At 09:33 PM 3/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:
IMHO a distro-neutral certification is a computing science degree. [...]
Perhaps I'm showing my bias but I don't like *any* certifications. Show
me somebody who's got the theory and the braincells and I'll teach him
the syntax. If you know what you're tr
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 17:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2003 13:03:39 -0800, Cliff Wells wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > . it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
> > >
> > > Fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26 Mar 2003 13:03:39 -0800, Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > . it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
> >
> > Frankly, they don't ha
Cliff Wells wrote:
Well, I for one would like to know exactly why it's called "Red Hat".
Is this some sort of communist plot? Their logo *does* look rather
cloak-and-dagger.
Maybe they should change their versioning scheme to colors: redhat,
bluehat, greenhat, aquahat. That wouldn't seem as si
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:56:59 -0500
Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat
> >being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's
> >(binaries) from them or any other versi
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > . it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
>
> Frankly, they don't have to tell you why the name or number anything the
> way they do. They didn't ask for my opinion either :-)
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 10:09, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:39, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> > > I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come out.
> > > I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
> >
> > If yo
Edward Dekkers wrote:
Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
Does this represent a change to just 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12?
No. apparently - there will be an 9 SE, then service pack 1, 2, 3 etc.
(grins and ducks)
Regards,
i was thinking in the lines of 9 ME, 9 XP, 200
The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's (binaries) from them or any other version's SRPM's. It seems that you would need a like system to build from or they would not wo
> Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
> Does this represent a change to just 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12?
No. apparently - there will be an 9 SE, then service pack 1, 2, 3 etc.
(grins and ducks)
Regards,
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L
-
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:37:19 -0500
Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
> >Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> >>So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
> >>and have a near automa
Ben Russo said:
The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have a
Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
"copyrighted" or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
nate wrote:
yes but note on that errata site
> What's the point in upgrading if you don't need to? My server still
> runs 6.2, and has no need for an upgrade.
As long as you keep up the security updates after RedHat drops the automated
ones, I have no problem with that.
Regards,
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:30:17PM -0500, Ben Russo wrote:
> The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have
> a Redhat AS
> RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
> "copyrighted" or licensed
> or something so you are not allowed to redistribute the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:47:33PM -0800, nate wrote:
> curious, does redhat provide the erratta updates to the public? from what
> I have seen they do not, so it would be up to the end user to find the
> patch & patch manually. Not that they are under any obligation to provide
> such information,
Ben Russo said:
> The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have a
> Redhat AS
> RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
> "copyrighted" or licensed
> or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
yes but note on that errata site, the S
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
SRPMS. I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 o
nate wrote:
Ben Russo said:
If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and then
download the
SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
that are different,
from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
You can hav
Ben Russo said:
> If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and then
> download the
> SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
> that are different,
> from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
> You can have a
Ed Wilts wrote:
Does Red Hat want people to go to Enterprise Linux? Sure, that's where
the revenue is. Without the redistributable line, however, Red Hat
would have to do their own QA on every product that they don't even
write, and they probably decided that shipping and supporting a free
versi
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 13:00, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> >>>Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> >>>Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> >>>compatability was maintained.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >>From the link here
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:00:12AM -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> >>>Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> >>>Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> >>>compatability was maintained.
>
> >>From the link here (p
Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
[...]
From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/leaplist/2003
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 01:20 pm, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Allow me to pass along an "official" correction from an insider - this is
> > Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
> > compatability was maintained.
> >
> > -Rick
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> > X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> > rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> >
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:30, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> > X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> > rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:39, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> > I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come out.
> > I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
>
> If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it, why would 9 not suit your nee
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
>
> So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
> and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
> SRPMS. I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as m
Ed Wilts wrote:
Let's step back and put it all into perspective. Red Hat sent out an
e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
annoyed they're jumping distributions? Take a deep breath, pop a valium
and
Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being
D]
Subject: Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come
> out. I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:30:00PM +1100, Roger wrote:
> I had a number of servers running 6.2/7.2/7.3, but as 7.3 won't be
> supported after 31-Dec-03 I had to decide what version I was going to
> run. Like many people, I don't want phone/email support from Red Hat,
> just the errata packages for
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
> X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
> rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 -> 9.0 as a "rush" deal, and as a
> result be more likely
Red Hat Linux 8.x/9.x... is now considered by RH as a bleeding-edge
operating system for consumer use, mainly targeted towards home users,
small business and enthusiasts.
As a significant percentage of Red Hat's revenue is coming from Advanced
Server (Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS), they are trying
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
[...]
> > Wow. Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
> > now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat? A disgruntled
> > user base that simply goes els
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:29:48 +1100
Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right On to that, Stephen!
!-
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > this whole thing was really poorly done.
> >
> > rday
>
> Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> > While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> > do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> > Caldera has consistently alienated the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:13:21PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> As for the RHCE, I'm going for
> the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
> change. I hope not, I am all for distro-neutral certification.
IMHO a distro-neutral certification is a computing science degree.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:35:34PM -0500, Jared Brick wrote:
> I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
> Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
> enterprise environment.
In an enterprise environment, Red Hat is targeting Red Hat Ente
I see your point and it was kind of my point. This appears to be a step
in the wrong direction. I'm with you, if more of this type of unusual
behavior occurs, it will only hurt them. As for the RHCE, I'm going for
the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
change. I ho
I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
enterprise environment.
Why should third parties develop for an ever changing platform? Already
it's hard enough to convince them that there is a large en
That's a perspective and I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going
to stop using RH. All I am suggesting is that this "appears" to be a
step, or perhaps a trend. Perhaps one day they will "become" something I
disagree with, but right now I just don't have a good feeling about it.
I'm not, how
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
> While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
> do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
> Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
> tactics much like th
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:29:48AM +1100, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
>
> Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
> the whole "new" direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
> ten years of "sticking" to RedHat, I'm going to have to divert my
> interests to anot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:52:02 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> and, more to the point, that posting was pure spam. it
> provided no information, answered no questions -- just
> announced RHN for red hat 9, and "click here" to join
> and give
While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
they didn't s
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> ok, so it seems that that first mailing to the RH list
> was legit after all, so i'm left looking a little sheepish.
> but i'm still somewhat peeved about how this was done --
> unspeakably clumsily.
This has been brought to the
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> this whole thing was really poorly done.
>
> rday
Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
the whole "new" direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
ten years of "sticking" to RedHat, I'm going t
48 matches
Mail list logo
