Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
also sprach Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.11.0106 +0200]: > "simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is > lower than running a redhat boxen," At three companies I worked, as well as two universities I help out at, the computer staff reported more than 200% more time to concentrate on other stuff than system administration after they switched their Solaris, AIX, or SuSE systems to Debian. Is that enough? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck http://www.transnationalrepublic.org/ msg06944/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Hi, On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 11:21:46AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: [SNIP] > > Or maybe I don't understand your point ... if you're saying the hardware > > vendor should help you configure your software, I don't want to work > > where you work. > > No... I'm saying, for example, if a particular thing (eg. a motherboard) > doesn't work on Linux (maybe a driver issue), then the vendor does not > need to support you if you're not running one of their "officially > supported" distros. And if "officially supported" equals "has > certification", then I think Debian should get certified. I doubt Debian > can "go it alone"... maybe Redhat could get away without being certified, > simply because so many people run it. But if Debian can piggyback off > Redhat and join certifications with it, and thus get vendor support along > with Redhat, is that a bad thing? > > > Or are you talking about commercial software support? (Oracle, Check > > Point, Netcool :) If so, you're never going to call your _server_ > > vendor for that support, I'd think. Why would you? > > It was only an example. Please don't pick on the minor points... it's the > bigger picture I think we're all trying to focus on. I'm not just talking > about hardware... I'm talking about everything, from software (eg. DB, > Application software, etc.) to hardware (RAID cards, Video cards, etc.). Why do you seem to completely ignore the guy's point that the LSB is about *software* compatibility and is practically meaningless for *hardware*? I'd rather have LSB certification stay that way, instead leading hardware companies even further in the false belief that it means something for hardware as well. It's a much better overall situation when hardware companies learn to say, we support our hardware under stock kernel 2.4.x, x>=15, or any official kernel from RedHat, 7.1 and up. Our driver is included in the main tree. I repeat: the LSB has nothing to do with the level of hardware support you'll get, or shouldn't have. If vendors demand it for no good reason, we should try to educate them, instead of encouraging them to add even more of those horrible binary-only-drivers-with-unportable-redhat- specific-install scripts. Why do you make so much of a fuss about it? If there is a demand for Debian support in a troubleshooting and maintenance sense, then companies will offer that. Linux already has the critical mass, and it definitely doesn't seem to be much of a problem anymore to get commercial Debian troubleshooting and maintenance support. The only real reason I'd see to get LSB is to get Oracle officially supported, but as Oracle's choice for RedHat 'Advanced Server' is a political one anyway, I don't think that certification will help anything there. Otherwise they would already support Mandrake and SuSE. Nothing to gain by LSB certification there. And do you know any other piece of proprietary software that is so worthwile that Debian should work hard for official support? Remember, Debian's agenda is excellent Free Software first, and a 'successful' Linux distribution second. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153| http://www.e-advies.info msg06943/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> > Funny, I never had much trouble talking to IBM about Debian on my IBM > servers when they didn't work (and that in itself was rare). I find > that you're likely to get what you want regarding tech support if you > know what you're talking about, e.g. "this network card doesn't work > and here are the ten things I tried" as opposed to "this network card > doesn't work and I'm pissed off! Do something!" Half and half. For example, some hardware companies only "officially" support some distros. I think Promise (RAID cards) comes to mind, but I'm sure others here can come up with better examples of vendors only supporting specific distros. >From my experience, Debian is rarely one of the officially supported vendors. Yes, if the vendor is good they will try and help you get it working anyway, but when it comes down to the crunch, if you aren't on their "officially supported" list, you're on your own. My point is... I'd love to see Debian on more of the "officially supported" lists, like Redhat and others. And if certification/compliance/etc. is what it takes, then is it a bad thing to head in that direction, as long as Debian's good points (eg. stability) are not compromised? > Or maybe I don't understand your point ... if you're saying the hardware > vendor should help you configure your software, I don't want to work > where you work. No... I'm saying, for example, if a particular thing (eg. a motherboard) doesn't work on Linux (maybe a driver issue), then the vendor does not need to support you if you're not running one of their "officially supported" distros. And if "officially supported" equals "has certification", then I think Debian should get certified. I doubt Debian can "go it alone"... maybe Redhat could get away without being certified, simply because so many people run it. But if Debian can piggyback off Redhat and join certifications with it, and thus get vendor support along with Redhat, is that a bad thing? > Or are you talking about commercial software support? (Oracle, Check > Point, Netcool :) If so, you're never going to call your _server_ > vendor for that support, I'd think. Why would you? It was only an example. Please don't pick on the minor points... it's the bigger picture I think we're all trying to focus on. I'm not just talking about hardware... I'm talking about everything, from software (eg. DB, Application software, etc.) to hardware (RAID cards, Video cards, etc.). > Finally, I am willing to testify that "the cost of mantaining a debian > box is lower than running a redhat boxen." ... at my last job we had a > pile of linux servers. They're still there, and they still run > Debian, even though I left! I wonder why that is ... If you left Redhat servers there, they'd probably still be running too. Doesn't say much besides the fact Linux is, in general, very stable ;-) > > Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never > > surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the > > market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big > > difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". > > LSB is only going to help with software support, not hardware support. > The LSB is intended to provide a "Linux Standard Base" which software > developers can depend on to provide some set of invariants. To that > end, I wouldn't mind seeing LSB-compliant software with the ability to > be installed on debian boxes, but only if it doesn't compromise the > excellence already built into Debian. Agreed. I don't want certification that will compromise Debian's well-renown stability. But if it doesn't compromise stability, what is stopping Debian from getting certified? Is it money (do they have to pay to get certified), or is there some other political issue that is holding Debian back? People have already said technically that Debian could be LSB certified along with others... then why isn't it? > > This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian > > in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't > > care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've > > found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it > > with the rest of us. > > If you're wondering what plans Debian has regarding LSB certification, > you'd probably be better off to bring it up on debian-project, or > possibly debian-devel (though I suspect it's off topic there too). Well, I thought about that, but only if others here agreed that certification would be good on a commercial level. If not... perhaps I'm missing the point? Perhaps certification would actually not be a good thing? I was just hoping to hear from other commercial users, see what their point of view is, and share thoughts with each other, and exchange ideas :-)
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 09:06:29AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > I would be interested to see where you get evidence for your statement: > > "simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is > lower than running a redhat boxen," > > Now, suppose something goes wrong with your server... maybe it's a > hardware problem, maybe it's a software problem. So you call up tech > support of the server manufacturer. As soon as you tell them you're > running Debian, Gentoo, or some other non-certified and thus non-supported > distro, they'll say "Sorry, we can't help you there. There are hundreds of > Linux distributions out there, and we cannot possibly know the little > quirks and issues for each and every one of them. Please install a > certified and supported distribution.". And that statement would be fair > enough... because it is true. Each distro does do things a little > different here and there, and when it comes time to debug problems, it's > those little quirks of each distro that can get in the way of a speedy > resolution. Funny, I never had much trouble talking to IBM about Debian on my IBM servers when they didn't work (and that in itself was rare). I find that you're likely to get what you want regarding tech support if you know what you're talking about, e.g. "this network card doesn't work and here are the ten things I tried" as opposed to "this network card doesn't work and I'm pissed off! Do something!" Or maybe I don't understand your point ... if you're saying the hardware vendor should help you configure your software, I don't want to work where you work. Or are you talking about commercial software support? (Oracle, Check Point, Netcool :) If so, you're never going to call your _server_ vendor for that support, I'd think. Why would you? Finally, I am willing to testify that "the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen." ... at my last job we had a pile of linux servers. They're still there, and they still run Debian, even though I left! I wonder why that is ... > Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never > surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the > market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big > difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". LSB is only going to help with software support, not hardware support. The LSB is intended to provide a "Linux Standard Base" which software developers can depend on to provide some set of invariants. To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing LSB-compliant software with the ability to be installed on debian boxes, but only if it doesn't compromise the excellence already built into Debian. > This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian > in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't > care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've > found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it > with the rest of us. If you're wondering what plans Debian has regarding LSB certification, you'd probably be better off to bring it up on debian-project, or possibly debian-devel (though I suspect it's off topic there too). -- Nathan Norman - Micromuse Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Hello, > > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't > > > care if vendors officially support Debian. Yes, I remember when they did not support Linux. I think the point of Debian is - to be better at something it has to be different. Also Debian is GPL centric, it is intended to be a complete system based on GPL software. I do not see hardware vendors recognizing Debian just because it will run some standard binary. If it becomes compatible enough it will stop being different. Is there some real reason not to use RedHat for some projects? Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
I would be interested to see where you get evidence for your statement: "simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen," Now, suppose something goes wrong with your server... maybe it's a hardware problem, maybe it's a software problem. So you call up tech support of the server manufacturer. As soon as you tell them you're running Debian, Gentoo, or some other non-certified and thus non-supported distro, they'll say "Sorry, we can't help you there. There are hundreds of Linux distributions out there, and we cannot possibly know the little quirks and issues for each and every one of them. Please install a certified and supported distribution.". And that statement would be fair enough... because it is true. Each distro does do things a little different here and there, and when it comes time to debug problems, it's those little quirks of each distro that can get in the way of a speedy resolution. Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it with the rest of us. - Original Message - From: "Alex Borges (lex)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 AM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective El jue, 10-10-2002 a las 03:07, Jason Lim escribió: > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? Well... that is the thing i work for the vendor... there is a market for support in the debian platform u know? And its business case against vendor-supported 'standards-compliant' distribution is as good as the OSS vs. Propietary simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen, thus if you sell say, managed servers for datacenters, you are better using debian as a platform. Also, HP still supports debian now, one thing is true, debian is for vertical markets and infrastructure... it will never be a Joe User box cause Joe likes to share software back and forth... hes better off with a RH based distro (somehow, since he can more reliably install rpms that his haXor friends pass him). Now, if you run your servers like Joe here, then debian is definitely not for you. Lex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
also sprach Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.10.1948 +0200]: > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) I principally always just tell them I run RedHat and do some background translation to and fro. Sure, got to know RedHat, but it's not too hard... you can always gain time by hiding behind the stupid user... ;^> > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform > according to them) your support contract is still good up to > a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be > distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the > issue. I don't know about Oracle, but companies like Check Point, Dell and various others basically tell you to hang up or they will as soon as you tell them you aren't running Red Hat or Windoze. This makes me think: Can't we have a special list 'debian-commercial' (or a better name) for exactly these types of problems - getting commercial software to run on Debian? If not officially, I'd be happy to host it. - Jason Lim in reply: This is exactly why I brought this up in Debian-ISP. I presume most of us here are running Debian in commercial environments, either for our own servers, or for clients. I find the trend that the large players are only supporting a few Distros (and those few Distros are getting certified) disturbing. Debian will basically NEVER become "mainstream" to the point Redhat or such do, for numerous reasons (advertising, "tech support", etc.). However, my hope is that Debian can ride off the success/partnerships/support of the other distros by at least JOINING with them in various certifications, thus indirectly gaining support from vendors/companies for Debian. Does this make sense?
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> > Funny, I never had much trouble talking to IBM about Debian on my IBM > servers when they didn't work (and that in itself was rare). I find > that you're likely to get what you want regarding tech support if you > know what you're talking about, e.g. "this network card doesn't work > and here are the ten things I tried" as opposed to "this network card > doesn't work and I'm pissed off! Do something!" Half and half. For example, some hardware companies only "officially" support some distros. I think Promise (RAID cards) comes to mind, but I'm sure others here can come up with better examples of vendors only supporting specific distros. >From my experience, Debian is rarely one of the officially supported vendors. Yes, if the vendor is good they will try and help you get it working anyway, but when it comes down to the crunch, if you aren't on their "officially supported" list, you're on your own. My point is... I'd love to see Debian on more of the "officially supported" lists, like Redhat and others. And if certification/compliance/etc. is what it takes, then is it a bad thing to head in that direction, as long as Debian's good points (eg. stability) are not compromised? > Or maybe I don't understand your point ... if you're saying the hardware > vendor should help you configure your software, I don't want to work > where you work. No... I'm saying, for example, if a particular thing (eg. a motherboard) doesn't work on Linux (maybe a driver issue), then the vendor does not need to support you if you're not running one of their "officially supported" distros. And if "officially supported" equals "has certification", then I think Debian should get certified. I doubt Debian can "go it alone"... maybe Redhat could get away without being certified, simply because so many people run it. But if Debian can piggyback off Redhat and join certifications with it, and thus get vendor support along with Redhat, is that a bad thing? > Or are you talking about commercial software support? (Oracle, Check > Point, Netcool :) If so, you're never going to call your _server_ > vendor for that support, I'd think. Why would you? It was only an example. Please don't pick on the minor points... it's the bigger picture I think we're all trying to focus on. I'm not just talking about hardware... I'm talking about everything, from software (eg. DB, Application software, etc.) to hardware (RAID cards, Video cards, etc.). > Finally, I am willing to testify that "the cost of mantaining a debian > box is lower than running a redhat boxen." ... at my last job we had a > pile of linux servers. They're still there, and they still run > Debian, even though I left! I wonder why that is ... If you left Redhat servers there, they'd probably still be running too. Doesn't say much besides the fact Linux is, in general, very stable ;-) > > Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never > > surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the > > market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big > > difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". > > LSB is only going to help with software support, not hardware support. > The LSB is intended to provide a "Linux Standard Base" which software > developers can depend on to provide some set of invariants. To that > end, I wouldn't mind seeing LSB-compliant software with the ability to > be installed on debian boxes, but only if it doesn't compromise the > excellence already built into Debian. Agreed. I don't want certification that will compromise Debian's well-renown stability. But if it doesn't compromise stability, what is stopping Debian from getting certified? Is it money (do they have to pay to get certified), or is there some other political issue that is holding Debian back? People have already said technically that Debian could be LSB certified along with others... then why isn't it? > > This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian > > in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't > > care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've > > found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it > > with the rest of us. > > If you're wondering what plans Debian has regarding LSB certification, > you'd probably be better off to bring it up on debian-project, or > possibly debian-devel (though I suspect it's off topic there too). Well, I thought about that, but only if others here agreed that certification would be good on a commercial level. If not... perhaps I'm missing the point? Perhaps certification would actually not be a good thing? I was just hoping to hear from other commercial users, see what their point of view is, and share thoughts with each other, and exchange ideas :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
also sprach Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.10.1948 +0200]: > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) I principally always just tell them I run RedHat and do some background translation to and fro. Sure, got to know RedHat, but it's not too hard... you can always gain time by hiding behind the stupid user... ;^> > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform > according to them) your support contract is still good up to > a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be > distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the > issue. I don't know about Oracle, but companies like Check Point, Dell and various others basically tell you to hang up or they will as soon as you tell them you aren't running Red Hat or Windoze. This makes me think: Can't we have a special list 'debian-commercial' (or a better name) for exactly these types of problems - getting commercial software to run on Debian? If not officially, I'd be happy to host it. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] you step in the stream, but the water has moved on. this page is not here. pgpiVwf9Rh1B9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 09:06:29AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > I would be interested to see where you get evidence for your statement: > > "simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is > lower than running a redhat boxen," > > Now, suppose something goes wrong with your server... maybe it's a > hardware problem, maybe it's a software problem. So you call up tech > support of the server manufacturer. As soon as you tell them you're > running Debian, Gentoo, or some other non-certified and thus non-supported > distro, they'll say "Sorry, we can't help you there. There are hundreds of > Linux distributions out there, and we cannot possibly know the little > quirks and issues for each and every one of them. Please install a > certified and supported distribution.". And that statement would be fair > enough... because it is true. Each distro does do things a little > different here and there, and when it comes time to debug problems, it's > those little quirks of each distro that can get in the way of a speedy > resolution. Funny, I never had much trouble talking to IBM about Debian on my IBM servers when they didn't work (and that in itself was rare). I find that you're likely to get what you want regarding tech support if you know what you're talking about, e.g. "this network card doesn't work and here are the ten things I tried" as opposed to "this network card doesn't work and I'm pissed off! Do something!" Or maybe I don't understand your point ... if you're saying the hardware vendor should help you configure your software, I don't want to work where you work. Or are you talking about commercial software support? (Oracle, Check Point, Netcool :) If so, you're never going to call your _server_ vendor for that support, I'd think. Why would you? Finally, I am willing to testify that "the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen." ... at my last job we had a pile of linux servers. They're still there, and they still run Debian, even though I left! I wonder why that is ... > Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never > surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the > market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big > difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". LSB is only going to help with software support, not hardware support. The LSB is intended to provide a "Linux Standard Base" which software developers can depend on to provide some set of invariants. To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing LSB-compliant software with the ability to be installed on debian boxes, but only if it doesn't compromise the excellence already built into Debian. > This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian > in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't > care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've > found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it > with the rest of us. If you're wondering what plans Debian has regarding LSB certification, you'd probably be better off to bring it up on debian-project, or possibly debian-devel (though I suspect it's off topic there too). -- Nathan Norman - Micromuse Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
El jue, 10-10-2002 a las 03:07, Jason Lim escribió: > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? Well... that is the thing i work for the vendor... there is a market for support in the debian platform u know? And its business case against vendor-supported 'standards-compliant' distribution is as good as the OSS vs. Propietary simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen, thus if you sell say, managed servers for datacenters, you are better using debian as a platform. Also, HP still supports debian now, one thing is true, debian is for vertical markets and infrastructure... it will never be a Joe User box cause Joe likes to share software back and forth... hes better off with a RH based distro (somehow, since he can more reliably install rpms that his haXor friends pass him). Now, if you run your servers like Joe here, then debian is definitely not for you. Lex
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Hello, > > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't > > > care if vendors officially support Debian. Yes, I remember when they did not support Linux. I think the point of Debian is - to be better at something it has to be different. Also Debian is GPL centric, it is intended to be a complete system based on GPL software. I do not see hardware vendors recognizing Debian just because it will run some standard binary. If it becomes compatible enough it will stop being different. Is there some real reason not to use RedHat for some projects? Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with horde-imp under postgresql
Hummm,
I'm using the default configuration, right from the "box", though I agree
with you. I been scrambling my postgres config files and get no result. Can
you give me any lead.
Thanks,
rak
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 05:53:33PM +0200, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
> Hi
>
> you have chosen ident authentication meaning dbuser == systemuser which
> is proably not the case. So change the authentication scheme used to
> something usefull. :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:59:30PM -0300, UnKnown wrote:
> > Hi all, again, I'm having some troubles configuring the imp, after traying
> > allmost evrything, I still recive the same error when opening the imp page
> >
> > Trascrip..
> >
> > Warning: Unable to connect to PostgresSQL server: FATAL 1: IDENT
> > authentication failed for user "hordemgr" in /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on line
> > 40
> >
> > Warning: 0 is not a PostgresSQL link index in /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on
> > line 52
> >
> >
> > The user hordemgr exist the password is double check, y work this several
> > times, permisions ar as follow, default by the way...
> >
> > horde=# \dp
> >Access privileges for database "horde"
> > Table | Access privileges
> > -+---
> > active_sessions | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > auth_user | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > auth_user_md5 | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > imp_addr| {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > imp_pref| {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > horde=#
> >
> >
> > So, if you got any idea is well came.
> >
> > Cherss,
> > rak
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Christian Zagrodnick
>
> gocept gmbh & co. kg - schalaunische strasse 6 - 06366 koethen/anhalt
> fon. +49 3496 3099114 - fax. +49 3496 3099118 - mob. +49 173 9078826
>
Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux
> I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging > support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. > FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if > people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they > will have to wait for the 2.6.x kernel. You can patch the kernel using the files on http://bridge.sourceforge.net/ to get firewall bridging in 2.4 Matt.
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
I would be interested to see where you get evidence for your statement: "simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen," Now, suppose something goes wrong with your server... maybe it's a hardware problem, maybe it's a software problem. So you call up tech support of the server manufacturer. As soon as you tell them you're running Debian, Gentoo, or some other non-certified and thus non-supported distro, they'll say "Sorry, we can't help you there. There are hundreds of Linux distributions out there, and we cannot possibly know the little quirks and issues for each and every one of them. Please install a certified and supported distribution.". And that statement would be fair enough... because it is true. Each distro does do things a little different here and there, and when it comes time to debug problems, it's those little quirks of each distro that can get in the way of a speedy resolution. Redhat, Mandrake, etc. are the market leaders. Debian can probably never surpass them in terms of numbers. However, if we can at least join the market leaders in getting certified and supported, it'll make a big difference both "appearance-wise" and "vendor support-wise". This is my concern. And I was hoping that more of you guys running Debian in commercial environments would feel the same way, but perhaps you don't care about this issue, or you do not see it as important (perhaps you've found a way around this, or you have a solution?) If so, please share it with the rest of us. - Original Message - From: "Alex Borges (lex)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 AM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective El jue, 10-10-2002 a las 03:07, Jason Lim escribió: > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? Well... that is the thing i work for the vendor... there is a market for support in the debian platform u know? And its business case against vendor-supported 'standards-compliant' distribution is as good as the OSS vs. Propietary simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen, thus if you sell say, managed servers for datacenters, you are better using debian as a platform. Also, HP still supports debian now, one thing is true, debian is for vertical markets and infrastructure... it will never be a Joe User box cause Joe likes to share software back and forth... hes better off with a RH based distro (somehow, since he can more reliably install rpms that his haXor friends pass him). Now, if you run your servers like Joe here, then debian is definitely not for you. Lex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
also sprach Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.10.1948 +0200]: > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) I principally always just tell them I run RedHat and do some background translation to and fro. Sure, got to know RedHat, but it's not too hard... you can always gain time by hiding behind the stupid user... ;^> > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform > according to them) your support contract is still good up to > a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be > distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the > issue. I don't know about Oracle, but companies like Check Point, Dell and various others basically tell you to hang up or they will as soon as you tell them you aren't running Red Hat or Windoze. This makes me think: Can't we have a special list 'debian-commercial' (or a better name) for exactly these types of problems - getting commercial software to run on Debian? If not officially, I'd be happy to host it. - Jason Lim in reply: This is exactly why I brought this up in Debian-ISP. I presume most of us here are running Debian in commercial environments, either for our own servers, or for clients. I find the trend that the large players are only supporting a few Distros (and those few Distros are getting certified) disturbing. Debian will basically NEVER become "mainstream" to the point Redhat or such do, for numerous reasons (advertising, "tech support", etc.). However, my hope is that Debian can ride off the success/partnerships/support of the other distros by at least JOINING with them in various certifications, thus indirectly gaining support from vendors/companies for Debian. Does this make sense? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
also sprach Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.10.1948 +0200]: > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) I principally always just tell them I run RedHat and do some background translation to and fro. Sure, got to know RedHat, but it's not too hard... you can always gain time by hiding behind the stupid user... ;^> > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform > according to them) your support contract is still good up to > a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be > distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the > issue. I don't know about Oracle, but companies like Check Point, Dell and various others basically tell you to hang up or they will as soon as you tell them you aren't running Red Hat or Windoze. This makes me think: Can't we have a special list 'debian-commercial' (or a better name) for exactly these types of problems - getting commercial software to run on Debian? If not officially, I'd be happy to host it. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck you step in the stream, but the water has moved on. this page is not here. msg06937/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
El jue, 10-10-2002 a las 03:07, Jason Lim escribió: > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? Well... that is the thing i work for the vendor... there is a market for support in the debian platform u know? And its business case against vendor-supported 'standards-compliant' distribution is as good as the OSS vs. Propietary simply, the cost of mantaining a debian box is lower than running a redhat boxen, thus if you sell say, managed servers for datacenters, you are better using debian as a platform. Also, HP still supports debian now, one thing is true, debian is for vertical markets and infrastructure... it will never be a Joe User box cause Joe likes to share software back and forth... hes better off with a RH based distro (somehow, since he can more reliably install rpms that his haXor friends pass him). Now, if you run your servers like Joe here, then debian is definitely not for you. Lex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with horde-imp under postgresql
Hummm,
I'm using the default configuration, right from the "box", though I agree
with you. I been scrambling my postgres config files and get no result. Can
you give me any lead.
Thanks,
rak
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 05:53:33PM +0200, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
> Hi
>
> you have chosen ident authentication meaning dbuser == systemuser which
> is proably not the case. So change the authentication scheme used to
> something usefull. :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:59:30PM -0300, UnKnown wrote:
> > Hi all, again, I'm having some troubles configuring the imp, after traying
> > allmost evrything, I still recive the same error when opening the imp page
> >
> > Trascrip..
> >
> > Warning: Unable to connect to PostgresSQL server: FATAL 1: IDENT
> > authentication failed for user "hordemgr" in /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on line
> > 40
> >
> > Warning: 0 is not a PostgresSQL link index in /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on
> > line 52
> >
> >
> > The user hordemgr exist the password is double check, y work this several
> > times, permisions ar as follow, default by the way...
> >
> > horde=# \dp
> >Access privileges for database "horde"
> > Table | Access privileges
> > -+---
> > active_sessions | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > auth_user | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > auth_user_md5 | {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > imp_addr| {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > imp_pref| {=,postgres=arwdRxt,hordemgr=arw}
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > horde=#
> >
> >
> > So, if you got any idea is well came.
> >
> > Cherss,
> > rak
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Christian Zagrodnick
>
> gocept gmbh & co. kg - schalaunische strasse 6 - 06366 koethen/anhalt
> fon. +49 3496 3099114 - fax. +49 3496 3099118 - mob. +49 173 9078826
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux
> I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging > support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. > FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if > people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they > will have to wait for the 2.6.x kernel. You can patch the kernel using the files on http://bridge.sourceforge.net/ to get firewall bridging in 2.4 Matt. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > what happens > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > Debian, they > > go all quiet? > > -What- vendor? > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if you can afford it) Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the issue. --- Basically, 99% of the time if it works on Redhat or Mandrake or one of the others, you can get it to work on Debian... but when you run into trouble, that's when "certification" becomes important, because the vendor won't talk to you (or as you said, will bill you extra) if your platform is not "certified". They won't guarantee it will work, they won't help you if it doesn't... basically, from a commercial perspective, you'd be left out in the cold if you used a non-certified product. Sometimes the Product Purchases manager (or whoever authorizes purchases in your company) won't even allow you to purchase products that don't get vendor support (and understandably so). It's just like hardware. You have some vendors that do support running their hardware under Linux (3ware comes to mind), but others that won't help unless you are running a "supported" distro (and supported = certified to them).
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:37:00AM -0700, C. R. Oldham wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > > what happens > > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > > Debian, they > > > go all quiet? > > > > -What- vendor? > > > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) > > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) > > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to > them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you > run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will > bill you T&M to resolve the issue. Oracle makes an interesting example. The problems I ran into installing oracle on debian were related to that goddamn [EMAIL PROTECTED] installer and the stub libs required for post (re)linking (version 8.something). IMCO an rpm would be way better than that installer. I'm not sure that a bastard installer constitutes "LSB support"; seems to me it just made life hard. YMMV, my experience is a year or so out of date. DB2, OTOH, rpm -> alien -> deb and it just worked on our "unsupported" platform. > > -- > C. R. Oldham > Director of Technology > NCA CASI > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Hello, On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:15:07AM -0700, brian moore wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > > all quiet? > -What- vendor? example 1: Recently I asked Oracle for Debian support since a prospective client was considering Debian as their platform. Oracle said: "We don't support you even if you buy support from us. We only support RedHat Advanced Server for political reasons after SuSE came too close to IBM." (not exactly this wording, but exactly this meaning). example 2: Recently I needed to buy a virus scanner for a client who wants to have their emails scanned on a server (ok, semi-dumb idea, but hey, it's their call). TrendMicro has some RedHat and SuSE packages, but no Debian packages (ok, I run it on *BSD anyway). They also wanted me to stop running their programs in a way that's useful to me, but instead use their GUI and proprietary proxy stuff, telling me that vscan is unsupported anyway. (has hard-coded paths and other niceties, too). > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) That's nice for you... Best, --Toni++ pgpbcmvgrMjpw.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > what happens > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > Debian, they > > go all quiet? > > -What- vendor? > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if you can afford it) Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the issue. -- C. R. Oldham Director of Technology NCA CASI
Re: Problems with horde-imp under postgresql
Quoting UnKnown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all, again, I'm having some troubles configuring the imp, > after traying allmost evrything, This is about the only real problem that I have had with Debian in years of running it on my servers. When I was upgrading some time in May I think, IMP would not work with PostgresSQL. I did try for about a week with the users getting restless. > So, if you got any idea is well came. Give up and go for MySQL. >From my perception, the problem is the user / table creation / access is not abstract enough. e.g. There is no general "Debian" way to create a database user. The IMP developer has to recode for each database and changes in migrating of each to Debian could be breaking some thing that does work on other platforms. Is it a deb-conf, apt or .. what kind of problem? After moving to mySQL I have had no problems and think MySQL is more than good enough for this application. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > all quiet? -What- vendor? (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :))
Cyrus login with user@domain.com ?
Hi folks I'd like to login to Cyrus via pop3/imap with a login "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Unfortunatelly Cyrus barks with -ERR Invalid user right away. Just to make sure I've tried both passwd/shadow (pwcheck standard) and pam/mysql (pwcheck_pam). Doesn't make a difference - which is to be expected since I couldn't even enter the passwd. Obviously the dot is the problem. Without it everything's fine. So this currently doesn't even allow logins as "first.lastname". Any ideas how to "fix" this (or work around it in case it's intentional)? TIA, Marcel
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > what happens > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > Debian, they > > go all quiet? > > -What- vendor? > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if you can afford it) Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the issue. --- Basically, 99% of the time if it works on Redhat or Mandrake or one of the others, you can get it to work on Debian... but when you run into trouble, that's when "certification" becomes important, because the vendor won't talk to you (or as you said, will bill you extra) if your platform is not "certified". They won't guarantee it will work, they won't help you if it doesn't... basically, from a commercial perspective, you'd be left out in the cold if you used a non-certified product. Sometimes the Product Purchases manager (or whoever authorizes purchases in your company) won't even allow you to purchase products that don't get vendor support (and understandably so). It's just like hardware. You have some vendors that do support running their hardware under Linux (3ware comes to mind), but others that won't help unless you are running a "supported" distro (and supported = certified to them). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:37:00AM -0700, C. R. Oldham wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > > what happens > > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > > Debian, they > > > go all quiet? > > > > -What- vendor? > > > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) > > Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an > opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes > sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if > you can afford it) > > Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is > that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to > them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you > run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will > bill you T&M to resolve the issue. Oracle makes an interesting example. The problems I ran into installing oracle on debian were related to that goddamn !@#$ installer and the stub libs required for post (re)linking (version 8.something). IMCO an rpm would be way better than that installer. I'm not sure that a bastard installer constitutes "LSB support"; seems to me it just made life hard. YMMV, my experience is a year or so out of date. DB2, OTOH, rpm -> alien -> deb and it just worked on our "unsupported" platform. > > -- > C. R. Oldham > Director of Technology > NCA CASI > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Hello, On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:15:07AM -0700, brian moore wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > > all quiet? > -What- vendor? example 1: Recently I asked Oracle for Debian support since a prospective client was considering Debian as their platform. Oracle said: "We don't support you even if you buy support from us. We only support RedHat Advanced Server for political reasons after SuSE came too close to IBM." (not exactly this wording, but exactly this meaning). example 2: Recently I needed to buy a virus scanner for a client who wants to have their emails scanned on a server (ok, semi-dumb idea, but hey, it's their call). TrendMicro has some RedHat and SuSE packages, but no Debian packages (ok, I run it on *BSD anyway). They also wanted me to stop running their programs in a way that's useful to me, but instead use their GUI and proprietary proxy stuff, telling me that vscan is unsupported anyway. (has hard-coded paths and other niceties, too). > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) That's nice for you... Best, --Toni++ msg06931/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
- Original Message - From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:40 PM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more appropriate debian packages are already out there? I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab this deb from the archive"). Todd --- I can see what you mean... I agree that IMHO Debs are far superior to RPMs too. As for the LSB certified tech saying "install this rpm...", well, owing to the Open Source nature of things, in theory there could be a multitude of package managers and such. I don't think many of the average "techs" would know all these package managers. So yes... it isn't an ideal/optimal solution to use RPMs, but at least it would work. As I mentioned, I'm not so interested in the technical merits of the issue... I'm most concerned about Debian and certification. Because with more and more vendors supporting Linux, I can see that they will be turning to "certified" distros to ease their tech support issues. I really hope that those of us in the commercial sectors won't be forced to use other distros, just because Debian refuses to get certified.
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> Not too sure myself. I've only caught things in passing about it. They > seem to be quite invovled in the LSB process but I have yet to find an > official announcement stating that it is certified by the LSB. My guess > is that the rpm thing is going to be a stalling point. Though, as > mentioned previously, rpm support is available, it is not the preferred > method of package installation which seems to be what the LSB wants. > Well, I thought the specification said it needed to have RPM support, not that it needed to use RPM by default (though I could be wrong). If Debian is so close to being certified as LSB compliant, what is stopping Debian going the last mile? Is there something (non-technical) that is holding things back?
RE: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, > what happens > > if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running > Debian, they > > go all quiet? > > -What- vendor? > > (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) Well, some of us do need Oracle for business reasons. And while I'm an opensource advocate and choose opensource technology whenever it makes sense, Oracle is a darned good database, with fairly good support. (if you can afford it) Now, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that Oracle's unspoken policy is that if you have Oracle on Debian (a non-certified platform according to them) your support contract is still good up to a point. As soon as you run into anything that might be distribution-related Oracle Support will bill you T&M to resolve the issue. -- C. R. Oldham Director of Technology NCA CASI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with horde-imp under postgresql
Quoting UnKnown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all, again, I'm having some troubles configuring the imp, > after traying allmost evrything, This is about the only real problem that I have had with Debian in years of running it on my servers. When I was upgrading some time in May I think, IMP would not work with PostgresSQL. I did try for about a week with the users getting restless. > So, if you got any idea is well came. Give up and go for MySQL. >From my perception, the problem is the user / table creation / access is not abstract enough. e.g. There is no general "Debian" way to create a database user. The IMP developer has to recode for each database and changes in migrating of each to Debian could be breaking some thing that does work on other platforms. Is it a deb-conf, apt or .. what kind of problem? After moving to mySQL I have had no problems and think MySQL is more than good enough for this application. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > all quiet? -What- vendor? (And, yep, RMS would be proud of my servers. :)) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cyrus login with user@domain.com ?
Hi folks I'd like to login to Cyrus via pop3/imap with a login "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Unfortunatelly Cyrus barks with -ERR Invalid user right away. Just to make sure I've tried both passwd/shadow (pwcheck standard) and pam/mysql (pwcheck_pam). Doesn't make a difference - which is to be expected since I couldn't even enter the passwd. Obviously the dot is the problem. Without it everything's fine. So this currently doesn't even allow logins as "first.lastname". Any ideas how to "fix" this (or work around it in case it's intentional)? TIA, Marcel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux
After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they will have to wait for the 2.6.x kernel. Linux seems fairly simple to setup as a router. From there the firewall, and Bandwidth shaping parts can be built on the fly.
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Not too sure myself. I've only caught things in passing about it. They seem to be quite invovled in the LSB process but I have yet to find an official announcement stating that it is certified by the LSB. My guess is that the rpm thing is going to be a stalling point. Though, as mentioned previously, rpm support is available, it is not the preferred method of package installation which seems to be what the LSB wants. Todd On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 08:31, Gene Grimm wrote: > From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to > > have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for > > certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB > > certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then > > know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab > > this deb from the archive"). > > This may be a dumb question, as I haven't had time to fully review this > myself, but where does Debian stand with certification? > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to > have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for > certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB > certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then > know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab > this deb from the archive"). This may be a dumb question, as I haven't had time to fully review this myself, but where does Debian stand with certification?
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
- Original Message - From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:40 PM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more appropriate debian packages are already out there? I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab this deb from the archive"). Todd --- I can see what you mean... I agree that IMHO Debs are far superior to RPMs too. As for the LSB certified tech saying "install this rpm...", well, owing to the Open Source nature of things, in theory there could be a multitude of package managers and such. I don't think many of the average "techs" would know all these package managers. So yes... it isn't an ideal/optimal solution to use RPMs, but at least it would work. As I mentioned, I'm not so interested in the technical merits of the issue... I'm most concerned about Debian and certification. Because with more and more vendors supporting Linux, I can see that they will be turning to "certified" distros to ease their tech support issues. I really hope that those of us in the commercial sectors won't be forced to use other distros, just because Debian refuses to get certified. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> Not too sure myself. I've only caught things in passing about it. They > seem to be quite invovled in the LSB process but I have yet to find an > official announcement stating that it is certified by the LSB. My guess > is that the rpm thing is going to be a stalling point. Though, as > mentioned previously, rpm support is available, it is not the preferred > method of package installation which seems to be what the LSB wants. > Well, I thought the specification said it needed to have RPM support, not that it needed to use RPM by default (though I could be wrong). If Debian is so close to being certified as LSB compliant, what is stopping Debian going the last mile? Is there something (non-technical) that is holding things back? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more appropriate debian packages are already out there? I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab this deb from the archive"). Todd On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:17, Alex Borges (lex) wrote: > El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió: > > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package > > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified > > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB... > > apt-get install rpm > > I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten > together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification > same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all > though. more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are > linux compliantso lets wait and see how it goes shall we? > > If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests > the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support > itmore business for me. > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Dear Joey, > > > > > > > > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux > > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux > > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures > > > and kernels. > > > > > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of > > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does > > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux > > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is > > > LSB-compliant. > > > > > > > > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a > > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't > > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially > > > compliant, vendors won't support it. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM > > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective > > > > > > Jason Lim wrote: > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the > > > README.Debian. > > > > > > -- > > > see shy jo > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > Alex (Lex) Borges > Software Engineer > Step One Group > www.sogrp.com > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux
After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they will have to wait for the 2.6.x kernel. Linux seems fairly simple to setup as a router. From there the firewall, and Bandwidth shaping parts can be built on the fly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Not too sure myself. I've only caught things in passing about it. They seem to be quite invovled in the LSB process but I have yet to find an official announcement stating that it is certified by the LSB. My guess is that the rpm thing is going to be a stalling point. Though, as mentioned previously, rpm support is available, it is not the preferred method of package installation which seems to be what the LSB wants. Todd On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 08:31, Gene Grimm wrote: > From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to > > have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for > > certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB > > certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then > > know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab > > this deb from the archive"). > > This may be a dumb question, as I haven't had time to fully review this > myself, but where does Debian stand with certification? > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
From: "Todd Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to > have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for > certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB > certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then > know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab > this deb from the archive"). This may be a dumb question, as I haven't had time to fully review this myself, but where does Debian stand with certification? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > all quiet? If they can not provide generic support for GNU/Linux, then we either do it ourselves or go looking for another vendor. Personally I have not seen even slightest hint of this problem so far. Most vendors do not have any official support for any Linux. > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? I would hope my university department is a good example of this. They choose on technical merits only. They have 500+ Linux workstations and mostly Linux based servers that are used by about 3800 people. They chose Redhat for the base of their distribution because at the time Debian did not have enough support for non-interactive upgrades. I do not think they care about some official vendor support and the non-tech people trust their tech people. I would hate to work for a company where non-tech people did not think I could professionally make technical decisions. The same applies to vendors too. Personally I would much prefer for Debian to continue putting effort on the technical aspects instead of public relations. I do not see any reason why Debian should be the so called winner as long as it works for me. Though this topic seems to be off topic for this list. -- Juha-Matti Tapio, Product Manager, gsm. +358-50-5419230 Kirahvi Domains Ltd, Tekniikantie 14, Espoo, Finland pgpZu6Cf64cfl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more appropriate debian packages are already out there? I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab this deb from the archive"). Todd On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:17, Alex Borges (lex) wrote: > El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió: > > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package > > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified > > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB... > > apt-get install rpm > > I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten > together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification > same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all > though. more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are > linux compliantso lets wait and see how it goes shall we? > > If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests > the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support > itmore business for me. > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Dear Joey, > > > > > > > > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux > > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux > > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures > > > and kernels. > > > > > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of > > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does > > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux > > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is > > > LSB-compliant. > > > > > > > > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a > > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't > > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially > > > compliant, vendors won't support it. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM > > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective > > > > > > Jason Lim wrote: > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the > > > README.Debian. > > > > > > -- > > > see shy jo > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > Alex (Lex) Borges > Software Engineer > Step One Group > www.sogrp.com > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go all quiet? And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? And if it is true that Debian can already pass the LSB certification, and since the LSB certification is getting good publicity, why isn't Debian submitting the appropriate forms and such? Even if Debian is technically superior, there are plenty of cases of the product with better PR winning in the end. Is there anyone handling Debian PR of this sort? - Original Message - From: "Alex Borges (lex)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:17 PM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió: > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB... apt-get install rpm I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all though. more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are linux compliantso lets wait and see how it goes shall we? If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support itmore business for me. > > Todd > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote: > > Dear Joey, > > > > > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures > > and kernels. > > > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is > > LSB-compliant. > > > > > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially > > compliant, vendors won't support it. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective > > > > Jason Lim wrote: > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the > > README.Debian. > > > > -- > > see shy jo > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Alex (Lex) Borges Software Engineer Step One Group www.sogrp.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:07:31PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors > officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if > your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some > assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go > all quiet? If they can not provide generic support for GNU/Linux, then we either do it ourselves or go looking for another vendor. Personally I have not seen even slightest hint of this problem so far. Most vendors do not have any official support for any Linux. > And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish > business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or > one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to > run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind > the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our > vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? I would hope my university department is a good example of this. They choose on technical merits only. They have 500+ Linux workstations and mostly Linux based servers that are used by about 3800 people. They chose Redhat for the base of their distribution because at the time Debian did not have enough support for non-interactive upgrades. I do not think they care about some official vendor support and the non-tech people trust their tech people. I would hate to work for a company where non-tech people did not think I could professionally make technical decisions. The same applies to vendors too. Personally I would much prefer for Debian to continue putting effort on the technical aspects instead of public relations. I do not see any reason why Debian should be the so called winner as long as it works for me. Though this topic seems to be off topic for this list. -- Juha-Matti Tapio, Product Manager, gsm. +358-50-5419230 Kirahvi Domains Ltd, Tekniikantie 14, Espoo, Finland msg06920/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Well, I think you'd be in the minority of you don't care if vendors officially support Debian. From a commercial perspective, what happens if your tech support department calls up the vendor asking for some assistance, and as soon as you tell them you're running Debian, they go all quiet? And think of the bigger picture. How do you expect a university, a largish business with hundreds of employees, etc. to select Debian over Redhat (or one of the so-called "compliant" distros)? Remember most purchases have to run by non-tech people, so it doesn't matter how good Debian is "behind the scenes"... if they ask the critical question "is it supported by our vendors", which do you think they'll choose, Debian or Redhat? And if it is true that Debian can already pass the LSB certification, and since the LSB certification is getting good publicity, why isn't Debian submitting the appropriate forms and such? Even if Debian is technically superior, there are plenty of cases of the product with better PR winning in the end. Is there anyone handling Debian PR of this sort? - Original Message - From: "Alex Borges (lex)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian isp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:17 PM Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió: > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB... apt-get install rpm I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all though. more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are linux compliantso lets wait and see how it goes shall we? If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support itmore business for me. > > Todd > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote: > > Dear Joey, > > > > > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures > > and kernels. > > > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is > > LSB-compliant. > > > > > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially > > compliant, vendors won't support it. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective > > > > Jason Lim wrote: > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the > > README.Debian. > > > > -- > > see shy jo > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Alex (Lex) Borges Software Engineer Step One Group www.sogrp.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió: > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB... apt-get install rpm I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all though. more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are linux compliantso lets wait and see how it goes shall we? If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support itmore business for me. > > Todd > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote: > > Dear Joey, > > > > > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures > > and kernels. > > > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is > > LSB-compliant. > > > > > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially > > compliant, vendors won't support it. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective > > > > Jason Lim wrote: > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the > > README.Debian. > > > > -- > > see shy jo > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Alex (Lex) Borges Software Engineer Step One Group www.sogrp.com
