A few details:
Fedora = Community based "bleeding-edge" distro
begets
RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) = Proprietary long-term distro
shadowed by
CentOS = Community version of RHEL long-term distro
OpenSUSE = Community based "bleeding-edge" distro
begets
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) = Propri
The choice for the distro was made based on the recommendation of the person
who is helping and nothing more. It is NOT for a production environment, it
is to explore a proof of concept and to see what can be done.
I'll cross the distro bridge another time...
Sean Parsons
From: plug-dis
I follow your meaning now. I misunderstood what you meant.
(I tend to read things too literally sometimes)
Steve Phariss wrote:
> I know that Fedora and redhat are related and how, not so sure on the
> SuSE genealogy. It is my understanding that OpenSuse is the
> "development" version of SuSE
I know that Fedora and redhat are related and how, not so sure on the SuSE
genealogy. It is my understanding that OpenSuse is the "development" version
of SuSE in the same way that Fedora is the "development" version of Redhat.
My point being (as has been discussed in the last few messages) that
Craig,
Again you assume facts not stated, exchange wasn't a factor. LDAP
was chosen because the documentation supported it AND I had used it
elsewhere with success, you decided it wasn't necessary and you don't know
my network or the facts, that is arrogant on your part. DCPromo wasn't used
Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Craig White wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:53 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Craig White wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 1
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:53 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> >> Craig White wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shube
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:55 -0700, Sean Parsons wrote:
> Craig,
> You are the master, and I'm just an idiot with 20 years of Microsoft
> experience. so you win, I'm totally wrong.
>
> I got nothing more to add, and no desire for this to continue to escalate.
> Thanks for your time, and
Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:53 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Craig White wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Kurt Granroth wrote:
>>> On 1/30/10 10:10 AM,
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:53 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> >> Craig White wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Kurt Granroth wrote:
> > On 1/30/10 10:10 AM, Matt Graham wrote:
> >
Sounds to me that Sean needs Craig to show him the ropes. Its obvious Craig
thinks he knows what he is doing. Its also obvious that Sean thinks he has
no idea what he is doing. To quote my 2 year old son's book[1], lets not
make big problems out of little problems. Craig, why don't you offer to hel
Craig,
You are the master, and I'm just an idiot with 20 years of Microsoft
experience. so you win, I'm totally wrong.
I got nothing more to add, and no desire for this to continue to escalate.
Thanks for your time, and best wishes for the future.
Sean Parsons
-Original Message
Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Craig White wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
Kurt Granroth wrote:
> On 1/30/10 10:10 AM, Matt Graham wrote:
>> After a long battle with technology, Craig White wrote:
>>
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 19:49 -0700, Sean Parsons wrote:
> Craig,
>
> We obviously don't agree. I followed those examples and they didn't
> work. They were not easy to follow nor did they make the process easy to
> understand, perhaps you are using your experience to draw from, which I
> don't
Craig,
We obviously don't agree. I followed those examples and they didn't
work. They were not easy to follow nor did they make the process easy to
understand, perhaps you are using your experience to draw from, which I
don't have. You also say I didn't need LDAP or Kerberos, that's pretty
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:30 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Steven A. DuChene wrote:
> > If it was me I would look for a distribution that had newer bits (Samba
> > & etc)
> > than CentOS5.4
> >
> > Perhaps OpenSuSE-11.2 or similar.
>
> Newer etc? ;)
>
> I am a little disappointed that CentOS5 doe
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> >> Kurt Granroth wrote:
> >>> On 1/30/10 10:10 AM, Matt Graham wrote:
> After a long battle with technology, Craig White wrote:
> [snip]
> > - Netat
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:49 -0700, Sean Parsons wrote:
> Craig,
> I don't doubt that people do it. I made several honest attempts to
> research, understand and implement a Samba file server in and existing Small
> Business Server 2003 network using LDAP and Kerberos. I was not able to make
>
Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
>> Kurt Granroth wrote:
>>> On 1/30/10 10:10 AM, Matt Graham wrote:
After a long battle with technology, Craig White wrote:
[snip]
> - Netatalk (Macintosh AFP server)
Really? That package recently droppe
Good point JD. I always try to steer people away from Fedora for servers
in general, especially production servers.
Fedora as a desktop is entirely different, although personally I
appreciate more stability there as well. My desktop at the moment is
Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. A new LTS desktop version is
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 17:46 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Kurt Granroth wrote:
> > On 1/30/10 10:10 AM, Matt Graham wrote:
> >> After a long battle with technology, Craig White wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> - Netatalk (Macintosh AFP server)
> >> Really? That package recently dropped off the Gentoo ebuil
Sean Parsons wrote:
> Since, so many wanted my project to be posted for the benefit of all,
> I’ll start be defining what our first steps are going to be. I had an
> opportunity to sit down and discuss my goals and get some advice, so
> this is how we have decided to proceed:
>
>
Steven A. DuChene wrote:
> If it was me I would look for a distribution that had newer bits (Samba
> & etc)
> than CentOS5.4
>
> Perhaps OpenSuSE-11.2 or similar.
Newer etc? ;)
I am a little disappointed that CentOS5 doesn't have a more recent
Samba, but newer Samba rpms for EL5 are available
The big difference between Fedora and Centos other than Centos lagging
behind Fedora is that Centos is a server distribution and the repository
will be around for 10 years.
I've been burned a couple of times when I inherited unmaintained systems
built on desktop distributions (in my case Ubuntu) w
Steve Phariss wrote:
> The downside to "newer bits" is that they may not be as tested.
> Arguably, a CentOS/RHEL install will have more long term stability.
> Newer is not always better when it comes to getting down to business.
> OpenSuSE is the equivalent to using Fedora correct?
No, Fedora
The downside to "newer bits" is that they may not be as tested. Arguably, a
CentOS/RHEL install will have more long term stability. Newer is not always
better when it comes to getting down to business. OpenSuSE is the equivalent
to using Fedora correct? a test/dev distribution for the main distr
If it was me I would look for a distribution that had newer bits (Samba & etc)than CentOS5.4Perhaps OpenSuSE-11.2 or similar.-Original Message-
From: Sean Parsons
Sent: Jan 31, 2010 12:11 PM
To: 'Main PLUG discussion list'
Subject: Project Update
Since, so many wan
Since, so many wanted my project to be posted for the benefit of all, I'll
start be defining what our first steps are going to be. I had an opportunity
to sit down and discuss my goals and get some advice, so this is how we have
decided to proceed:
Goal: Build as much functional
28 matches
Mail list logo
