Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Mark Bradbury wrote: yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes it useful. besides, read the title text on that page again: QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target dates are subject to change. Which makes it pretty useless. Not quite. Those are at least not before this date. And those are goals set for upcoming period. If issues are found between now and then, then schedule has to be moved. They are not Microsoft to release unfinished product. But I do think that some kind of announcement that target date might/will not be met should be posted 1-2 days prior to that date. That would make speculations at lowest minimum possible. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Mon, June 27, 2011 02:26, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Not quite. Those are at least not before this date. And those are goals set for upcoming period. If issues are found between now and then, then schedule has to be moved. They are not Microsoft to release unfinished product. But I do think that some kind of announcement that target date might/will not be met should be posted 1-2 days prior to that date. That would make speculations at lowest minimum possible. I would rather just have an updated list of the packages that have not yet cleared QA provided as a supplement to the current calendar updates. I do not wish to request an ever increasing amount of detail, but it would be nice to see the progress achieved as the QA outstanding list gets shorter and shorter over time. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes it useful. besides, read the title text on that page again: QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target dates are subject to change. Which makes it pretty useless. -- No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. Regards Mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
So, to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it happen in June or July? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Monday, June 27, 2011 10:46 AM, robert mena wrote: So, to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it happen in June or July? I vote who cares? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: I vote who cares? I vote http://qaweb.dev.centos.org;. John -- I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. -- Euripides (c 480 BC - 406 BC), Greek playwright, Suppliants pgpBsgJZs8ywH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: I vote who cares? I vote http://qaweb.dev.centos.org;. Too bad that does not seem to be good enough for some. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 16 June 2011 01:20, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote: Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS. so says the person who has not done it - the rpm tool changed, adding a non-backward compatible compression scheme. as I blogged about months ago; this has 'flow through' effects as to bootstrapping a new builder - the anaconda changes, re-design as to install stages, sever deprecation of TUI installs, unfixed graphics driver issues, and install time anaconda 'seeks' across the wire to remote network content introduced addotional complexity to an already ever-changing and at best, spaghetti like pile of Python puke, as I've already noted on this and the -devel mailing list Yeah the bugzilla report of the hard crash on initialisation of X during install of the 64bit betas of RHEL6 on my dell e4200 were closed with the status of feature request. At the time i tested with fedora 12 / fedora 13 and the 32 bit beta all of which were fine. Maybe RHEL7 will be more polished out the gate mike ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. You're welcome. That's KMS for you; your consoles no longer are pure text. CentOS 6 might be like that too given that F13 was (I can't remember whether F12 was). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Both CentOS and Ubuntu server installs take as long for me. Are you comparing similar levels of install?! I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh, VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10 minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took about an hour. I didn't time anything but I remember clearly. Of course the install from Ubuntu was a single CD iso and CentOS was a DVD iso and the bandwidth at my office is extremely good. A similar install is difficult since Ubuntu will have to indicate that you want to install even openssh-server and CentOS (noting that many of the decisions emanate from upstream) by default puts on a full GUI and you have to knowingly trim down the packages to attempt to minimize the installation. I don't really understand what you're doing but Ubuntu server and CentOS with a GUI are certainly not the same installs. For me the Ubuntu equivalent of a kickstart @base install and a CentOS kickstart @base install take pretty much the same time. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart CentOS 7 (based on upstream 7) will be a vastly different beast CentOS 7 will most probably have systemd not upstart. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line... That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line... That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same. I remember in Debian it was update-rc.d -f xdm remove I would guess something similar (gdm?) remove would work. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Xander: I don't like vampires. I'm going to take a stand and say they're not good. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Scott Robbins wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line... That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same. ?!?!?! 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps. But 3 and 5 are the same in Debian/Ubuntu? That's not like *any* other version of *Nix. snip mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Scott Robbins wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line... That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same. ?!?!?! 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps. But 3 and 5 are the same in Debian/Ubuntu? That's not like *any* other version of *Nix. snip mark Debian's configuration (at least wrt 3 and 5 being aliases for the same runlevel) is very similar to Slackware and Gentoo. The number and use of runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has tried to address this) and different conventions have been used in various distributions (and, move widely, unices) - the use of 7 runlevels out of a possible 10 also appears to be more convention than any hard-and-fast rule. That said the convention used by CentOS does appear to be the most common (and closest to the LSB's definition) in use by Linux distros today. On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty surprise if you were expecting X11! Laurence ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Laurence Hurst wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think
you can append 3 to the kernel line...
That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the
same.
?!?!?! 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps. But 3 and 5 are the
same in Debian/Ubuntu? That's not like *any* other version of *Nix.
snip
Debian's configuration (at least wrt 3 and 5 being aliases for the same
runlevel) is very similar to Slackware and Gentoo. The number and use of
Haven't used slackware since, um, '95 or so.
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
tried to address this) and different conventions have been used in various
distributions (and, move widely, unices) - the use of 7 runlevels out of a
possible 10 also appears to be more convention than any hard-and-fast
rule. That said the convention used by CentOS does appear to be the most
common (and closest to the LSB's definition) in use by Linux distros
today.
On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
surprise if you were expecting X11!
g
mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/16/2011 06:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps I think you're referring to Solaris' init. I'm not aware of any Linux init systems that start up by stepping through runlevels. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and
network daemons. Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of
sense...
On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
surprise if you were expecting X11!
I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge. And in the original sysV
design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down.
That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3
and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to
3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and
network daemons. Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of
sense...
On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
surprise if you were expecting X11!
I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge. And in the original sysV
design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down.
That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3
and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to
3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there.
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and
network daemons. Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of
sense...
On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
surprise if you were expecting X11!
I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge. And in the original sysV
design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down.
That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3
and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to
3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there.
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
Oops meant to say SCO UNIX and ISC UNIX not linux.
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think it was used also in DGUX for X. I don't know about ISC UNIX (aka Interactive UNIX) but SCO did not use run level 5 for X. I cut my teeth on System V UNIX including SCO UNIX 3.2 and seeing X in runlevel 5 these days still feels wrong to me all these years later, though I have to come realize how convenient it is. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Ron Blizzard wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have something other than an intel wifi chip? No, not any more. I had a Broadcom card, but an older laptop we gave away needed a WiFi card, so I invested $12 into an Intel card on eBay and installed the Broadcom card in the old laptop (it worked fine under Windows). I got the Broadcom working with FWCutter under CentOS, but its speed was all over the place. The thing I've never been able to get working in Linux Mint, is the hibernation. If I close the lid, it locks, unless I hibernate it first. But the main thing I don't like about Ubuntu/Mint is that each upgrade is an adventure. Of course, CentOS 6 won't work on my laptop (no PAE) but I've still got CentOS 5.x for that. We'll see what issues it has on desktop. I'm hoping that installing the proprietary Nvidia drivers won't be the hassle they are under Linux Mint. Nouveau is getting better, but it's still not good enough. Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack PAE support. I have 3-4 years MSI VR-601 that works flawlessly on RHEL 6 Beta. I had to play with grub boot line (nomodeset) for better Intel graphics, and when I pull out power he hibernates, but it's working exceptionally well. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote: On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information given on this site: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar It seems every time I look at that site the dates have changed, last time I looked the external mirrors where to start syncing yesterday. the 13th what's the difference? It's already obsoleted by the .1 release. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:19 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Craig White wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote: easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs at this point. Holy shit, man! I'd never, by choice, put in an Ubuntu server. Debian, sure (though I'm a Red Hat and Red Hat based guy), but Ubuntu? Forget it! I hope you find it as stable and reliable as CentOS. heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces Actually the company I work for has been switching from CentOS to Ubuntu - no problems. The company I worked for last year was switching from CentOS to Ubuntu - no problems. I don't know the attrition rate but it has been 100% in the companies I have worked for the past 2 years. I think that some people just get their thinking locked into a specific notion and won't let go. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:06 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces snip And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's using ruby on rails, and the other admin has to compile it from source, because they, I mean, just *have* to have the latest version, and another team has a customized version of some software that is either licensed, or open source, don't remember, that's all in java, and then there's the parallel processing programs But the first two, esp the first, are *incredibly* fragile, and I've seen that in other places I've worked. Then there was the grief I had on a box that's only used for offline backups on encrytped drives, and going from 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. company I work for is 100% 'in-house developed software' - Ruby on Rails in fact. Switching each box over to Ubuntu - no problems. X on a server? Solid and stable? Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. *blink* Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5. Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use. Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Craig White wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote: On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information given on this site: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar It seems every time I look at that site the dates have changed, last time I looked the external mirrors where to start syncing yesterday. the 13th what's the difference? It's already obsoleted by the .1 release. Craig I am going to start conversion process (5.x to 6.x) as soon as possible. By the time CentOS 6.1 comes out, all I will have to do is upgrade. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Jun 15, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote: Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. 5 hours? What are you choosing when installing CentOS? I use just the Base and it installs in 10 mins on ESXi. Tommy Craddock ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack PAE support. This laptop is a Latitude D400, which I think were made in 2005. It definitely doesn't have PAE support. I discovered that when I tried to test Red Hat beta 6 on it. It's okay though, it probably won't last much longer than CentOS 5 support anyhow. It'll work out fine. I'm hoping CentOS doesn't fight me when I try to load the proprietary nVidia driver on the desktop. The only way I could do it in Linux Mint was to blacklist Nouveau in the Grub boot menu. And Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line (when you just want to do it for maintenance, like installing a video driver). -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Craig White wrote: I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Time from CentOS 5.0 to 6.0 was marked with popularity explosion of Linux. Many people converted from Windows, and a lot of developers join in the Linux ranks, and hugely increased number of users ant bug reporters helped immensely. Win XP was released 9-10 years ago and some people still prefer it over Win 7. I would even compare rise of the Linux users with rise of the usefulness of the PC computers in general. In June 2000, middle to high end PC where powered by 600-800 MHz CPU's with 256-512MB of RAM. It was barely able to run newer DivX movies, or shell we say that DivX encoders were tuned to allow us to be able to watch them. Win XP was bloated an very slow for any cheaper PC. In 2004, when CentOS 4.0 was released, high end CPU was around Athlon 64 3000+. Cheap PC's were still arround Athlon 2000+ / Sempron 2500+. Memory in cheper PC's was still ~256-512MB with 256MB taken for Win XP Pro it self. In 2007, when CentOS 5.0 was released, High end CPU's were around Athlon II X2 and Core 2 Duo 3.00GHz. Cheap PC's started to have 64-bit CPU's and 512MB-1GB of memmory. Fedora reached version 7 and Ununtu reached 7.04 Feisty Fawn. People started to get interest in pretty mature Desktop Linuxes. It is the end of 2006 and begining of 2007 that Ubuntu became a hit among Linux noobs and that is the time when things heated up and many projects started to develop much faster. But RHEL 5.0 was already in the works, and freezing of the packages meant just that. Today, RHEL 6.0 can easily be used for any desktop (with third repos) and it's stability will do wanders for much more mature view of the Linux Desktop by newcomers or struggling noobs having to deal with thousands of bugs. In April 2009, Ubuntu had 20,000 new bugs, and 48,000 bug open with 41,000 bugs unassigned. Fedora is not much better. So CentOS 6.x will provide modern but stable environment for years to come. I do not see that Linux software will in next 3-4 years evolve so much compeering to last 3-4 years. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Ron Blizzard wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack PAE support. This laptop is a Latitude D400, which I think were made in 2005. It definitely doesn't have PAE support. I discovered that when I tried to test Red Hat beta 6 on it. It's okay though, it probably won't last much longer than CentOS 5 support anyhow. It'll work out fine. I'm hoping CentOS doesn't fight me when I try to load the proprietary nVidia driver on the desktop. The only way I could do it in Linux Mint was to blacklist Nouveau in the Grub boot menu. And Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line (when you just want to do it for maintenance, like installing a video driver). ElRepo has kernel modules already compiled: http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia so I guess it should be OK. Playing around with recompiling nVidia drivers was a real pain in a Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. *blink* Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5. Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use. Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Your mail to the cyrus-imapd list today shows that not all software on RHEL/CentOS is so completely out-of-date compared to Ubuntu server LTS (and we are talking about CentOS 5!). It really depends what you need, sometimes RHEL/CentOS is ancient, sometimes it's Ubuntu. Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Les Mikesell wrote: Most of the stuff that you have to use 3rd party repos to get on CentOS is in the stock ubuntu repositories in usably recent versions. I've found 99% of the things I need on a CentOS (which I only use on home servers) is in the epel repository if it is not in the CentOS repository. Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS? Does it have a rival in this role? What do you need that is not in CentOS + epel? Surprisingly, all 4 server machines I have seem to support CentOS, or RHEL which I take is the same for this purpose. None of them mention any other kind of Linux. I was surprised to find that the HP MicroServer only supports CentOS/RHEL or WHS, which I've never seen in use. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Timothy Murphy wrote: Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS? Does it have a rival in this role? you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos at all. It's just another third party repo. There are others including some reputable and widely used: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 14/06/2011 22:52, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: What 24th are you talking about? Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned the postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now. gvim ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/15/2011 02:37 PM, gvim wrote: Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned the postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now. erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ? - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/13/2011 05:56 PM, NOYK wrote: No. Given the economy people are trying to make systems last as long as possible and this is just 6.0 not 6.1. Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how apps perform/behave and then wait till 6.1. Never go to a major revision.0 unless you are forced. hopefully we can get 6.1 out really soon after 6.0, so make sure you do your testing real quick! - KB PS: consider not top posting, and trimming your reply. Makes conversation easier and more productive. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote: erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to cybernautape http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728 gvim ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/15/2011 02:59 PM, gvim wrote: On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote: erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to cybernautape http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728 I dont know who that is - they are definitely not anyone involved with the CentOS devel or QA process. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote: erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ? This was the original entry I saw: http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/ gvim ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
gvim wrote: On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote: erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ? This was the original entry I saw: http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/ gvim I assume that that person made an typo. There was announcement that it will be released on Jun 13th. If he wanted to be safe, he was thinking of writing Jun 14th, but wrote 24th instead. Not sure, but it looks that way, since release date was never even close to 24th. Karanbir, are there any show-stoppers so far that would move release date? Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/15/2011 6:54 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: Timothy Murphy wrote: Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS? Does it have a rival in this role? you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos at all. It's just another third party repo. There are others including some reputable and widely used: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories It is the distribution and repository policies that make the third party repos both necessary and problematic. Start with the upstream distro policy of not including things that aren't source-redistributable or have potential patent issues in the US, so many people are forced elsewhere for usable video drivers and media players. EPEL also follows these policies (being maintained by the same company...) and also has a policy of not overwriting upstream packages (where upstream is RH, not including centos extras/plus...). So EPEL is generally safe as the only 3rd party addition, but it also won't have what you need. Then there is the usually-followed policy of not updating packages to new versions within the life of the distro. So, for example, subversion stayed at the ancient 1.4.x release shipped with 5.0 well beyond the time the subversion team said to stop using it and update. Rpmforge is the place to go for that sort of thing. Until recently they had everything in one repo and many of the packages were newer than the stock set, making it both useful and dangerous in terms of creating dependency conflicts. It has recently been split into 3 repos so you have more control over replacing stock packages or not (do a 'yum update rpmforge-release' if you have it enabled, then look at the repo entries). But, there is no coordination among the 3rd parties or the main distro. So, if you had updated subversion and viewvc from rpmforge to get code that the developers would still recommend using, and you also had epel enabled, at some point your viewvc package would flip to an update from epel with an incompatible configuration. Then when upstream saw the error of its ways and finally went to a 1.6.x subversion in the base 5.6 release, your update might flip there, with a bunch of unresolved dependencies left over from the running rpmforge package. Fun stuff. For something even weirder, look at what you would have had to do to keep a working and up to date java on a RH-style machine across the life of the 5.x distribution. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for Ubuntu. I don't have to generalize, I go to the forums and see all the issues -- often the same issues I'm having when I upgrade. What's frustrating about it is that, usually, there are no solutions. You often get the same advice I used to get when running Windows... upgrade your hardware. I often wonder if these Ubuntu issues are why Linux hasn't been more widely adopted on the Desktop. A lot of people come to Linux via Ubuntu. If an upgrade kills the video driver -- or the sound quits working -- or it doesn't even boot anymore, then their impression of Ubuntu (which many equate with Linux) is not going to be too good. Ubuntu is cutting edge, kind of like Fedora. I don't use Fedora because I prefer stability over cutting edge features. I choose CentOS over Ubuntu/Mint for the same reason I chose it over Fedora several years ago. I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think that you've encountered problems or that others don't encounter problems (I'm active on and off in ubuntu-users so I see many of the problems that people have) but Ubuntu and Mint wouldn't have become as popular as they have if the majority had problems installing/updating/upgrading. People (including me) prefer cutting-edge installs. I once saw a statistic about Debian that claimed that the majority of Debianites run sid, the permanent beta, unstable edition. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: ElRepo has kernel modules already compiled: http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia so I guess it should be OK. Playing around with recompiling nVidia drivers was a real pain in a Bookmarked. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Both CentOS and Ubuntu server installs take as long for me. Are you comparing similar levels of install?! (I think that your reply about Fedora is about a post where two people are shocked that I'm supporting Fedora in production. In that particular company, it's just a loyalty and familiarity issue, although I'm sure that if I migrated to CentOS, for example, the DBA'd wine about versions and what have you. Also, I've found server installs of the latest versions of Fedora and Ubuntu stable; it's when you add X and a DE that you can end up with issues.) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote: Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-) http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html There are a number of Important reasons not to deploy 6.0 for public-facing systems. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote: Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-) http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html There are a number of Important reasons not to deploy 6.0 for public-facing systems. Nine errata marked Critical: * six for firefox and thunderbird (which wouldn't be on public-facing servers, at least in my shop) * one for pango, which wouldn't see much use on a server * one server-side for samba (samba server public facing? hmm.) * one for java -- released one week ago (June 8) Of the other vulnerabilities, marked Important and lower, it's difficult for me to tell how many also needed to be fixed in CentOS 5. I'm not trying to serve as apologist for RHEL 6. I'm just saying that there's little room in my world for an abolutist position like never use a .0 release -- ever. -- Paul Heinlein heinl...@madboa.com http://www.madboa.com/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Ron Blizzard wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy kept for just that purpose). I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so completely out-of-date. Both CentOS and Ubuntu server installs take as long for me. Are you comparing similar levels of install?! I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh, VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10 minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took about an hour. I didn't time anything but I remember clearly. Of course the install from Ubuntu was a single CD iso and CentOS was a DVD iso and the bandwidth at my office is extremely good. A similar install is difficult since Ubuntu will have to indicate that you want to install even openssh-server and CentOS (noting that many of the decisions emanate from upstream) by default puts on a full GUI and you have to knowingly trim down the packages to attempt to minimize the installation. Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Ron Blizzard wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart CentOS 7 (based on upstream 7) will be a vastly different beast Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Ron Blizzard wrote: Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line That was the first thing I tried (coming from the CentOS world). I don't think there is any such thing as runlevel 3 in Ubuntu/Mint. They use a different model. But the text entry did the job -- glad to know that (thanks). (I wonder why no one on the Ubuntu/Mint forums pointed me to that.) As for cntr-alt-f1, that gets me to the CLI, but, by that point, the Xorg has already been loaded. So it didn't help with installing the proprietary nVidia driver. As a matter of fact, even when I got it to log into non-graphics mode (doing whatever it was that I did), the Nouveau driver was still loaded -- which is why it had to be blacklisted in Grub. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/15/2011 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Craig White wrote: I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh, VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10 minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took about an hour. I didn't time anything but I remember clearly. Of course the install from Ubuntu was a single CD iso and CentOS was a DVD iso and the bandwidth at my office is extremely good. DVD vs CD is irrelevant. I do not in any way believe your claims of an hour-long install process, even if done manually by walking through anaconda screen by screen. I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it, though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it probably was. Could have been an issue in the way the growing drive space is allocated on the physical side. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/15/2011 03:08 PM, Craig White wrote: those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart Upstart would still honor the setting in /etc/inittab. Fedora, however, is now using systemd. It's an even more different beast than you are familiar with: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it, though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it probably was. Could have been an issue in the way the growing drive space is allocated on the physical side. Trainwreck and should not be done in production environments; if this is indeed the cause of 1-hour installs alternatives should be found as that is simply too pathetic for mere words. John -- My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn (1909-1959), Australian-born actor pgp9DGUv2Z6aa.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/15/2011 01:39 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote: I'm not trying to serve as apologist for RHEL 6. I'm just saying that there's little room in my world for an abolutist position like never use a .0 release -- ever. I wouldn't favor such a sentiment either, but as it stands, CentOS 6 will be delivered with known security problems. It won't make sense for most people to deploy until the team catches up with current errata, IMO. I certainly agree, however, that it's prudent to wait for the known package updates before deploying CentOS 6. In *this* case, since Red Hat has already released 6.1, it may even be prudent to wait for the CentOS 6.1 release before public deployment. Maybe Red Hat will continue to obfuscate its infrastructure and increase the burden on teams like CentOS who try to rebuild the distribution from SRPMs. In that case, the release cycle for CentOS 7 or 8 might not be worth the wait. Or, perhaps, things will return to what passed for normalcy in CentOS 3, 4, and 5. Outside of Red Hat, who knows? -- Paul Heinlein heinl...@madboa.com http://www.madboa.com/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/15/2011 03:57 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote: Maybe Red Hat will continue to obfuscate its infrastructure and increase the burden on teams like CentOS who try to rebuild the distribution from SRPMs Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/15/2011 03:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it, though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it probably was. Could have been an issue in the way the growing drive space is allocated on the physical side. Any disk layout that doesn't align filesystem blocks with actual disk blocks is going to perform very badly. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: I do not in any way believe your claims of an hour-long install process, even if done manually by walking through anaconda screen by screen. I've had a couple network installs take a long time (Desktop installs not Servers) but that was because the mirror I chose at random was really slow. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/15/2011 5:56 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it, though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it probably was. Could have been an issue in the way the growing drive space is allocated on the physical side. Trainwreck and should not be done in production environments; if this is indeed the cause of 1-hour installs alternatives should be found as that is simply too pathetic for mere words. Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions. I've mostly avoided LVM since seeing that (and, I think, early problems with duplicate volume names when moving disks around) but it could easily have been the physical seek pattern created when the space was allocated on use in the underlying file. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions. And blaming the OS being installed or the installer itself in such circumstances is less than logical; the first thing to investigate is the virtual environment being used. John -- Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know. -- Tao pgpCWlcKFQwhz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: I've had a couple network installs take a long time (Desktop installs not Servers) but that was because the mirror I chose at random was really slow. That's possible, yes; but not germane here as the post stated that he was using DVD and CD media. John -- Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. -- William James (1842-1910), American Psychologist, Professor, Author pgpTmY0nP5ELK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:08:11PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: Any disk layout that doesn't align filesystem blocks with actual disk blocks is going to perform very badly. I will agree this is possible in real-world environments, yes. I also will say that this is an issue of the admin not fully understanding the environment being used. John -- The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. -- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), journalist, satirist, and freethinker, The Smart set, Volume 68 (with George Jean Nathan) p 49 (1922) pgpKR3zyBdqEA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Paul Heinlein wrote: In *this* case, since Red Hat has already released 6.1, it may even be prudent to wait for the CentOS 6.1 release before public deployment. My guess is devs will first work on critical updates and release them before the 6.1 official release. That way 6.0 will still be usable. Also, it should be possible to compile 6.1 packages on 6.0, or at least on already working build platform, so 6.1 release might be much faster. I would not be surprised that preliminary build of 6.1 packages was already attempted, and that dev already have the list of possible issues not yet solved in 6.0 process. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/15/11 7:08 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions. And blaming the OS being installed or the installer itself in such circumstances is less than logical; the first thing to investigate is the virtual environment being used. I'm not sure I'd go that far when using a different installer (or avoiding LVM) in the same environment gives vastly better results. Even if some quirk of the low level environment really turns out to be responsible its not necessarily the logical thing to check first. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: I'm not sure I'd go that far when using a different installer (or avoiding LVM) in the same environment gives vastly better results. Even if some quirk of the low level environment really turns out to be responsible its not necessarily the logical thing to check first. I've not seen numbers proving the alleged performance differences. But you can blame whatever you want. CentOS, on sane configurations of hardware / VM environments does _not_ take an hour to install off of CD/DVD. John -- Teachers open the door. You enter by yourself. -- Chinese Proverb pgp7JsR9JCReW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Mark Bradbury wrote: On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information given on this site: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar It seems every time I look at that site the dates have changed, last time I looked the external mirrors where to start syncing yesterday. the 13th yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes it useful. besides, read the title text on that page again: QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target dates are subject to change. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote: easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs at this point. Holy shit, man! I'd never, by choice, put in an Ubuntu server. Debian, sure (though I'm a Red Hat and Red Hat based guy), but Ubuntu? Forget it! I hope you find it as stable and reliable as CentOS. Regards, Ranbir -- Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu Linux 2.6.32.26-175.fc12.x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux 06:47:45 up 23:59, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.35, 0.26 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote: easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs at this point. Holy shit, man! I'd never, by choice, put in an Ubuntu server. Debian, sure (though I'm a Red Hat and Red Hat based guy), but Ubuntu? Forget it! I hope you find it as stable and reliable as CentOS. heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Craig White wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote: easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs at this point. Holy shit, man! I'd never, by choice, put in an Ubuntu server. Debian, sure (though I'm a Red Hat and Red Hat based guy), but Ubuntu? Forget it! I hope you find it as stable and reliable as CentOS. heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Craig White wrote: heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! I've been running Ubuntu boxes (in production) at various companies without a hitch - initially with a lot of skepticism. There's also one company where I support twenty Fedora boxes (which is a pain because there isn't an LTS version) but I kicked off that company's use of Linux with RH (not RHEL) 5 and the IT manager doesn't want to move to another distribution. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces The LTS server releases are very good. I use them routinely and they have been quite stable. I currently use them for all new 'base metal' server installations with my CentOS systems in VMs on top of them. Over the next few years I anticipate migrating everything at all levels to them as I get more comfortable with it. My only real complaint is having to learn the way a Debian derived system hangs together vs how a Redhat derived system is put together. And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. -- Benjamin Franz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces snip And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's using ruby on rails, and the other admin has to compile it from source, because they, I mean, just *have* to have the latest version, and another team has a customized version of some software that is either licensed, or open source, don't remember, that's all in java, and then there's the parallel processing programs But the first two, esp the first, are *incredibly* fragile, and I've seen that in other places I've worked. Then there was the grief I had on a box that's only used for offline backups on encrytped drives, and going from 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. mark, http://xkcd.org/705 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces snip And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's using ruby on rails, and the other admin has to compile it from source, because they, I mean, just *have* to have the latest version, and another team has a customized version of some software that is either licensed, or open source, don't remember, that's all in java, and then there's the parallel processing programs But the first two, esp the first, are *incredibly* fragile, and I've seen that in other places I've worked. Then there was the grief I had on a box that's only used for offline backups on encrytped drives, and going from 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience with LTS to make this relevant? If you are building stuff from source, the distribution packages are basically irrelevant - and in java the whole OS is mostly irrelevant. Fedora releases are rather clearly alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of bugfix/QA work to stabilize it. But ubuntu isn't like that - they don't push stuff out just to get testing for some later money making release, it is the best they can do in the first place with an emphasis on ease of installation and use. The LTS versions are even designed to do major-rev upgrades over the network - and it has worked on the machines where I've tried it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Maybe I'm just in a different kind of environment, but why do you *need* more frequent releases? I still run some servers on EL 4 and will only migrate them when they approach End-of-Life status. They work and are up unless I bring them down. Security patches are still being pushed out for them. Sounds like you're looking for a desktop linux - probably best to use Fedora/Ubuntu? Josh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces snip And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's using ruby on rails, and the other admin has to compile it from source, because they, I mean, just *have* to have the latest version, and another team has a customized version of some software that is either licensed, or open source, don't remember, that's all in java, and then there's the parallel processing programs But the first two, esp the first, are *incredibly* fragile, and I've seen that in other places I've worked. Then there was the grief I had on a box that's only used for offline backups on encrytped drives, and going from 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience with LTS to make this relevant? If you are building stuff from source, the distribution packages are basically irrelevant - and in java the whole OS is mostly irrelevant. Fedora releases are rather clearly alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of bugfix/QA work to stabilize it. But ubuntu isn't like that - they don't push stuff out just to get testing for some later money making release, Okay, so you don't have to pay for LTS but unless I am mistaken, Canonical only offers paid support for LTS releases. it is the best they can do in the first place with an emphasis on ease of installation and use. The LTS versions are even designed to do major-rev upgrades over the network - and it has worked on the machines where I've tried it. Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do major-rev upgrades provided that you do not use third-party repos. Every Ubuntu release has been fraught with the screams of victims who had their dist-upgrade blow up in their face whether LTS or non-LTS release. Okay, I personally have not had major problems, but it sure does not inspire confidence. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:26 PM, Trutwin, Joshua wrote: heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same. There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system. Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness. Maybe I'm just in a different kind of environment, but why do you *need* more frequent releases? I still run some servers on EL 4 and will only migrate them when they approach End-of-Life status. They work and are up unless I bring them down. Security patches are still being pushed out for them. Sounds like you're looking for a desktop linux - probably best to use Fedora/Ubuntu? /me hazards a guess...php? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Les Mikesell wrote: On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces snip And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. It just works. Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's snip 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience I guess you don't. Let's start out this way, by defining my use of the word fragile: this is where software is utterly dependent upon the runtime environment, and on the versions of the executables and libraries they use, and where a sub-release may carry a change in it that breaks the damn thing, because they're using some experimental function (sorry, method), or their stuff worked only because some error checking wasn't enabled, and the data and code fell through and worked, and the new version caught it and died. with LTS to make this relevant? If you are building stuff from source, the distribution packages are basically irrelevant - and in java the whole OS is mostly irrelevant. Fedora releases are rather clearly Nope - the O/S and all the packages with it *are* the environment that I refer to. alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. bugfix/QA work to stabilize it. But ubuntu isn't like that - they don't push stuff out just to get testing for some later money making release, it is the best they can do in the first place with an emphasis on ease of installation and use. The LTS versions are even designed to do major-rev upgrades over the network - and it has worked on the machines where I've tried it. Ok, I *only* heard of the desktop emphasis, and that's what I see on my netbook remix. I have not heard of LTS before, or that it was intended for servers. Still, if it has updates as frequently as my netbook does, that would make me nervous about a production environment. I'll stick with CentOS...oh, that's right, I should only make comments like that on a CentOS list mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Christopher Chan wrote: On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Benjamin Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: MVNCH Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do major-rev upgrades provided that you do not use third-party repos. Every Ubuntu release has been fraught with the screams of victims who had their dist-upgrade blow up in their face whether LTS or non-LTS release. Okay, I personally have not had major problems, but it sure does not inspire confidence. Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. *blink* Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5. Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use. -- Benjamin Franz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Jerry Franz wrote: On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. *blink* Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5. Ok, I sit corrected. Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use. I'll take your word for it. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/14/2011 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do major-rev upgrades provided that you do not use third-party repos. Every Ubuntu release has been fraught with the screams of victims who had their dist-upgrade blow up in their face whether LTS or non-LTS release. Okay, I personally have not had major problems, but it sure does not inspire confidence. Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). I suppose there is hardware that nothing but pre-installed windows will recognize But I happen to have a dual-boot XP/Ubuntu laptop where I can run the ubuntu session either natively or under VMware player and it just pops up a dialog asking if I want to run in low-res or reconfigure X (which it does automatically) when I switch between the modes and it sees different hardware. And it detects a USB keyboard just fine, whether hot plugged or present at boot time. So, I don't think your friend's experience is typical and it certainly doesn't match mine. By the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first place because Centos didn't include a driver for the wifi and ubuntu 'just worked'. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's snip 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience I guess you don't. I didn't mean I don't understand the problem you describe. I just don't understand why you blame anyone but the developers in your scenario. Let's start out this way, by defining my use of the word fragile: this is where software is utterly dependent upon the runtime environment, and on the versions of the executables and libraries they use, and where a sub-release may carry a change in it that breaks the damn thing, because they're using some experimental function (sorry, method), or their stuff worked only because some error checking wasn't enabled, and the data and code fell through and worked, and the new version caught it and died. Yes, developers can and do write bad code. Providing them an environment where it mostly just happens to work most of the the time is one approach to dealing with it - but it probably won't play out well in the long run when the the environment has to change for security or hardware support reasons. Nope - the O/S and all the packages with it *are* the environment that I refer to. How many of them actually affect a java app (which if done right will be equally at home across linux/mac/windows)? And you couldn't seriously have considered using a CentOS packaged java at all until very recently, so I don't understand thinking that CentOS would have been a solution for this. alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. Nobody thinks that for long - or with large numbers of machines. Ok, I *only* heard of the desktop emphasis, and that's what I see on my netbook remix. I have not heard of LTS before, or that it was intended for servers. Still, if it has updates as frequently as my netbook does, that would make me nervous about a production environment. I'll stick with CentOS...oh, that's right, I should only make comments like that on a CentOS list OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from this decade, then maybe it isn't a big issue for you either way. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Les Mikesell wrote: On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's snip 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on I want solid and stable. I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience I guess you don't. I didn't mean I don't understand the problem you describe. I just don't understand why you blame anyone but the developers in your scenario. I'm an admin. I'm a contractor. I have *ZERO* control over what they write, or in what languages. I am *required* to make sure that the environment, that is under my control, doesn't break what they're doing. That leads back to I want a solid, stable platform. snip Nope - the O/S and all the packages with it *are* the environment that I refer to. How many of them actually affect a java app (which if done right will be equally at home across linux/mac/windows)? And you couldn't seriously have considered using a CentOS packaged java at all until very recently, so I don't understand thinking that CentOS would have been a solution for this. Um, sorry, mostly word is to use openjdk. We have one or two projects that have managed to force using Sun Java, though. snip I'll stick with CentOS...oh, that's right, I should only make comments like that on a CentOS list OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from this decade, then maybe it isn't a big issue for you either way. This decade? Oh, come *on* Mike, be real. Just because the languages they use are changing continually doesn't mean that a *language* compiler or interpreter a couple-three years old shouldn't work. mark ought to get back to coding some C (kr) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how apps perform/behave and then wait till 6.1. I beg to differ. Smart folks will test 6.0 and deploy it if performance is acceptable. Guess you have never worked in an organization of any size where you worry about reliability, patches, bug fixes, etc. How about acknowledging that each organization's requirements are different, and may well in fact differ depending on the circumstances? Yes, in a lot of cases there can be problems with *.0 releases (not referring to CentOS in particular here, but software in general). Sometimes circumstances force your hand. OMO, a good systems architect doesn't live in black-and-white world, but rather knows the influencing factors, has a wide selection of tools, picks the best solution available to the problem at hand, and tries to mitigate his risks. Devin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I'm an admin. I'm a contractor. Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term consequences. OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from this decade, then maybe it isn't a big issue for you either way. This decade? Oh, come *on* Mike, be real. Just because the languages they use are changing continually doesn't mean that a *language* compiler or interpreter a couple-three years old shouldn't work. The flip side of that is that you are ignoring thousands (millions?) of man-hours of development work in improvements that could be yours for free. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Les Mikesell wrote: On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I'm an admin. I'm a contractor. Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term consequences. Yes, I bloody well am. I work for a federal contractor, and as long as they have the multi-year contract, and my boss likes me, I have the job. And even if I didn't, as a professional, it friggin' DOES matter to me. OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from this decade, then maybe it isn't a big issue for you either way. This decade? Oh, come *on* Mike, be real. Just because the languages they use are changing continually doesn't mean that a *language* compiler or interpreter a couple-three years old shouldn't work. The flip side of that is that you are ignoring thousands (millions?) of man-hours of development work in improvements that could be yours for free. They're not *my* work. I don't get the chance to code any more. And yes, improvements... where a language changes year to year? It used to be that it took *years* to get a major change through (say, KR to ANSI). Now they come along as frequently as updates to, um, fedora. If it were up to me, I wouldn't *touch* some of that stuff till it soaked for a year or two. Oddly enough, I just read this book review on slashdot, which mentioned something I'd never heard of: the Software Craftsmanship Movement. Seems to be advocating things, some of which I've bitched and moaned about how things sould be done for decades. mark mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 14/06/2011 05:07, Mark Bradbury wrote: On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrnebyrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information given on this site: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar It seems every time I look at that site the dates have changed, last time I looked the external mirrors where to start syncing yesterday. the 13th ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems. That's why I switched. Don't get it. gvim ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
on 6/14/2011 2:23 PM gvim spake the following: ,snip Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems. That's why I switched. Don't get it. gvim You forgot to switch lists... ;) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
gvim wrote: Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems. That's why I switched. Don't get it. What 24th are you talking about? QA site has 16th as pushing to internal mirrors. I was informed that all rpm's are OK, they are just fixing few distro/ISO bugs. There is a possibility that all rpm's will be pushed to internal mirrors before the 16th, and that only ISO's will have to be pushed once QA team says everything is in order. I hope this will be the case. It would be nice if even external mirrors are pre-populated and hidden until ISO's are distributed and public announcement is made. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). My brother called this weekend. He's a Windows programmer who has recently started experimenting with Linux. Ubuntu, specifically. He upgraded and then his ATI video card quit working correctly. He finally found the solution, but he searched all day (I was no help to him). I have one partition set up with Linux Mint 10 (because my Dad uses Linux Mint and I want to be able to support him over the phone). Every time I boot up, Nautilus and Gnome-Panel don't come up. (I have to go to a terminal and type pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel to get them to work.) So, although Mint is pretty and uses modern packages, it's not rock solid like CentOS. Of course desktops are different than servers and I can only speak from personal (limited) experience. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first place because Centos didn't include a driver for the wifi and ubuntu 'just worked'. Opposite of my experience. All functions on my Dell work with CentOS, including sleep, etc. Linux Mint can't replicate that -- if I close the lid, for example, I have to reboot. I haven't been able to find a fix for this. But I think it depends on your hardware. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On 6/14/2011 4:54 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). My brother called this weekend. He's a Windows programmer who has recently started experimenting with Linux. Ubuntu, specifically. He upgraded and then his ATI video card quit working correctly. He finally found the solution, but he searched all day (I was no help to him). I have one partition set up with Linux Mint 10 (because my Dad uses Linux Mint and I want to be able to support him over the phone). Every time I boot up, Nautilus and Gnome-Panel don't come up. (I have to go to a terminal and type pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel to get them to work.) So, although Mint is pretty and uses modern packages, it's not rock solid like CentOS. Of course desktops are different than servers and I can only speak from personal (limited) experience. How much modern hardware do you have running with CentOS in GUI mode? I think these are just generic Linux issues. The last round of servers we got (in a different office) wouldn't even show the CentOS installer screen well enough to fill in the network setup info. This was an IBM 3550 M3 with some sort of Matrox video on board. I'd expect that to be a fairly mainstream server box. And by the way - if you need to run something yourself just to be able to support someone else you can usually do it under vmware player, virtualbox, etc. It's easier than fighting with real hardware and shutting down whatever else you were doing to use it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). My brother called this weekend. He's a Windows programmer who has recently started experimenting with Linux. Ubuntu, specifically. He upgraded and then his ATI video card quit working correctly. He finally found the solution, but he searched all day (I was no help to him). I have one partition set up with Linux Mint 10 (because my Dad uses Linux Mint and I want to be able to support him over the phone). Every time I boot up, Nautilus and Gnome-Panel don't come up. (I have to go to a terminal and type pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel to get them to work.) So, although Mint is pretty and uses modern packages, it's not rock solid like CentOS. I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for Ubuntu. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production. That was me. Using fedora isn't my choice but it's been running fine for the purposes of the company where it's installed for years. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 08:59 AM, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzardrb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). My brother called this weekend. He's a Windows programmer who has recently started experimenting with Linux. Ubuntu, specifically. He upgraded and then his ATI video card quit working correctly. He finally found the solution, but he searched all day (I was no help to him). I have one partition set up with Linux Mint 10 (because my Dad uses Linux Mint and I want to be able to support him over the phone). Every time I boot up, Nautilus and Gnome-Panel don't come up. (I have to go to a terminal and type pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel to get them to work.) So, although Mint is pretty and uses modern packages, it's not rock solid like CentOS. I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for Ubuntu. Yeah, I wondered how it managed to become popular with broken NetworkManager back in the 7.x releases and other goodness like pulseaudio. Serves me right for recommending something I had not myself tried. Blooming embarrassing having to talk colleague's son through the steps necessary to bring up eth0 and then stick stuff in /etc/resolv.conf. But hey, it's just trading one set of issues with another anyway. No more compiling Nvidia/ATI binary blob kernel modules was a plus. In any case, an LTS release for a server is a joke. How many PPA's have you added for your servers? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have something other than an intel wifi chip? No, not any more. I had a Broadcom card, but an older laptop we gave away needed a WiFi card, so I invested $12 into an Intel card on eBay and installed the Broadcom card in the old laptop (it worked fine under Windows). I got the Broadcom working with FWCutter under CentOS, but its speed was all over the place. The thing I've never been able to get working in Linux Mint, is the hibernation. If I close the lid, it locks, unless I hibernate it first. But the main thing I don't like about Ubuntu/Mint is that each upgrade is an adventure. Of course, CentOS 6 won't work on my laptop (no PAE) but I've still got CentOS 5.x for that. We'll see what issues it has on desktop. I'm hoping that installing the proprietary Nvidia drivers won't be the hassle they are under Linux Mint. Nouveau is getting better, but it's still not good enough. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for Ubuntu. I don't have to generalize, I go to the forums and see all the issues -- often the same issues I'm having when I upgrade. What's frustrating about it is that, usually, there are no solutions. You often get the same advice I used to get when running Windows... upgrade your hardware. I often wonder if these Ubuntu issues are why Linux hasn't been more widely adopted on the Desktop. A lot of people come to Linux via Ubuntu. If an upgrade kills the video driver -- or the sound quits working -- or it doesn't even boot anymore, then their impression of Ubuntu (which many equate with Linux) is not going to be too good. Ubuntu is cutting edge, kind of like Fedora. I don't use Fedora because I prefer stability over cutting edge features. I choose CentOS over Ubuntu/Mint for the same reason I chose it over Fedora several years ago. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
--On Monday, June 13, 2011 10:23:54 AM -0400 James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information given on this site: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar Indeed. Even though it's not official, having a gut feel for approximate status sure helps. (I'm another one of those who has been delaying deployment of some new systems pending CentOS 6 due to wanting to maximize those systems' useful lifetimes.) My thanks to the CentOS team for all their hard work. Devin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
