2011/5/23 R P Herrold
>
> A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early
> design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the
> mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and
> encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager
> inadvertently introduced a
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:
> I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
> complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
> is not community based whatsoever.
I don't mind-read as to what a third party meant so well as
you, it see
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
you're important. What i
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
> implying an unmet obligation
The only obligation that I think exists is for everyone to have
reasonable expectations of the project. If I have ever implied
otherwise, please point me toward
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
> very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
> releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
implying an unmet obligation
On 05/20/2011 01:26 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to use a new SSD
> for moving all the disk i/o to, that Linux likes to do so
> often.
Yes, it's often a really good idea. If you're doing software RAID on
Linux, you really should either disable disk drives'
On 05/20/2011 05:55 AM, Drew wrote:
> An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any
> real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release
> build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.
You weren't reading the very long thread of the last wee
At Sun, 22 May 2011 10:22:24 -0400 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
>
> --===1683845214==
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
> micalg=sha1; boundary="ms0501010204000801
Mailing List wrote:
> I'm trying to keep CentOS 5.5 from upgrading to 5.6 because of my issue
> with the time sync. I thought I had it figured out till today. I have
> tried google for help but with no luck. Can someone point me to a page
> or link that will give me a good idea as to how to stop th
Thanks,
I'm trying to keep CentOS 5.5 from upgrading to 5.6 because of my
issue with the time sync. I thought I had it figured out till today. I
have tried google for help but with no luck. Can someone point me to a
page or link that will give me a good idea as to how to stop the upg
Lamar Owen wrote on 05/21/2011 04:25 PM:
>> early in the thread, it was clear from a reply's content that
>> > a locally installed 'ftpd' and not the CentOS vsftpd was
>> > being used
> Looking... don't see that. Perhaps I'm just missing it.
Same here. The OP only replied once, and had the sam
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
>
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> From: yonatan pingle
>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp & /var/ partition
>>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
>> wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list
From: yonatan pingle
Subject: Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp & /var/ partition
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
just dies in
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
>> I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
>> just dies in one big crash without giving any clues about it.
>
> If only SSD's were a viable solution for long-term storage, we could
> theoretically increase our vi
> I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
> just dies in one big crash without giving any clues about it.
If only SSD's were a viable solution for long-term storage, we could
theoretically increase our virtualization many times over. It's to bad
the technology hasn't c
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:29 PM, yonatan pingle
> wrote:
>> if you use the SSD for swap, don't put anything important on them, I
>> have managed to destroy a drive which was used for heavy swap
>> operations.
>> (insane experiment with KVM
16 matches
Mail list logo
