I would guess Konstantin is bumping up against PackageKit locking everything
yum related up. This happens to me on occasion when I'm remotely
administrating EL7 desktops.
On 01/14/2016 07:42 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
For the immediate future, we plan to continue with SL 7. When EL 8
emerges, we may need to re-evaluate the situation. That being stated,
for non-CERN groups (that is, groups neither employed by CERN nor in one
of the collider collaborations), is there
On 13/01/16 19:30, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:59:43AM -0600, Alec T. Habig wrote:
Konstantin Olchanski writes:
The installer for both have the same idiotic "you *must* create a fake
user or no login prompt for you!",
If you're not making a local user, then you've pr
For the immediate future, we plan to continue with SL 7. When EL 8
emerges, we may need to re-evaluate the situation. That being stated,
for non-CERN groups (that is, groups neither employed by CERN nor in one
of the collider collaborations), is there a CERN equivalent to this SL list?
What "s
If you use CERN CentOS 7 - please contact us at linux.supp...@cern.ch in
case you encounter problems, if you use CentOS 7 - please use centos
mailing lists...
Now CERN Linux el7 comes in and I see the machines installed as 7.1 stay there,
no automatic update to 7.2. Odd.
Then here, I see same
On 2016-01-14 07:45, jdow wrote:
There is at least one other sub group around here who value generally
quiet sober support when they have a problem. Ubuntu and many other
distros are quality distros, and perhaps better support what some
people want. But the Ubuntu and Fedora mailing lists and sup
Lejeczek, Iosif etc,
I really dunno, what you guys wanna hear?
you come and say you switch/switched to centos - and you ask for what?
for blessing? :D well ... i bless you :D
Now, joking aside, Fermilab said clearly they go with SL7x and they do.
And while you will have supp for sl/rhel 6x rou
On 13 January 2016 at 12:55, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:51:26AM -0600, Jim Campbell wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, one of the key values of SL is that it allows you to
>> stay on a point release and obtain only security fixes for your packages
>> (someone else menti
On 01/13/2016 02:42 PM, Graham Allan wrote:
On 01/13/2016 01:30 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
and the same "you *must* use the disk partition tool designed by
dummies for dummies".
likewise solved by kickstart.
The kickstart disk partitioning tool is even dumber than they new GUI
tool,
There is at least one other sub group around here who value generally quiet
sober support when they have a problem. Ubuntu and many other distros are
quality distros, and perhaps better support what some people want. But the
Ubuntu and Fedora mailing lists and support are unbelievably noisy and
On 01/13/2016 01:30 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
and the same "you *must* use the disk partition tool designed by
dummies for dummies".
likewise solved by kickstart.
The kickstart disk partitioning tool is even dumber than they new GUI tool,
only useful for "one-size-fits-all" cases whe
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:51:26AM -0600, Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> As I understand it, one of the key values of SL is that it allows you to
> stay on a point release and obtain only security fixes for your packages
> (someone else mentioned this, too). This is important when running
> scientific ex
The kickstart disk partitioning tool is even dumber than they new GUI tool,
only useful for "one-size-fits-all" cases where you also do not mind
accidentally
deleting the contents of all disks. (yes, open the machine, disconnect disks,
install, reconnect disks, close the machine, thanks, but no
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:59:43AM -0600, Alec T. Habig wrote:
> Konstantin Olchanski writes:
> > The installer for both have the same idiotic "you *must* create a fake
> > user or no login prompt for you!",
>
> If you're not making a local user, then you've probably got a network
> authentication
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016, at 05:43 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:48:23AM +, lejeczek wrote:
> >
> > I personally am just about to trial a migration from SL7 to Centos.
> > I'm thinking it's inevitable, am I wrong?
> >
>
> I tried both SL7 and CentOS7 (and I have CC7
Konstantin Olchanski writes:
> The installer for both have the same idiotic "you *must* create a fake
> user or no login prompt for you!",
If you're not making a local user, then you've probably got a network
authentication scheme.
In which case, you're probably deploying more than one machine.
I think we see two groups of people here, taking part in
this "exciting" debate.
One is, people who genuinely try to learn a bit about more
concrete plans Fermilab have(or don't have) for the future
of Scientificlinux - and they do it here on the list because
they can sroogle all over the Net
Hi there,
anyone who wants to go with centos, is free to do so, right? So just go and
do it and don't 'fuss' about it on SL mail list.
Thanks for the nice advice.
Would you have another one too? On which list should current SL users
ask/discuss about the short/long term plans regarding SL? A
Hi,
anyone who wants to go with centos, is free to do so, right? So just go
and do it and don't 'fuss' about it on SL mail list.
We all should be grateful for continuing support of Fermilab for SL builds.
--
*Karel Lang*
*Unix/Linux Administration*
l...@afd.cz | +420 731 13 40 40
AUFEER DESIG
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:48:23AM +, lejeczek wrote:
>
> I personally am just about to trial a migration from SL7 to Centos.
> I'm thinking it's inevitable, am I wrong?
>
I tried both SL7 and CentOS7 (and I have CC7 machines running at CERN).
The installer for both have the same idiotic "yo
On 12/01/16 20:30, Mark Stodola wrote:
Since this is becoming a top-post thread, I will continue
the trend.
CentOS does not offer a support contract like RHEL. Why
would a company compete with itself? It is essentially a
community supported release of RHEL, just like SL.
Of course, some o
On Jan 12, 2016, at 21:30 , Mark Stodola wrote:
> Since this is becoming a top-post thread, I will continue the trend.
And I'll break it, since your post is worthy ;-)
[...]
> This is not a new topic, and was discussed at length when RedHat announced
> the acquisition of CentOS and changes to
Since this is becoming a top-post thread, I will continue the trend.
CentOS does not offer a support contract like RHEL. Why would a company
compete with itself? It is essentially a community supported release of
RHEL, just like SL.
Of course, some one please correct me if I am wrong here..
Will you please stop trolling here. Thanks.
On Jan 12, 2016, at 21:04 , lejeczek wrote:
> hi,
> after my first post I made a move, I should say a smaller rather, I did
> migrate a small HA cluster from SL7.1 to Centos7.2.
> Instructions to do that I'm sure everybody can easily look up, just one
Has CentOS got support yet? My employer moved to RHEL because we got
tired of fighting third party vendors over their support on non-RHEL
platforms, but I personally always found SL to be more consistent and
quicker to release... and they had much better support.
On 01/12/2016 02:04 PM, lejecz
hi,
after my first post I made a move, I should say a smaller
rather, I did migrate a small HA cluster from SL7.1 to
Centos7.2.
Instructions to do that I'm sure everybody can easily look
up, just one tiny manual intervention was needed above what
is already covered by a doc on Centos website.
On 12 January 2016 at 08:29, Arthur H. Edwards wrote:
> I have made one move to SL-7, and it hasn't been great. I live behind a
> firewall that prevents me from raiding other RH-based repositories, so I
> lost xmgrace in the process. Also, I could never find something as
> simple as a periodic tab
owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
> on behalf of lejeczek
>
> Sent: January 12, 2016 5:15 AM
> To: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC- LINUX- USERS@ FNAL. GOV
> Subject: Re: AW: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing?
>
> There might be no need to be s
On 01/12/2016 04:09 PM, Tim Kanuka wrote:
We have just started our migration to SL7x. We did make the call on whether to
go with Centos or not for 7x. For me, the slightly greater ease of staying with
SL for the migration; the minimalist elegance of the the SL website and support
structure; an
5:15 AM
To: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC- LINUX- USERS@ FNAL. GOV
Subject: Re: AW: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing?
There might be no need to be sad, I think.
Simple principles should prevail - and if with such a change
we will get bigger user base, more developers working more
anuar 2016 10:48
An: SCIENTIFIC- LINUX- USERS@ FNAL. GOV
Betreff: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing?
hi everybody,
I've wondered and got curious, what do you guys, gals think
about that move?
More importantly do you think it's a step we SL users should
also conside
rv.fnal.gov [mailto:owner-
> scientific-linux-users@listserv.fnal.gov] Im Auftrag von lejeczek
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Januar 2016 10:48
> An: SCIENTIFIC- LINUX- USERS@ FNAL. GOV
> Betreff: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing?
>
> hi everybody,
>
> I'
hi everybody,
I've wondered and got curious, what do you guys, gals think
about that move?
More importantly do you think it's a step we SL users should
also consider?
CERN mention there were talks between them, Fermilab - what
are Fermilab plans with regards to future releases, with
regards t
33 matches
Mail list logo
