Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:07 pm, Brian Bernard wrote: > Oh, I wouldn't flame you. > > Hmm, I didn't think of using a virtual machine. The Lenovo has a NVidia > 960MX, so I wonder if it would fully work under a virtual machine. Probably not. Normally virtual machine does not have that level of

Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:12 pm, Alice Wonder wrote: > On 04/27/2016 07:43 PM, Mike Mohr wrote: >> Don't flame me, but I really recommend using Ubuntu on laptops. If you >> really want CentOS, you should go with version 7. Many new laptops won't >> work well with that either though. > > CentOS 7

Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

On 04/27/2016 07:43 PM, Mike Mohr wrote: Don't flame me, but I really recommend using Ubuntu on laptops. If you really want CentOS, you should go with version 7. Many new laptops won't work well with that either though. CentOS 7 works fine on my T410 thinkpad but that's not a new laptop... I

Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

Oh, I wouldn't flame you. Hmm, I didn't think of using a virtual machine. The Lenovo has a NVidia 960MX, so I wonder if it would fully work under a virtual machine. The reason why I ask is that I do systems adminstration with meteorological software that requires OpenGL 2.0 and at least 2GB of

Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

Don't flame me, but I really recommend using Ubuntu on laptops. If you really want CentOS, you should go with version 7. Many new laptops won't work well with that either though. CentOS 6 only works well these days on older hardware or on virtual machines. On Apr 27, 2016 7:27 PM, "Brian Bernard"

[CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?

Hi all, I'm looking at buying a Lenovo Y700 Notebook, and wondering if it would work with CentOS 6. Or if anyone has experience with using it under CentOS 6. I assume that the WiFi could be an issue as it uses an Intel 8260 card. I want to make the correct decision. Thank you, Brian Bernard

Re: [CentOS] systemd-journald corruption

Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > Also I wonder if merely restarting the journal daemon solves it: > > systemctl restart systemd-journald > > What should happen is it realizes its own logs are corrupt and ignores > them, and starts working on new copies. And

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 15:16, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: >> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >>> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is

Re: [CentOS] systemd-journald corruption

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >> >> On Tue, Apr

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 15:33, Jon LaBadie wrote: The V1 shell was of course not Bourne's. However Bourne's code was consider "unmaintainable" as he was an algol coder, not a C coder. He had numerous macros defined to allow him to use his algol coding style with a C compiler. So *that's* what it is! I

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, JJB said: Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:32:49PM -0453, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > From NetBSD 6.1.5: > > > 4256EE1 # man sh ... > SH(1) > > NAME > sh -- command interpreter (shell) ... > > HISTORY > A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX. It was, however, > unmaintainable so we

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

Once upon a time, JJB said: > Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It > did not have command substitution or other things we now take for > granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two > missing in history... Check the history

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Wed, April 27, 2016 3:16 pm, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: >> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >>> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 14:19, John R Pierce wrote: >>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >> >> > >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell > > Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 4/27/2016 12:59 PM, JJB wrote: Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history... this suggests the PWB/Mashey shell

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

>The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell > > Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part) HISTORY A sh command, the

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

>>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >> >> > >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell > > Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell indeed, the man

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>> >>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >>> that's all

[CentOS] CentOS CI Testing Prior to Releasing Packages

In another thread I talked about running CI testing on a packge before release. I thought I would explain that a bit more AND ask for tests, if they are needed. Prior to pushing newly released packages into the main CentOS os, updates, extras, cr, or fasttrack repositories, we run our

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

On 04/27/2016 10:36 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> On 04/27/2016 09:23 AM, James Pearson wrote: >>> Phil Wyett wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:27 -0400, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > The latest version of firefox,

Re: [CentOS] where, if at all, is my virtual printer output?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Frank Cox wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:57:31 -0500 (CDT) Michael Hennebry wrote: Now there are two virtual printers, one named Cups-PDF Out of the box, cups-pdf creates a pdf and puts it on your desktop. You can configure that with /etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf Thanks.

[CentOS-announce] CESA-2016:0695 Critical CentOS 6 firefox Security Update

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2016:0695 Critical Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-0695.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386:

[CentOS-announce] CESA-2016:0695 Critical CentOS 5 firefox Security Update

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2016:0695 Critical Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-0695.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386:

[CentOS] Mod_radius_auth for apache?

Any package with srpm available for radius auth on apache? Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support multi-byte characters and

[CentOS] system-config-printer samba broken

Hello guys… while i was working with special printer setup fallow problems are there: samba: 1. system-config-printer 1.4.1 - printers not browsable. Fixed by fedora. can be found here. Patch included http://centos.cms4all.org/centos/7/printing/SRPM/

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:39:10AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > This is weird. As in, *deeply* weird. > > I ssh as root from one box to another (there are keys involved), and I go > to vi a file, such as > # line 1 # > # line 2 # > # line 3 > # line 4 > > And what I see in vi is > # line 3 >

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 08:46 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:29 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Alice Wonder wrote: On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: Sounds good, but how many domain MX

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:29 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Alice Wonder wrote: >>> On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen >> wrote: > Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

> I should have the CentOS-6 (and CentOS-5) version of Firefox 45 out in a > couple of minutes .. currently building metadata and testing them on > https://ci.centos.org/ Btw. this is the first ESR after the controversial removal of the "ask me every time" cookie policy. When the new browser

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:29 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Alice Wonder wrote: >> On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen > wrote: Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers have set up these fingerprint

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Tue, April 26, 2016 9:27 pm, Alice Wonder wrote: > On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote: >> On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one of the reasons being it

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 04/27/2016 09:23 AM, James Pearson wrote: > > Phil Wyett wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:27 -0400, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > >>> The latest version of firefox, 46.0 requires GTK3 and so it fails on > >>> CentOS >

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

Alice Wonder wrote: > On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: >>> Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers have set up these >>> fingerprint keys - 1%, maybe 2%, so how do you code for that? I guess I'm

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

On 04/27/2016 09:23 AM, James Pearson wrote: > Phil Wyett wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:27 -0400, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >>> The latest version of firefox, 46.0 requires GTK3 and so it fails on >>> CentOS >>> 6.7. >>> >>> I know there is the ESR release supplied by upstream, but that is >>>

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:01 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Scott Robbins wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: >>> >>> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't > know. >>> >> Yup. >> >>> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Tim Dunphy wrote: So what I'd like to know is it better in your opinion to install from repos than to install by source as a best practice? "Better" all depends on your workflow and your customers' concerns. If you are always available to update all your customers'

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: >> >> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. >> > Yup. > >> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

On 04/27/16 09:11, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Richard wrote: Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 13:43:00 + From: "Vanhorn, Mike" On 4/27/16, 9:39 AM, "centos-boun...@centos.org on behalf of m.r...@5-cent.us"

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

On Wed, April 27, 2016 8:39 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > This is weird. As in, *deeply* weird. > > I ssh as root from one box to another (there are keys involved), and I go > to vi a file, such as > # line 1 # > # line 2 # > # line 3 > # line 4 > > And what I see in vi is > # line 3 > # line 4 >

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

Phil Wyett wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:27 -0400, Phelps, Matthew wrote: The latest version of firefox, 46.0 requires GTK3 and so it fails on CentOS 6.7. I know there is the ESR release supplied by upstream, but that is based on version 38. We have regularly installed the Mozilla "Linux"

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Richard wrote: >>> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 13:43:00 + >>> From: "Vanhorn, Mike" >>> On 4/27/16, 9:39 AM, "centos-boun...@centos.org on behalf of >>> m.r...@5-cent.us" >> m.r...@5-cent.us>

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

Richard wrote: >> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 13:43:00 + >> From: "Vanhorn, Mike" >> On 4/27/16, 9:39 AM, "centos-boun...@centos.org on behalf of >> m.r...@5-cent.us" > m.r...@5-cent.us> wrote: >> >>> And now, I just >>>

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 13:43:00 + > From: "Vanhorn, Mike" > > On 4/27/16, 9:39 AM, "centos-boun...@centos.org on behalf of > m.r...@5-cent.us" m.r...@5-cent.us> wrote: > >> And now, I just >> ssh'd in from

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the

Re: [CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

On 4/27/16, 9:39 AM, "centos-boun...@centos.org on behalf of m.r...@5-cent.us" wrote: > And now, I just >ssh'd in from another windows, same way... and the weirdness isn't there. > >Anyone have any clues as to what's going on with that one

[CentOS] Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour

This is weird. As in, *deeply* weird. I ssh as root from one box to another (there are keys involved), and I go to vi a file, such as # line 1 # # line 2 # # line 3 # line 4 And what I see in vi is # line 3 # line 4 BUT, if I scroll the cursor over each line with the arrow key... I see all four

Re: [CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:27 -0400, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > The latest version of firefox, 46.0 requires GTK3 and so it fails on CentOS > 6.7. > > I know there is the ESR release supplied by upstream, but that is based on > version 38. We have regularly installed the Mozilla "Linux" version of >

[CentOS] DNSSEC / Security stats (forked from php thread)

I don't have a source, I'd have to dig through my browser history, but I looked at some of these stats just last month. Roughly 2% of the top 1000 domains in the United States had deployed DNSSEC - which I *think* is double what it was a year ago. Roughly 7% of ISP recursive DNS servers

Re: [CentOS] systemd-journald corruption

Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 2:09 PM Chris Adams wrote: > >> > I have

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: > > Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. > Yup. > bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) > which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other >

[CentOS] Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement

The latest version of firefox, 46.0 requires GTK3 and so it fails on CentOS 6.7. I know there is the ESR release supplied by upstream, but that is based on version 38. We have regularly installed the Mozilla "Linux" version of Firefox in a central location for our users, and this has worked just

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers have set up these fingerprint keys - 1%, maybe 2%, so how do you code for that? I guess I'm thinking it uses it if available.

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 134, Issue 14

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-annou...@centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

Re: [CentOS] Storage cluster advise, anybody?

May be this can be a good starting point: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/High_Availability_Cluster There is also a book "Proxmox High Availability" by Simon M. C. Cheng. I'm starting to build such a solution to provide NFS service to my CentOS clients (i've just received the hardware). I'm

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 01:19 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 04/27/2016 01:06 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: Not with a smtp that enforces DANE. I'm aware of how DANE works. The only problem is no MTA outside of Postfix implements

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: > Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers have set up these fingerprint > keys - 1%, maybe 2%, so how do you code for that? I guess I'm thinking it > uses it if available. So even if you do post it on your DNS, how

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 01:06 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: Not with a smtp that enforces DANE. I'm aware of how DANE works. The only problem is no MTA outside of Postfix implements it. You can thank the hatred of DNSSEC for

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:08:10 +0200 wwp wrote: > Hello all, > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer wrote: > > > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > > >> > > >> Today someone in a

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 07:50 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 04/27/2016 12:41 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 04/27/2016 12:30 AM, James Hogarth wrote: *snip* Unless you have a very specific requirement for a very bleeding edge feature it's fundamentally a terrible idea to move away from the distribution

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

Hello all, On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer wrote: > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > >> > >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one > >> of the reasons being it supposedly

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > Not with a smtp that enforces DANE. I'm aware of how DANE works. The only problem is no MTA outside of Postfix implements it. You can thank the hatred of DNSSEC for that. Brandon Vincent

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 12:59 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: That is the only reliable way to avoid MITM with SMTP. Except I can just strip STARTTLS and most MTAs will continue to connect. No you can't. Not with a smtp that

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > That is the only reliable way to avoid MITM with SMTP. Except I can just strip STARTTLS and most MTAs will continue to connect. Brandon Vincent ___ CentOS mailing list

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 12:41 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 04/27/2016 12:30 AM, James Hogarth wrote: *snip* Unless you have a very specific requirement for a very bleeding edge feature it's fundamentally a terrible idea to move away from the distribution packages in something as exposed as a webserver ...

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

Another way i choose is install what i need in opt a php cli and configure apache. What is the different? I drive php 5.3, 5.6 side by side. It always depends of your needs. How configure this stuff on my virtual host? ISP-Config make it easy for me. Can be a solution for you. RPM isn’t that

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 04/27/2016 12:30 AM, James Hogarth wrote: *snip* Unless you have a very specific requirement for a very bleeding edge feature it's fundamentally a terrible idea to move away from the distribution packages in something as exposed as a webserver ... I use to believe that. However I no

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions

On 26 Apr 2016 23:28, "Tim Dunphy" wrote: > > Hey guys, > > I tend to work on small production environments for a large enterprise. > > Never more than 15 web servers for most sites. > > But most are only 3 to 5 web servers. Depends on the needs of the > client.I actually