Alan McKay wrote on 11/14/2011 09:56 PM:
>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>> is perfect.
> That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
> (and so long ago at that
>
> I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
> repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
> CR repo as a necessary event?
Depends on if you feel that security updates are important to your
infrastructure.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> We have different goals ... and for what SL rebuilds they want to be
> 100% binary compatible ... but they do not want their ISOs to necessary
> be compatible (if, for example, they need openais and it is not upstream).
But they also inclu
Johnny Hughes wrote
--
We have a CR repository that has a bunch of 6.1 (and updates newer than
6.1 as well) in there. It is not like there are no updates to 6.0
released. The ISOs for 6.1 are not released, but the RPMs are.
---
I was wondering if it
On 11/14/2011 08:56 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>> is perfect.
>
> That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
> (and so long ago at
On 11/15/2011 06:56 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
>
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting an
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:27 PM, wrote:
>> Why don't you call your Congresscritter and Senator, and tell them you
>> personally want to donate the money to replace everything we have that
>> doesn't have IPMI, and pay for the time install and cable i
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
>
>>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>>> is perfect.
>>
>> That's interesting. So h
On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>> is perfect.
>
> That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
> (and so long
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>
>>> Hell, no, I don't run fedora. I've got three or four users, and my
>>> manager on one of his systems, who do. I *LOATHE* it, with all the
>>> grief upgrades have given me.
>>
>> And, correspondingly, you probably don't really run any 'desktop'
>> app
Make centos a new distro and forget about rh
2011/11/14 Alan McKay
> These seems to me to be the first message in the series and provides a
> really good summary of the changes at Red Hat which seem to be making
> life a lot more difficult for CentOS.
>
> Just figured I'd pull it out of that thr
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:27 PM, wrote:
> Why don't you call your Congresscritter and Senator, and tell them you
> personally want to donate
> the money to replace everything we have that doesn't have IPMI, and pay
> for the time install and cable it all up? That would be *great*...
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 05:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 05:23 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy
> wrote:
>>
> 'Desktop' is in contrast to 'se
Vreme: 11/15/2011 05:58 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
> With an upgrade path between major versions Red Hat will become responsible
> for that and I'm not sure they are willing to bear that burden for all the
> possible various installations out there.
I do not think they will, but 500MB boot pa
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
>>
I don't agree with that. Some people do want to keep running what they
know, and if the budget's tight
>>>
>>> Then you probably don't run Fedora - the 'desktop' oriented
>>> distribution, or care much for the non-bac
Vreme: 11/15/2011 05:43 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
> Supermicro boards come with IPMI on-board these days so you can do all that
> work that you previously did standing next to the server from the confines
> of your cozy home. This is even more useful when you server is sitting in a
> rack in
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Obviously if you don't have IPMI on some systems or cannot use it for other
> reasons then that's tragic but inevitable. All I'm saying is that for new
> system you should strongly consider it. Back in the days you actually
> needed to buy an add
On 11/15/2011 05:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 05:23 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I don't really understand
> what is meant by the t
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
>
>>> I don't agree with that. Some people do want to keep running what they
>>> know, and if the budget's tight
>>
>> Then you probably don't run Fedora - the 'desktop' oriented
>> distribution, or care much for the non-backwards compatible changes
>>
On 11/15/2011 05:40 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 04:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us piše:
The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
building boxes here with 500M
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:23 AM, wrote:
>> I don't agree with that. Some people do want to keep running what they
>> know, and if the budget's tight
>
> Then you probably don't run Fedora - the 'desktop' oriented
> distribution, or care much for the non-backwards compa
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 05:23 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy
>>> wrote:
Incidentally, I don't really understand
what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
I always think of it as a co
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:23 AM, wrote:
>>
>> 'Desktop' is in contrast to 'server'. On a server, you only reboot to
>> load a new kernel and you never use the console display, rarely change
>
> Oh, I dunno - it's not infrequently that I have to plug in a
> monitor-on-a-stick
You only need
On 11/15/2011 05:23 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I don't really understand
>>> what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
>>> I always think of it as a contrast to laptop.
>>
>> 'Desktop' is i
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 04:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us pie:
>>> The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
>>> building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
>>> that it
On 11/15/2011 02:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>
>> Fedora is basically an incubator for new technologies and as such not
>> really an attractive system to install for end-users. If you deal with
>> servers you probably go with CentOS, SL, Debian, etc. and if you want
On 11/15/2011 04:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us piše:
>> The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
>> building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
>> that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventu
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy
> wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, I don't really understand
>> what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
>> I always think of it as a contrast to laptop.
>
> 'Desktop' is in contrast to 'server'. On a server, you only reboot to
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I don't really understand
> what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
> I always think of it as a contrast to laptop.
'Desktop' is in contrast to 'server'. On a server, you only reboot to
load a new kernel and you never
Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us piše:
> The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
> building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
> that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventually.
+1
--
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
Vreme: 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy piše:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
>
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting a
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> I saw statistics - I don't remember where - saying that
>> CentOS had 30% of the Linux market, which I found very surprising,
Wow!
>> though also satsifying (to me). SL had a tiny share.
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Fedora is basically an incubator for new technologies and as such not
> really an attractive system to install for end-users. If you deal with
> servers you probably go with CentOS, SL, Debian, etc. and if you want a
> desktop you probably use Ubuntu.
I don't really
On 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
>
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting and
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
Thanks very much for that.
I found your account most interesting and informative.
I guess one question that I've never seen
Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:56 AM, Alan McKay piše:
>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>> is perfect.
>
> That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
> (and so long ago a
> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
> is perfect.
That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
(and so long ago at that)?
--
“Don't eat anything you've ever seen a
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
> Basically from what I gather, while Red Hat cannot restrict access to
> sources, they can restrict access to binaries. And since CentOS has a
> goal of binary compatibility with upstream, they are essentially left
> trying to hit an unknown ta
These seems to me to be the first message in the series and provides a
really good summary of the changes at Red Hat which seem to be making
life a lot more difficult for CentOS.
Just figured I'd pull it out of that thread and change the subject line.
Below Johnny's email I've copied another from
39 matches
Mail list logo
