, James B. Byrne wrote: On Mon, December 29, 2014 04:22, Ned Slider wrote: What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years? Well, despite the hype from Wall St., Bay St. and The City, a large number of organisations in the world run on software that is decades old and cannot be economically replaced. In many instances in government and business seven years is a typical time-frame in which to get a major software system built and installed. And I have witnessed longer. So, seven, even ten, years of stability is really nothing at all. And as Linux seeks to enter into more and more profoundly valuable employment the type of changes that we witnessed from v6 to v7 are simply not going to be tolerated. In fact, it my considered belief that RH in Version EL7 has done themselves a serious injury with respect to corporate adoption for core systems. Perhaps they seek a different market? I said elsewhere that these changes are partly induced by changes started in kernel some 5 years ago. But now I do realize that at least part of them was pushed on the kernel level by folks from RedHat team... Think about it. What enterprise can afford to rewrite all of its software every ten years? What enterprise can afford to retrain all of its personnel to use different tools to accomplish the exact same tasks every seven years? The desktop software churn that the PC has inured in people simply does not scale to the enterprise. If you wish to see what change for change's sake produces in terms of market share consider what Mozilla has done with Firefox. There is absolutely no interface that is as easy to use as the one you have been working on for the past ten years. And that salient fact seems to be completely ignored by many people in the FOSS community. Well, there are similar changes in other areas of our [human] communication with computer hardware. Take the step up from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 for instance. From the way that worked over two decades (with logical tree like access to what you need) all switched to please people without brain and ability to categorize things... just able to do search. And you can continue describing the differences each confirming that same point. Which leads me to say: Welcome to ipad generation folks! Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7
Hi, all! How to setup own i686 mock for CentOS7? Or, is there any public i686 repo for CentOS7? I found i686 repo available in internal CentOS building environment, from a root.log from a mock build result[1]. [1] http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-updates/glibc/20141218212615/2.17-55.el7_0.3.i386/root.log Cheers, -robin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: Welcome to ipad generation folks! Yes, but Apple knows enough to stay out of the server business where stability matters - and they are more into selling content than code anyway. Client side things do need to deal with mobility these days - reconnecting automatically after sleep/wakeup and handling network connection changes transparently, but those things don't need to break existing usage. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, December 29, 2014 10:37 am, Les Mikesell wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: Welcome to ipad generation folks! Yes, but Apple knows enough to stay out of the server business where stability matters Not exactly. They claim they are in server business forever. There is something called MacOS Server. Which is an incarnation of their OS with some scripts added. But (apart from that that thing doesn't have documentation - click here, then click there... and you are done doesn't count for such) they do not maintain its consistency for any decent period of time. That is, as soon as they release next version of the system you can say goodbye to some of the components of your MacOS Server. So, as far as clever Apple is concerned, I disagree with you. Unless we both agree they are clever enough to be able to fool their customers ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: So, as far as clever Apple is concerned, I disagree with you. Unless we both agree they are clever enough to be able to fool their customers ;-) You can't disagree with the fact that they make a lot of money. They do it by targeting consumers without technical experience or need for backwards compatibility to preserve the value of that experience. That's obviously a big market. But whenever someone else tries to copy that model it is a loss for all of the existing work and experience that built on earlier versions and needs compatibility to continue. For what it's worth, I haven't found it to be that much harder to find Mac ported versions of complex open source software (e.g. vlc) than for RHEL/Centos - they all break things pretty badly on major upgrades, and there is usually just one OSX version needed versus a bazillion linux flavors with arbitrary differences). -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] (py)curl error 7
Added: OPTIONS=-4 -named to /etc/sysconfig/named, restarted named. disabled ipv6 per interface, Odds are you didn't actually do this, just configured them so that they won't pickup a GUA. U were right :D created /etc/modprobe.d/ipv6_disable.conf file with alias net-pf-10 off alias ipv6 off options ipv6 disable=1 These only take effect if you reboot or unload the modules manually. Tryning not to reboot, when unloading I get the message that the modules is in use. I think that forcing the unload is too dangerouse, read that it might resolve in kernel panic. -Original Message- From: Mark Milhollan [mailto:m...@pixelgate.net] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:17 PM To: Mateusz Guz Subject: Re: [CentOS] (py)curl error 7 On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Mateusz Guz wrote: Added: OPTIONS=-4 -named to /etc/sysconfig/named, This only takes effect if you restart named. Keep in mind it does not stop named from returning IPv6 addresses. disabled ipv6 per interface, Odds are you didn't actually do this, just configured them so that they won't pickup a GUA. created /etc/modprobe.d/ipv6_disable.conf file with alias net-pf-10 off alias ipv6 off options ipv6 disable=1 These only take effect if you reboot or unload the modules manually. 2a02:2498:1:3d:5054:ff:fed3:e91a: Network is unreachable I would expect yum to try another address, until one succeeds. Sorry, I don't know why it would not do so. /mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7
Hi, Here's how my epel-7-i386.cfg mock file looks like: http://fpaste.org/164110/19877702/raw/ Do note the 32bit packages are unofficial and unsupported. RedHat does not support 32bit in EL7. HTH Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro - Original Message - From: Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2014 16:27:33 Subject: [CentOS] How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7 Hi, all! How to setup own i686 mock for CentOS7? Or, is there any public i686 repo for CentOS7? I found i686 repo available in internal CentOS building environment, from a root.log from a mock build result[1]. [1] http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-updates/glibc/20141218212615/2.17-55.el7_0.3.i386/root.log Cheers, -robin ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] (py)curl error 7
Ip -6 a shows no output after visual inspection i don't see any ipv6 addresses assigned to my eth interfaces On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Mateusz Guz wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2014, Mark Milhollan wrote: On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Mateusz Guz wrote: created /etc/modprobe.d/ipv6_disable.conf file with alias net-pf-10 off alias ipv6 off options ipv6 disable=1 These only take effect if you reboot or unload the modules manually. Tryning not to reboot, when unloading I get the message that the modules is in use. I think that forcing the unload is too dangerouse, read that it might resolve in kernel panic. Forcing an unload wouldn't be wise. You must stop using the module then you can unload it. Busy usually means you have IPv6 addresses on some interfaces -- ip -6 addr flush dev ethX. /mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:02 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: In many instances in government and business seven years is a typical time-frame in which to get a major software system built and installed. And I have witnessed longer. As a software developer, I think I can speak to both halves of that point. First, the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing fast. The world is moving toward incrementalism, where the first version of The System is the smallest thing that can possibly do anyone any good. That is deployed ASAP, and is then built up incrementally over years. Though you spend the same amount of time, you will not end up in the same place because the world has changed over those years. Instead of building on top of an increasingly irrelevant foundation, you track the actual evolving needs of the organization, so that you end up where the organization needs you to be now, instead of where you thought it would need to be 7 years ago. Instead of trying to go from 0 to 100 over the course of ~7 years, you deliver new functionality to production every 1-4 weeks, achieving 100% of the desired feature set over the course of years. This isn’t pie-in-the-sky theoretical BS. This is the way I’ve been developing software for decades, as have a great many others. Waterfall is dead, hallelujah! Second, there is no necessary tie between OS and software systems built on top of it. If your software only runs on one specific OS version, you’re doing it wrong. I don’t mean that glibly. I mean you have made a fundamental mistake if your system breaks badly enough due to an OS change that you can’t fix it within an iteration or two of your normal development process. The most likely mistake is staffing your team entirely with people who have never been through a platform shift before. Again, this is not theoretical bloviation. The software system I’ve been working on for the past 2 decades has been through several of these platform changes. It started on x86 SVR4, migrated to Linux, bounced around several distros, and occasionally gets updated for whatever version of OS X or FreeBSD someone is toying with at the moment. Unix is about 45 years old now. It’s been thorough shifts that make my personal experience look trivial. (We have yet to get off x86, after all. How hard could it have been, really?) The Unix community knows how to do portability. If you aren’t planning for platform shift, you aren’t planning. We have plenty of technology for coping with platform shift. The autotools, platform-independence libraries (Qt, APR, Boost…), portable language platforms (Perl, Java, .NET…), and on and on. Everyone’s moaning about systemd, and how it’s taking over the Linux world, as if it would be better if Red Hat kept on with systemd and all the other Linux distro providers shunned it. Complain about its weaknesses if it you like, but at least it’s looking to be a real de facto standard going forward. So, seven, even ten, years of stability is really nothing at all. And as Linux seeks to enter into more and more profoundly valuable employment the type of changes that we witnessed from v6 to v7 are simply not going to be tolerated. Every other OS provider does this. (Those not in the process of dying, at any rate. A corpse is stable, but that’s no basis for recommending the widespread assumption of ambient temperature.) Windows? Check. (Vista, Windows 8, Windows CE/Pocket PC/Windows Mobile/Windows RT/Windows Phone) Apple? Check. (OS 9-X, Lion, Mavericks, Yosemite, iOS 6, iOS 7, iOS 8…) And when all these breakages occurred, what was the cry heard throughout the land of punditry? “This is Linux’s chance! Having forced everyone to rewrite their software [bogus claim], Bad OS will make everyone move to Linux!” Except it doesn’t happen. Interesting, no? Could it be that software for these other platforms *also* manages to ride through major breaking changes? What enterprise can afford to rewrite all of its software every ten years? Straw man. If you have to rewrite even 1% of your system to accommodate the change from EL6 to EL7, you are doing it wrong. If you think EL6 to EL7 is an earth-shaking change, you must not have been through something actually serious, like Solaris to Linux, or Linux to BSD, or (heaven forfend) Linux to Windows. Here you *might* crest the 1% rewrite level, but if you do that right, you just made it possible to port to a third new platform much easier. What enterprise can afford to retrain all of its personnel to use different tools to accomplish the exact same tasks every seven years? Answer: Every enterprise that wants to remain an enterprise. This is exactly what happens with Windows and Apple, only on a bit swifter pace, typically. (The long dragging life of XP is an exception. Don’t expect it to occur ever again.) The desktop software churn that
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: As a software developer, I think I can speak to both halves of that point. First, the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing fast. Sure, if you don't care if you lose data, you can skip those steps. Lots of free services that call everything they release 'beta' can get away with that, and when it breaks it's not the developer answering the phones if anyone answers at all. The world is moving toward incrementalism, where the first version of The System is the smallest thing that can possibly do anyone any good. That is deployed ASAP, and is then built up incrementally over years. That works if it was designed for rolling updates. Most stuff isn't, some stuff can't be. Instead of trying to go from 0 to 100 over the course of ~7 years, you deliver new functionality to production every 1-4 weeks, achieving 100% of the desired feature set over the course of years. If you are, say, adding up dollars, how many times do you want that functionality to change? This isn’t pie-in-the-sky theoretical BS. This is the way I’ve been developing software for decades, as have a great many others. Waterfall is dead, hallelujah! How many people do you have answering the phone about the wild and crazy changes you are introducing weekly? How much does it cost to train them? I don’t mean that glibly. I mean you have made a fundamental mistake if your system breaks badly enough due to an OS change that you can’t fix it within an iteration or two of your normal development process. The most likely mistake is staffing your team entirely with people who have never been through a platform shift before. Please quantify that. How much should a business expect to spend per person to re-train their operations staff to keep their systems working across a required OS update? Not to add functionality. To keep something that was working running the way it was?And separately, how much developer time would you expect to spend to follow the changes and perhaps eventually make something work better? Again, this is not theoretical bloviation. The software system I’ve been working on for the past 2 decades has been through several of these platform changes. It started on x86 SVR4, migrated to Linux, bounced around several distros, and occasionally gets updated for whatever version of OS X or FreeBSD someone is toying with at the moment. How many customers for your service did you keep running non-stop across those transitions? Or are you actually talking about providing a reliable service? Everyone’s moaning about systemd, and how it’s taking over the Linux world, as if it would be better if Red Hat kept on with systemd and all the other Linux distro providers shunned it. Complain about its weaknesses if it you like, but at least it’s looking to be a real de facto standard going forward. Again, it's only useful to talk about if you can quantify the cost. What you expect to pay to re-train operations staff -just- for this change, -just- to keep things working the same.. And separately, what will it cost in development time to take advantage of any new functionality? So, seven, even ten, years of stability is really nothing at all. And as Linux seeks to enter into more and more profoundly valuable employment the type of changes that we witnessed from v6 to v7 are simply not going to be tolerated. Every other OS provider does this. (Those not in the process of dying, at any rate. A corpse is stable, but that’s no basis for recommending the widespread assumption of ambient temperature.) Windows? Check. (Vista, Windows 8, Windows CE/Pocket PC/Windows Mobile/Windows RT/Windows Phone) We've got lots of stuff that will drop into Windows server versions spanning well over a 10 year range. And operators that don't have a lot of special training on the differences between them. And when all these breakages occurred, what was the cry heard throughout the land of punditry? “This is Linux’s chance! Having forced everyone to rewrite their software [bogus claim], Bad OS will make everyone move to Linux!” Except it doesn’t happen. Interesting, no? No, Linux doesn't offer stability either. Could it be that software for these other platforms *also* manages to ride through major breaking changes? Were you paying attention when Microsoft wanted to make XP obsolete? There is a lot of it still running. What enterprise can afford to rewrite all of its software every ten years? Straw man. Not really. Ask the IRS what platform they use. And estimate what it is going to cost us when they change. What enterprise can afford to retrain all of its personnel to use different tools to accomplish the exact same tasks every seven years? Answer: Every enterprise that wants to remain an enterprise. This is exactly what happens with Windows and
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing fast. Sure, if you don't care if you lose data, you can skip those steps. How did you jump from incremental feature roll-outs to data loss? There is no necessary connection there. In fact, I’d say you have a bigger risk of data loss when moving between two systems released years apart than two systems released a month apart. That’s a huge software market in its own right: legacy data conversion. If your software is DBMS-backed and a new feature changes the schema, you can use one of the many available systems for managing schema versions. Or, roll your own; it isn’t hard. You test before rolling something to production, and you run backups so that if all else fails, you can roll back to the prior version. None of this is revolutionary. It’s just what you do, every day. when it breaks it's not the developer answering the phones if anyone answers at all. Tech support calls shouldn’t go straight to the developers under any development model, short of sole proprietorship, and not even then, if you can get away with it. There needs to be at least one layer of buffering in there: train up the secretary to some basic level of cluefulness, do everything via email, or even hire some dedicated support staff. It simply costs too much to break a developer out of flow to allow a customer to ring a bell on a developer’s desk at will. The world is moving toward incrementalism, where the first version of The System is the smallest thing that can possibly do anyone any good. That is deployed ASAP, and is then built up incrementally over years. That works if it was designed for rolling updates. Most stuff isn’t, Since we’re contrasting with waterfall development processes that may last many years, but not decades, I’d say the error has already been made if you’re still working with a waterfall-based methodology today. The first strong cases for agile development processes were first made about 15 years ago, so anything started 7 years ago (to use the OP’s example) was already disregarding a shift a full software generation old. some stuff can't be. Very little software must be developed in waterfall fashion. Avionics systems and nuclear power plant control systems, for example. Such systems make up a tiny fraction of all software produced. A lot of commercial direct-to-consumer software also cannot be delivered incrementally, but only because the alternative messes with the upgrade treadmill business model. Last time I checked, this sort of software only accounted for about ~5% of all software produced, and that fraction is likely dropping, with the moves toward cloud services, open source software, subscription software, and subsidized software. The vast majority of software developed is in-house stuff, where the developers and the users *can* enter into an agile delivery cycle. Instead of trying to go from 0 to 100 over the course of ~7 years, you deliver new functionality to production every 1-4 weeks, achieving 100% of the desired feature set over the course of years. If you are, say, adding up dollars, how many times do you want that functionality to change? I’m not sure what you’re asking. If you’re talking about a custom accounting system, the GAAP rules change several times a year in the US: http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/SectionPagecid=1176156316498 The last formal standard put out by FASB was 2009, and they’re working on another version all the time. Chances are good that if you start a new 7-year project, a new standard will be out before you finish. If instead you’re talking about the cumulative cost of incremental change, it shouldn’t be much different than the cost of a single big-bang change covering the same period. In fact, I’d bet the incremental changes are easier to adopt, since each change can be learned piecemeal. A lot of what people are crying about with EL7 comes down to the fact that Red Hat is basically doing waterfall development: many years of cumulative change gets dumped on our HDDs in one big lump. Compare a rolling release model like that of Cygwin or Ubuntu (not LTS). Something might break every few months, which sounds bad until you consider that the alternative is for *everything* to break at the same time, every 3-7 years. I’m not arguing for CentOS/RHEL to turn into Ubuntu Desktop. I’m just saying that there is a cost for stability: every 3-7 years, you must hack your way through a big-bang change bolus. (6-7 years being for those organizations that skip every other major release by taking advantage of the way the EL versions overlap. EL5 was still sunsetting as EL7 was rising.) This isn’t pie-in-the-sky theoretical BS. This is the way I’ve been developing
[CentOS] can't enable selinux CentOS 6.5
Hey guys, For some reason I can't seem to enable SELinux on this one host. Here's my SELinux config file: [root@beta-new:~] #cat /etc/sysconfig/selinux # This file controls the state of SELinux on the system. # SELINUX= can take one of these three values: # enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced. # permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing. # disabled - No SELinux policy is loaded. SELINUX=enforcing # SELINUXTYPE= can take one of these two values: # targeted - Targeted processes are protected, # mls - Multi Level Security protection. SELINUXTYPE=targeted And when I check if it's enabled this is what I get: [root@beta-new:~] #getenforce Disabled But when I go to set SELinux to enabled, even with the config file set as you see it above, I get this result: [root@beta-new:~] #setenforce 1 setenforce: SELinux is disabled And nothing I can do enables it on this host. So how, can I solve this problem? I would definitely appreciate any advice you may have. Thanks Tim -- GPG me!! gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] can't enable selinux CentOS 6.5
On 29/12/14 09:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hey guys, For some reason I can't seem to enable SELinux on this one host. Here's my SELinux config file: [root@beta-new:~] #cat /etc/sysconfig/selinux # This file controls the state of SELinux on the system. # SELINUX= can take one of these three values: # enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced. # permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing. # disabled - No SELinux policy is loaded. SELINUX=enforcing # SELINUXTYPE= can take one of these two values: # targeted - Targeted processes are protected, # mls - Multi Level Security protection. SELINUXTYPE=targeted And when I check if it's enabled this is what I get: [root@beta-new:~] #getenforce Disabled But when I go to set SELinux to enabled, even with the config file set as you see it above, I get this result: [root@beta-new:~] #setenforce 1 setenforce: SELinux is disabled And nothing I can do enables it on this host. So how, can I solve this problem? I would definitely appreciate any advice you may have. Thanks Tim Did you reboot? If it was 'disabled', you need to reboot to re-enable it. You can flip between 'permissive' and 'enforcing' without a reboot, but not to/from, 'disabled' (at least that is how I recall). -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7
Oh, Thank you! Best regards! -robin On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote: Hi, Here's how my epel-7-i386.cfg mock file looks like: http://fpaste.org/164110/19877702/raw/ Do note the 32bit packages are unofficial and unsupported. RedHat does not support 32bit in EL7. HTH Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro - Original Message - From: Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2014 16:27:33 Subject: [CentOS] How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7 Hi, all! How to setup own i686 mock for CentOS7? Or, is there any public i686 repo for CentOS7? I found i686 repo available in internal CentOS building environment, from a root.log from a mock build result[1]. [1] http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-updates/glibc/20141218212615/2.17-55.el7_0.3.i386/root.log Cheers, -robin ___ 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 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing fast. Sure, if you don't care if you lose data, you can skip those steps. How did you jump from incremental feature roll-outs to data loss? There is no necessary connection there. No, it's not necessary for either code interfaces or data structures to change in backward-incompatible ways. But the people who push one kind of change aren't likely to care about the other either. In fact, I’d say you have a bigger risk of data loss when moving between two systems released years apart than two systems released a month apart. That’s a huge software market in its own right: legacy data conversion. I'm not really arguing about the timing of changes, I'm concerned about the cost of unnecessary user interface changes, code interface breakage, and data incompatibility, regardless of when it happens. RHEL's reason for existence is that it mostly shields users from that within a major release. That doesn't make it better when it happens when you are forced to move to the next one. If your software is DBMS-backed and a new feature changes the schema, you can use one of the many available systems for managing schema versions. Or, roll your own; it isn’t hard. Are you offering to do it for free? You test before rolling something to production, and you run backups so that if all else fails, you can roll back to the prior version. That's fine if you have one machine and can afford to shut down while you make something work. Most businesses aren't like that. None of this is revolutionary. It’s just what you do, every day. And it is time consuming and expensive. when it breaks it's not the developer answering the phones if anyone answers at all. Tech support calls shouldn’t go straight to the developers under any development model, short of sole proprietorship, and not even then, if you can get away with it. There needs to be at least one layer of buffering in there: train up the secretary to some basic level of cluefulness, do everything via email, or even hire some dedicated support staff. It simply costs too much to break a developer out of flow to allow a customer to ring a bell on a developer’s desk at will. Beg your pardon? How about not breaking the things that trigger the calls in the first place - or taking some responsibility for it. Do you think other people have nothing better to do? Since we’re contrasting with waterfall development processes that may last many years, but not decades, I’d say the error has already been made if you’re still working with a waterfall-based methodology today. We never change more than half of a load-balenced set of servers at once. So all changes have to be compatible when running concurrently, or worth rolling out a whole replacement farm. some stuff can't be. Very little software must be developed in waterfall fashion. If you run continuous services you either have to be able to run new/old concurrently or completely duplicate your server farm as you roll out incompatible clients. Last time I checked, this sort of software only accounted for about ~5% of all software produced, and that fraction is likely dropping, with the moves toward cloud services, open source software, subscription software, and subsidized software. The vast majority of software developed is in-house stuff, where the developers and the users *can* enter into an agile delivery cycle. OK, but they have to not break existing interfaces when they do that. And that's not the case with OS upgrades. If you are, say, adding up dollars, how many times do you want that functionality to change? I’m not sure what you’re asking. I'm asking if computer science has advanced to the point where adding up a total needs new functionality, or if you would like the same total for the same numbers that you would have gotten last year. Or more to the point, if the same program ran correctly last year, wouldn't it be nice if it still ran the same way this year, in spite of the OS upgrade you need to do because of the security bugs that keep getting shipped while developers spend their time making arbitrary changes to user interfaces. Compare a rolling release model like that of Cygwin or Ubuntu (not LTS). Something might break every few months, which sounds bad until you consider that the alternative is for *everything* to break at the same time, every 3-7 years. When your system requires extensive testing, the few times it breaks the better. Never would be nice... I don’t mean that glibly. I mean you have made a fundamental mistake if your system breaks badly enough due to an OS change that you can’t fix it within an iteration or two of your normal development process. The most likely mistake is staffing your team entirely with people who have never been through a
Re: [CentOS] can't enable selinux CentOS 6.5
By any change, is it a VPS? I know that my CloudAtCost (very cheap but extremely unreliable provider) prevents you from using SeLinux on their Centos image. On 12/29/2014 9:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hey guys, For some reason I can't seem to enable SELinux on this one host. Here's my SELinux config file: [root@beta-new:~] #cat /etc/sysconfig/selinux # This file controls the state of SELinux on the system. # SELINUX= can take one of these three values: # enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced. # permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing. # disabled - No SELinux policy is loaded. SELINUX=enforcing # SELINUXTYPE= can take one of these two values: # targeted - Targeted processes are protected, # mls - Multi Level Security protection. SELINUXTYPE=targeted And when I check if it's enabled this is what I get: [root@beta-new:~] #getenforce Disabled But when I go to set SELinux to enabled, even with the config file set as you see it above, I get this result: [root@beta-new:~] #setenforce 1 setenforce: SELinux is disabled And nothing I can do enables it on this host. So how, can I solve this problem? I would definitely appreciate any advice you may have. Thanks Tim ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Develop ineo 25e printer and CUPS
Hi all, I have a Develop ineo 25e printer, and want to set it up with CUPS. I connect to http://localhost:631/ and add the printer, with uploading the PPD available here: http://www.develop.eu/en/products/office-products/colour/ineo-25/downloads.html (English, Linux, version 1.1 dated 2012) The printer is network connected, and the connection is socket://192.168.129.100 job-sheets=none, none media=iso_a4_210x297mm sides=one-sided I tried several combinations, with or without the PPD, socket:// or ipp://,... no way: The test page prints OK, but any other page is a kind of source code I could not define. Would you know what option could save me? Thanks. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
