Re: scanner
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:31:05AM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: >Anyone have a favorite flat bed scanner that is SL friendly? Look at HP All-in-One devices. I've used several models with "HP OfficeJet Pro" in the model name. I only use the scan function and it's working fine with Xsane, also the ADF (when available). Loot at a list of supported devices: http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/supported_devices/index.html I'm using them with Fedora, SL / CentOS will have older versions of the "hplip" software, so look at the required versions. -- --Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181
Re: 7.4
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:32:02AM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: > The way RH sounds, RHEL is already on 7.4, but I > haven't checked. Only 7.4 *beta* is out for a month now. So the final 7.4 might still take a few months from now. -- -- Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181
Re: Perl 6 just hit
Hi Maarten, On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Maarten wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to response :) Yes it did help a bit, > although it didn't make my choice any easier ;) Since even here people > have different opinions about python and perl as in preference. I > decided to take Steven Haigh's advice and learn both, that way I can > find out for myself which I like better. Is it true of what I've heard, > that once you know one language it's easier to learn a second? So say I > first learn python, then it would be easier for me to learn perl > afterwards or the other way around? Learning a second language is certainly much easier than a first one, although I would say you should start to learn programming and not a specific language, but that's a more philosophical discussion. Starting with Python is certainly better than starting with Perl from an educational point of view. Unless you have a specific need to learn both and/or to use Perl, I do not see a good reason to take the effort to learn Perl at this moment as a second language, as they are in the same league. If you want to extend your programming skills beyond Python, I would suggest to start learning C, and maybe even Javascript. The latter not because it is a nice language, it is not (although it inherits many things from Python and Perl), but because it has quite some practical value in the current era of web and even mobile app development. But again, all opinions are just mine and YMMV ;-). -- --Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181
Re: Perl 6 just hit
Hi Maarten, On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 08:59:36AM +0100, Maarten wrote: > Saw this discussion and found it interesting, got a somewhat half on > topic question. I've been trying to decide on a language to learn, > python and perl both stood out. There seems to be various discussions of > why one is better than the other, and the pro's and con's of both. From > what I've seen perl has been around longer than python and there are > plenty of places to ask for help and lots of perl modules to use in your > code. Python on the other hand seems newer, also has modules(probably > less than perl), and has quite bit of community around too. However > lately I've been seeing that there are more python projects than perl, > making me think python might be the better one to go for. So I am more > wondering what peoples opinions on this mailing list are when it comes > to python or perl, that way I can consider the opinion of people who > have been programming for a while before I make a decision to what I am > going to do ;) This is an absolute no-brainer: go for Python. There are IMHO many reasons for that, some are subjective, some are objective. My personal prediction is that the use of Perl will decrease during the time and that Perl 6 will never gain a significant "market share" in programming land. I think even part of the Perl community "fears" the same. See also the TIOBE index (http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/) although do not consider this table to be a reflection of good taste ;-). And go for Python 3. Although Python 2 and 3 are almost compatible (which Perl 5 and 6 are definitely not, which is part of the problem), when starting to learn better stay with Python 3 from the beginning. Because you asked: I've been programming for 30+ years (and using UNIX for the same amount of time) and have used a large number of languages (of course including Perl). Python has become my favorite language, although for some things I have to switch to C or even JS. Hope this helps a bit. -- --Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181
Re: Red Hat's new virtualization
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:16:56PM +0200, David Sommerseth wrote: > Right now I've forgotten what the upstream project of RHV is named, but > it should exist such a project. oVirt -- -- Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: Just wrote my first Perl script
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +, Matthew Harris wrote: Nice to see that people are still learning Perl! I'll see some code! Yeah, but note that there exist standard Perl modules for IP address mangling, so it is not needed to write that yourself (except for fun and/or study purposes). Nothing wrong with Perl, but I highly prefer Python these days ;-). -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: QA: Centos vs SL
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:37:37PM -0800, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote: Please reread the news coverage and the press releases. My reading between the lines is that CentOS people were made an offer they could not refuse. BTW, today, whois shows centos.org as registered by Red Hat. (Used to be registered by one of the CentOS main developers). Not specifically meant as an answer to you, but as a comment in general: Some open source people (a community I consider myself part of, but not in this sense) tend to act like communists and look at companies acting in the open source world in a suspicious way (this word has already been used in this thread), some maybe even think capitalism is bad in general. Well, some companies indeed are evil and try to hijack and/or abuse open source software and its community. But in general, remember that today's major open source projects couldn't live without the support from (commercial) companies, where Red Hat is even one of the main players. And until now RH has proven to play the game pretty well. Without Red Hat there was not Fedora, no RHEL, no CentOS (also not in the previous incarnation) and no SL. It's understandable that people around the CentOS community look at the RH/CentOS case in a critical way: I also did that myself. But we have to live with the situation and it's not that bad now. Just my $0.02... -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: QA: Centos vs SL
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote: Now that Redhat has bought Centos... Red Hat did not buy CentOS. -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49:51AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote: This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist? This sounds as if you have reading problems. Are you an illiterate? [...] (Always remember that companies, like politicians, do not make statements to communicate information. They make statements to achieve a desired result. Their statements may happen to communicate information, but if and only if it helps to achieve their desired result.) It's probably because of my reading problems that I read this as companies are bad and they are lying all the time. I know it's not said literally, but that's where reading between the lines comes in. -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: RedHat CentOS acquisition: stating the obvious
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:45:01AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action, ever -- is motivated by that goal. This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist? The world runs because companies exist, trying to make money. I even dare to say the open source world in its current form does only exist because companies like Red Hat and many others contribute a lot of work. So, we should not attack them, but support them. In general, yes, companies exist for making money. The way you talk about it (literally every single action, ever) makes the statement IMHO formally not true, but in general, yes, money is their motivation. The question you should be asking is: How does Red Hat believe this move is going to make them money? Those were statements of fact. What follows is merely my opinion. The best way of debating is saying your statements are facts, yes, but that does not make them real facts. Right now, anybody can easily get for free the same thing Red Hat sells, and their #1 competitor is taking their products, augmenting them, and reselling them. If you think Red Hat perceives this as being in their financial interest, I think you are out of your mind. As someone else already pointed out: no, you do not get the same thing Red Hat sells. But for some people it may be ok for what they need. And there are other ways to look at it: the fact that clones like CentOS are used a lot is an indirect advertisement for the quality of Red Hat. The fact that there is (AFAIK) no SLES/SLED rebuild does not help the SUSE brand at all. So, there are also arguments against your theory. SRPMs will go away and be replaced by an ever-moving git tree. Red Hat will make it as hard as legally possible to rebuild their commercial releases. The primary target of this move is Oracle, but Scientific Linux will be collateral damage. I consider all of this pretty obvious, but perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am. It is not obvious. Instead, it is a very, very unlikely scenario. But I might be wrong. I hope I'm not. P.S. There are a lot of companies abusing the open source paradigm, stating their product is open source, providing just a tag-less git repository, no documentation, etc. and just selling their product for money as open source (which is in fact the only workable choice you have). Talking bad about those companies is ok for me too, but don't judge too early... -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
Re: NFTables To Replace iptables In the Linux Kernel
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:34:58AM -0700, Yasha Karant wrote: [...] -- the actual name of TUV, that evidently is taboo on this list, [...] Evidently? It's complete nonsense to NOT use the name of TUV here or at whatever place, as long as you don't say things about SL in relation to TUV and/or their products that are illegal. I thought only the CentOS community was (for no good reason) paranoid. In the time I created and released X/OS Linux, being also rebuild of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3/4/5 sources, I did mention Red Hat, RHEL, etc., but only as far as appropriate and allowed of course. Nonetheless, once a major change (e.g., NFTables replacing iptables) is done in the base source, the production enterprise version must reflect the change -- and in less than a decade. Why less than a decade? Unless there is a fully backward compatible set of APIs, new applications and revisions typically use the current not historical APIs. Presumably, there will be NFTables features that application developers will use that have no iptables backport. Thus -- how long is the delay? Typically, are two major releases (e.g., NFTables in EL8) the usual delay? Does anyone have historical data from EL/TUV? Fedora 20 seems to use the 3.11 kernel, so it won't have a kernel with NFTables. RHEL 7 is already being developed (and in alpha stage as far as I've heard) and will most likely have a kernel = 3.11, so this makes the statement that EL7 probably won't either very trustworthy. There are no statistics about delays etc. needed to just see that RHEL 7 won't use a kernel that supports NFTables. So, there is no artificial delay created by RH to postpone things in RHEL, it's just common sense when someone says this about NFTables in relattion to RHEL 7. -- --Jos Vos j...@xos.nl --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
