I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their
experiences using Scientific Linux?
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6
as soon as it's ready
On Sat, 7 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
> changes of how thing work.
In local testing built from the anaconda and related sources
that will become CentOS 6, the offer to upgrade an existing
install is made during a me
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
bug number please
-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>>> But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
>>
>> bug number please
>
> Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla requesting the
>
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> The main "fear" the developers have is that somebody could
> steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily
> if they release their build system & scripts.
> I think this is obvious by now.
'obvious' to you or not, such is not the case
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS
> community on their experiences using Scientific Linux?
Fresh install of 6.0 without a hitch a while ago.
Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me
***
On 05/06/2011 01:31 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community
> on their experiences using Scientific Linux?
>
>
> I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
> understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have be
On Friday, May 06, 2011 11:44:40 AM Johnny Hughes wrote:
> But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would
> only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle
> UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support
> before its retiremen
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:31, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
> understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to
> roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is
> looming and we will need
> I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
> understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to
> roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is
> looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout
>
On 5/6/2011 1:44 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would
> only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle
> UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support
> before its retirement date, and i
Original Message
Subject: Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
From: Nicolas Ross
To: CentOS mailing list
Date: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:38:42 PM
> While waiting
> for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was troublesome
> t
>> While waiting
>> for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was
>> troublesome
>> to install packeges. So for those servers that were already installed, I
>> switched them to SL6 without having to re-install, and it went great
>> without
>> a pain.
>
> Did you perform a yum
On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
>
> I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on
> their
> experiences using Scientific Linux?
>
> I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
> there are delays getting EL 6 out. We hav
Chuck Munro wrote:
>
> On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
>> I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on
>> their
>> experiences using Scientific Linux?
>>
>> I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
>> there are delays
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
> changes of how thing work.
Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to cross-grade
SL6 to C6. I've started testing with SL6 and will hap
Le 09/05/2011 18:36, Benjamin Smith a écrit :
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
> changes of how thing work.
Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to
cross-grade SL
Alain Péan wrote:
> The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
> 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
> C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of
> C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
> The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of
C6.1. I already
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 12:13 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Alain Péan wrote:
> > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
> > 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
> > C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the rel
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
> > Alain Péan wrote:
> > > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
> >> 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
> >> C6.0, and it
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:17:39 PM Craig White wrote:
> Upstream released exactly 6 months ago and still
> nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
> CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
Please read the CentOS-devel list and IRC channe
On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> In my case, I have essentially three choices:
> 1.) Use SL 6;
> 2.) Wait on C6;
> 3.) Buy RHEL6.
>
> All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary
> costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentO
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> I've always been a fan of the
> coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
> in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
> painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4.
You must not have
On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I've always been a fan of the
>> coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
>> in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
>> painlessly upgraded
[drifting farther off-topic]
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 04:34:49 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > And you must not use PostgreSQL, which won't painlessly upgrade on
> > anything.
>
> Automatically doing the dump/load (and magically finding the space f
> nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
> CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
Apparently they did admit and it does change:
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347&forum=53
___
Mathieu Baudier wrote on 05/11/2011 04:59 PM:
>> nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
>> CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
>
> Apparently they did admit and it does change:
> https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_
On 05/10/2011 08:12 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Alain Péan wrote:
>> > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
>>> 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
>>> C6.0, and it will be better
>
>
> >
> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
> >
> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
> > take no more than 1 month ?
>
> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
>
>
>
>
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
>> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>> >
>> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
>> > take no more than 1 mont
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:05:57AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?
Amnesia of opportunity, perh
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> In my case, I have essentially three choices:
>> 1.) Use SL 6;
>> 2.) Wait on C6;
>> 3.) Buy RHEL6.
>>
>> All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary
>> costs, but
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 04:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> One upgrade I did from C4 to C5 (with upgradeany) was smoother than the last
> LTS upgrade I tried. I liken the C5 -> C6 upgrade path as trying to take a
> Ubuntu LTS 6.06 to a 10.04; which path I tried, and failed, to get working.
> In
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
> >
> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
> would
> > take no mo
On 05/10/2011 08:19 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>
>>> Alain Péan wrote:
>>> > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there wil
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>
> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
would
>
On 05/12/2011 09:49 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>
> And given that C5.6 took 3 mont
>> It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
>> comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
>> truth.
> Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very
> much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestio
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
> wrote:
>>>
Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are th
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote:
> 6.04->10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04.
I did 6.06 -> 8.04 -> 10.04, and it broke. Badly.
> > Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of
> > any distribution (that clai
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:12:59 PM Dag Wieers wrote:
> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
> take no more than 1 month ?
I can easily think of a few. 4.9 and 6.0 are two of those few.
Again, I'll note that SL is just now releasing the second beta of 5.6 thi
Craig White wrote:
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>> wrote:
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>
> And given that C5.6 took
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6
>> • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
>>
>> 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month
>> before 4.9
>>
>
Steve Clark wrote on 05/12/2011 10:15 AM:
>> Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very
>> much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions
>> Keep up the great work - Thanks
> +1
++1
Please trim your posts. 60+ included lines and >> 2k character
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>> wrote:
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>> wrote:
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
On 5/12/2011 8:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
> comments about how nothing changes.
I think that will change to the extent that the project changes are
visible. Thank you for posting all the links.
--
Les Mikesell
lesm
On 05/12/2011 05:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>>> wrote:
>
> This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the
> existin
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:49 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote:
> > It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
> > comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
> > truth.
> >
Johnny, don't let this type of comment upset you as:
>
> Please note there is a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>> wrote:
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 diff
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
>> But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
>
> bug number please
Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla requesting the
release of missing srpms.
Akemi
__
On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to
> agree with CentOS' choice here.
+1
- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:34 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote:
>> 6.04->10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04.
>
> I did 6.06 -> 8.04 -> 10.04, and it broke. Badly.
Ahem. With apt-get dist-upgrade or do-release-upgr
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM, wrote:
> On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to
>> agree with CentOS' choice here.
>
> +1
I think *both* distros made the right choice. :)
CentOS and SL handle security updates differently. CentOS's ch
On 5/12/11, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>> Apparently they did admit and it does change:
>> https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347&forum=53
>
> Late breaking news:
> http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/67
> http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/69
This is really nice and it's g
On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> Lastly, Johnny has made clear that this is not supposed to be an SL
>> discussion list but curiously enough, SL is invoked by those who want to use
>> SL to justify the alacrity of the CentOS 6.0 release. As was pointed out,
>> though the
On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:30 AM, Craig White wrote:
> CentOS has always been a take it or leave it proposition and thus nothing has
> really changed except that many businesses have become reliant upon it and I
> see my company and many other companies turning to Ubuntu not just because of
>
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:30 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
>> CentOS has always been a take it or leave it proposition and thus nothing
>> has really changed
>> except that many businesses have become reliant upon it and I see my company
>
Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Chan
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:30 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>>> CentOS has always been a take it or leave it proposition and thus nothing
>>> has really changed
>>> except that many businesses have become reliant upon it a
On 05/12/2011 02:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?
As far as users know, all work on 6.0 was postpon
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 02:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
>> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
>> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the
A perhaps stupid question from a newby
Why 4.9 is out in a so long time frame after 5.0?
5.6 -- CentOS - 4/8/11SL - (Soon) <--
same time frame (1 of 3)
5.5 -- CentOS - 5/14/10 SL - 5/19/10
5.4 -- CentOS - 10/21/9 SL -
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 16:35, Michel Donais wrote:
> A perhaps stupid question from a newby
>
> Why 4.9 is out in a so long time frame after 5.0?
>
>
> 5.6 -- CentOS - 4/8/11 SL - (Soon) <--
> same time frame (1 of 3)
> 5.5 -- CentOS - 5/14/10 SL
On 05/15/2011 08:41 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 16:35, Michel Donais wrote:
>> A perhaps stupid question from a newby
>>
>> Why 4.9 is out in a so long time frame after 5.0?
>>
>>
>> 5.6 -- CentOS - 4/8/11SL - (Soon) <--
>> same time frame (1 of 3)
On 05/15/2011 03:52 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> As far as users know, all work on 6.0 was postponed to get 5.6 done. At
>> the time of 5.6's release, it was the only release the team was working
>> on. Work on 5 should have been something t
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> No, I'm not. Neither I nor Dag, as far as I saw, brought SL into the
> conversation at all. The question is not whether CentOS can build
> releases in less time than SL, or even a reasonable amount of time. The
> question that Dag posed w
On 05/15/2011 02:23 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> Obviously I missed the part where I (or someone) said (or claimed)
> that 6.1 could be done in a month.
Well, that is where this branch of the thread began.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-May/111443.html
Ljubomir Ljubojevic began the b
On 05/15/2011 05:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 05/15/2011 02:23 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> Obviously I missed the part where I (or someone) said (or claimed)
>> that 6.1 could be done in a month.
>
> Well, that is where this branch of the thread began.
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Look at wikipedia's page describing CentOS. They include a column for
> the delay between the upstream release and CentOS's. For the 5 series,
> it looks like:
>
> Release Delay
> 5 28d
> 5.1 25d
> 5.2 34d
> 5.3 69d
> 5.
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>>> wrote:
>
>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
>> comp
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
>
> Past numbers debunks this myth:
>
> CentOS 4.0 took 23 days
>
> CentOS 5.0 took 28 days
>
> CentOS 6.0 is not released
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
Past numbers debunks this myth:
CentOS 4.0 took 23 days
CentOS 5.0 took 28 days
On 05/16/2011 02:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
wrote:
>>
>>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> >Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light?
>
> I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his
> very quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise
On 05/16/2011 04:32 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
>>>
>>> Past numbers debunks this myt
On 05/15/2011 05:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> The process around building CentOS has traditionally been very
> secretive, which makes the name "*Community* Enterprise OS" seem very inapt.
The community in CentOS that you write about was NEVER about building
CentOS.
We have never said that anyo
> Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading
> non-CentOS stuff.
Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic
as anything else.
Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obliged to find
a new home.
Ubuntu is one of the options.
Insert spiff
On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:11 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>> Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading
>> non-CentOS stuff.
>
> Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic
> as anything else.
> Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obli
On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> We have never said that anyone but the project would build it.
But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do
it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact, I thought
the project used to post goals for timelin
On May 15, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that
> two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three
> releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as
> mentioned by one of the developers)
On 5/16/2011 11:11 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> but you're leaving out a very important distinction - SL released all the
> updates so the lack of a 5.6 release by SL is merely the installer disc's
> which is significant only to people who are looking to install SL on hardware
> that is newly supp
On 05/16/2011 10:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> We have never said that anyone but the project would build it.
>
> But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do
> it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact,
On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort
> of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track
> stuff.
You don't really have to design a system for build automation/tracking
since there are sever
On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
> project itself considers that to be a problem.
consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as
widely used as centos gets penetrated and carefully targetted to slip
trojans unnoticed into
On 05/16/2011 01:24 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort
>> of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track
>> stuff.
>
> You don't really have to design a syste
on 5/16/2011 11:47 AM Johnny Hughes spake the following:
> Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following
> the licensing requirements and be happy with that?
I hear ya Johnny... The only hurry I am in over 6 getting out is that FINALLY
some of the whining will stop... Fo
On 5/16/2011 1:47 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates.
>>It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all
>> known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>> project itself considers
On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>> project itself considers that to be a problem.
>
> consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as
> widely used as centos gets penetrated and
On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I believe that by making
> the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those
> problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open.
a very wise man[1] once said adding more bodies to a late project just
makes it late
On 05/16/2011 02:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>>> project itself considers that to be a problem.
>>
>> consider what might happen if a core build server for a proj
On 5/16/2011 2:52 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I believe that by making
>> the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those
>> problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open.
>
> a very wise man[1] once said addin
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> There is not a server in the world that I could not break into if I was
> on the same subnet ... and I am not even that smart.
maybe but you have the distinct advantage of having your private trojans
in every centos system out there ;-)
_
ne "Janski" AKA JNixus Nyman
Founder of Newman IT Solutions Ltd
-Original Message-
From: centos-requ...@centos.org
Reply-to: centos@centos.org
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: CentOS Digest, Vol 76, Issue 16
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:00:02 -0400
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategie
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 19:40 +0100, Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really
> predict how an open project will
On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
>> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
>> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really
> predict how an open
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
>
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
