[CentOS-docs] Redoing FAQ
Hi, While I was interested to add some FAQ items regarding CentOS continuity/release frequency, I noticed that the FAQ didn't look all too well and the old TOC was seperately maintained from the content/titles. I changed this for the General FAQ and will do so for the other FAQs as well. You can see the difference between the old: http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General?action=recallrev=17 and the new http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General?action=recallrev=18 It is without any doubt much easier to manage and navigate. And it fixes some inconsistencies. -- -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Reorganising general CentOS FAQ
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Dag Wieers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I would like to reorganise the general CentOS FAQ. It now has 20 questions about a lot of different things that can be structure much better. I would like to add some questions, but lacking any structure... I would like to make a distinction between the following subjects: - General questions about the CentOS project Answers about what the project is about, why the project exists, who is involved in the project, what the relationship os to Red Hat - General questions about CentOS releases and updates Answers about the release versions, release frequency, continuity, sub-releases - General questions about CentOS additional packages and features Answers about repositories, packages, mp3 support Each general FAQ would of course point to the other FAQ documents to people can navigate to the others if they google to one of them. Is this something I can do ? Sounds like a good idea to me... There is a post to the CentOS forum that has some suggestions for the FAQ and also www.centos.org: http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=threadtopic_id=13232forum=18post_id=44844 Akemi ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Reorganising general CentOS FAQ
Dag Wieers wrote: - General questions about the CentOS project - General questions about CentOS releases and updates - General questions about CentOS additional packages and features Might be a good idea to perhaps check the mail lists and work out what questions get asked the most there, and then on the forums and general centos searches on google. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay for them all. How one could read that any other way is beyond me. The usual idea is that because its Free Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money. My wording of the above was poor. I in no way think that those people have a valid argument. I have just heard the argument enough times to recite it on the whole, you can't impose additional restrictions blah blah blah, without them understanding the fine 'line' of what that means or where it is enforced. If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights as specified in the contract. I mean, it is not against the law to by parts from Jim's hardware store ... but if John promises to give you a 30% discount if you sign an exclusivity deal that he provides all your parts, and then you still buy parts from Jim, you are violating the contract. If the contract that you signed specifies a penalty for violation, then you will incur the penalty. If you don't like the contract, use SUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora or CentOS or any number of other distros ... -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code. I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that You may not impose any further restrictions Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL. They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). But those things involve restrictions on the software. I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software. RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. You are free to give the source code to whoever you want. Your compilation/update service is not covered under the GPL and can restrict you as long as Red Hat gives you access to the software. It is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it. If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you can use their software without updates. It's not a matter of liking it or not, I just don't understand how someone can distribute software with a license that says as a condition of redistribution you can't impose further restrictions along with a required contract that imposes further restrictions - regardless of a tie-in with a subscription. Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they distribute their source code that CentOS can exist. No argument there, but restrictions are restrictions. No they aren't. In law, it all comes down to fine points that do not make sense in 'colloquial' language. It comes down to the classic stupid line of it depends upon your definition of 'is' It really does come down to what the license defines software to be, what it defines restrictions are, etc. And if the license does not clearly define it because it is using an existing precedent.. then it is dependant on that precedent where it is, when it is, etc. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights as specified in the contract. IANAL I don't think that is possible. According to the GPLv2: 4. You may not copy, modify, *sublicense*, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. *Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.* [...] 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. *You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein*. [...] (Emphasis added.) The GPL is very explicit that no further restrictions can be imposed on sources or binaries. So, I guess the Red Hat license as quoted by Johnny would void their rights to distribute the affected GPL software. As such, I can only conclude that the quoted Red Hat license applies to some non-GPL packages. -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions. -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). But those things involve restrictions on the software. I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software. I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a work, and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law? -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] md raid1 - no speed improvement
Hi, I have two 320 GB SATA disks (/dev/sda, /dev/sdb) in a server running CentOS release 5. They both have three partitions setup as RAID1 using md (boot, swap, and an LVM data partition). # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 104320 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 4192896 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0] 308271168 blocks [2/2] [UU] When I do tests though, I find that the md raid1 read performance is no better than either of the two disks on their own # hdparm -tT /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3 /dev/md2 /dev/sda3: Timing cached reads: 4160 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2080.92 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 234 MB in 3.02 seconds = 77.37 MB/sec /dev/sdb3: Timing cached reads: 4148 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2074.01 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 236 MB in 3.01 seconds = 78.46 MB/sec /dev/md2: Timing cached reads: 4128 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2064.04 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 230 MB in 3.02 seconds = 76.17 MB/sec If I fail and remove one of the disks in /dev/md2: # mdadm /dev/md2 -f /dev/sda3 # mdadm /dev/md2 -r /dev/sda3 # cat /proc/mdstat ... md2 : active raid1 sdb3[1] 308271168 blocks [2/1] [_U] # hdparm -tT /dev/md2 /dev/md2: Timing cached reads: 4184 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2092.65 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 240 MB in 3.01 seconds = 79.70 MB/sec So with only one disk in the array the performance is pretty much the same. At first I thought maybe the bottleneck is the SATA controller, but if I do simultaneous reads from both disks: # mkfifo /tmp/sync # cat /tmp/sync; hdparm -tT /dev/sda3 (and in another terminal, to make sure they start simultaneously) # /tmp/sync; hdparm -tT /dev/sdb3 /dev/sda3: Timing cached reads: 2248 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1123.83 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 234 MB in 3.00 seconds = 77.91 MB/sec /dev/sdb3: Timing cached reads: 2248 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1123.74 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 236 MB in 3.01 seconds = 78.30 MB/sec So the total cached read bandwidth seems limited to about 2250 MB/s, which is slightly higher than the cache read bandwidth for /dev/md2, but I'm not too worried about that. More concerning is that I am still getting ~80MB/s from each disk simultaneously on the buffered reads. Given this I would expect /dev/md2 to give buffered read speeds of at least 120MB/s (if not 150MB/s). What can I do to track down this issue? Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks, Kieran Clancy. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] md raid1 - no speed improvement
Kieran Clancy wrote: When I do tests though, I find that the md raid1 read performance is no better than either of the two disks on their own Why should RAID1 be faster than writing to/reading from a single disc? You are *mirroring* each write to another disk, so I'd even expect it to be slower. Ralph pgpYu01w4tf8Q.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions. Not at all ... You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed. And in this case, you have signed an agreement on exactly HOW you compensate them for the use of their software. The issue is NOT how you use the software at all ... the issue is HOW MUCH YOU WILL PAY RED HAT WHILE YOU DO USE THE SOFTWARE. You are free to use the software on as many machines as you want, just like debain or CentOS or OpenSUSE. The only thing is, if you use software provided by Red Hat (via RHN), you have signed an agreement that you will pay them a subscription fee on that computer. So, yes, you can use the software ... you just must pay them. NOW, if you modify the software and meet their terms for Redistribution (with regards to the packages that they require changing) ... and if you did not get the software from RHN, but instead from their public FTP server (the sources) and rebuilt the packages, then you would not need to pay them. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] md raid1 - no speed improvement
On Sunday 23 March 2008 7:11:41 am Kieran Clancy wrote: [snip] So the total cached read bandwidth seems limited to about 2250 MB/s, which is slightly higher than the cache read bandwidth for /dev/md2, but I'm not too worried about that. More concerning is that I am still getting ~80MB/s from each disk simultaneously on the buffered reads. Given this I would expect /dev/md2 to give buffered read speeds of at least 120MB/s (if not 150MB/s). The value of RAID 1 isn't speed. it's fault tolerance. I would expect what you're seeing, a slight performance *loss* (relative to a single disk) due to the additional overhead of the RAID management. http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/Quick_HOWTO_:_Ch26_:_Linux_Software_RAID#RAID_1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). But those things involve restrictions on the software. I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software. I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a work, and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK. Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions. Not at all ... You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed. True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork. -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a work, and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: CentOS Digest, Vol 38, Issue 23
Ann, Actually I had to add read / execute permissions to the aliases.db to stop the error messages. I'd just like to know what clamav is doing to it or why it needs to read it. I installed the clamav with yum but for some reason it does not know it's in there. How to fix? Sam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] md raid1 - no speed improvement
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Kieran Clancy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have two 320 GB SATA disks (/dev/sda, /dev/sdb) in a server running CentOS release 5. They both have three partitions setup as RAID1 using md (boot, swap, and an LVM data partition). snip When I do tests though, I find that the md raid1 read performance is no better than either of the two disks on their own snip Thanks, Kieran Clancy. As a few already pointed out, RAID 1 is mirroring. So whatever gets written to the first drive also gets written to the second drive as well. It provides redundancy, not performance. I've used RAID 5 in the past to achieve performance with redundancy. But of course it has to be stripped across drives and not partitions. I saw a case where someone implemented RAID 1 by partitioning the drive into two and setting up the two partitions as RAID 1. So drive performance took a drastic nose dive and redundancy was practically worthless as the mirror resided on the same drive. With only two drives, your options are RAID 0 or RAID 1 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels). RAID 0 will cause the two drives to be treated as one big drive (or each combination of partitions to be treated as larger partitions). The data would be stripped across the two drives (for each respective partition) which would give you a performance increase. However there would be no fault tolerance. If something crashed, your data is gone. And data recovery on a RAID where the data is stripped across drives is no easy task vs a standalone drive. So if redundancy is an important factor you will want a good backup system in lieu of another RAID level which offers fault tolerance. Jacques B. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently. -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ClamAV and aliases.db
On Sunday 23 March 2008 12:36, Sam Drinkard wrote: Ann, Actually I had to add read / execute permissions to the aliases.db to stop the error messages. I'd just like to know what clamav is doing to it or why it needs to read it. I installed the clamav with yum but for some reason it does not know it's in there. How to fix? Have you (as root) run 'updatedb'? What's the (top half) output of 'rpm -qi clamav'? Also, list your permissions on aliases.db - ls -l /etc/aliases.db -rw-r- 1 root smmsp 12288 Mar 20 11:54 /etc/aliases.db And PLEASE, change the subject line to something more descriptive of your problem. You may need to be more specific than my attempt. Anne ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions. Not at all ... You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed. True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork. The FSF has said RHEL meets the requirements if the GPL. Also this is from the FSF FAQ on the GPL: === Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site? Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. === If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. = But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy. You also brought up the redhat-logos rpm, with is NOT GPL. That particular RPM is required for system operation and they certainly can charge for each copy of that rpm that is run. Of course, just using CentOS (or Scientific Linux, WBEL) will free you up from that payment issue anyway :D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently. And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow. That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to be original to qualify for copyright. Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't. Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with bzip2 constitutes a new work ;). -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 08:57 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently. And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow. Before anyone tears this apart *too* hard, I would like to apologize for misrepresenting myself. I am not a lawyer, therefore I should have said that this was only my opinion. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy. Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if you retrieve a copy of GPL'ed software from RHN, you are allowed to redistribute it according the terms of the GPL. You also brought up the redhat-logos rpm, with is NOT GPL. That particular RPM is required for system operation and they certainly can charge for each copy of that rpm that is run. True, as I have stated in my previous e-mail. Of course, just using CentOS (or Scientific Linux, WBEL) will free you up from that payment issue anyway :D Yes :). Making RHEL piracy kinda pointless ;). -- Daniel ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently. And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow. That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to be original to qualify for copyright. How is a rpm package signature not original? It's dependent on a number of factors, not all of which are publicly accessible (e.g., the private signing key), and some of which are variable (e.g., the build time). Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't. Nor does pushing the button on a digital camera, and yet Flickr is filled with the results of that non-effort. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that anyone challenging the license of that non-effort would likely be laughed out of court. Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with bzip2 constitutes a new work ;). Or a derivative of the original work. But adding a signature to an already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the contents of the package. (Once again, IANAL) -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 09:36 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: But adding a signature to an already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the contents of the package. Argh, no, it could. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
yOn Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy. Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if you retrieve a copy of GPL'ed software from RHN, you are allowed to redistribute it according the terms of the GPL. Right, and because of that I think it is perfectly technically possible to redistribute the existing binaries with the Red Hat trademark removed. That would be almost the same as what CentOS is doing, except that you have exactly the same binaries and libraries. (However, for some packages that is going to be very hard to do) The GPL allows that, but Red Hat can break your contract to retrieve these binary updates in the future, so you are kinda stuck. FWIW if you are in a position that you need RHEL (and CentOS is not a replacement) then you most likely also need the support (read: fixing bugs) from Red Hat, or support from your application vendor, or a guaranteed certified OS. If all that is important, the price is not the problem. Some of these points are being made in the business presentation on the wiki at: http://wiki.centos.org/Events/Presentations -- -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Johnny Hughes wrote: copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK. Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN. By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] md raid1 - no speed improvement
Steve Snyder wrote: On Sunday 23 March 2008 7:11:41 am Kieran Clancy wrote: [snip] So the total cached read bandwidth seems limited to about 2250 MB/s, which is slightly higher than the cache read bandwidth for /dev/md2, but I'm not too worried about that. More concerning is that I am still getting ~80MB/s from each disk simultaneously on the buffered reads. Given this I would expect /dev/md2 to give buffered read speeds of at least 120MB/s (if not 150MB/s). The value of RAID 1 isn't speed. it's fault tolerance. I would expect what you're seeing, a slight performance *loss* (relative to a single disk) due to the additional overhead of the RAID management. http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/Quick_HOWTO_:_Ch26_:_Linux_Software_RAID#RAID_1 Raid1 is supposed to let the disks read independently but I'm not sure if it works that way when there is only a single read happening. I'd expect a bigger difference when reading many small files simultaneously and the drive with the head nearest to the right place is used for each access. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RE: [CentOS] Un Installing a hard drive in a Centos 5.1 box
OK when you say livecd, do you mean the Centos 5.1 distro disks? I have a full set of them, a 7 disk set I got from Linux Central. Can I just boot off disk 1 from my set? LiveCD as in the livecd: eg : http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.1/isos/i386/CentOS-5.1-i386-LiveCD.iso ...or, if I left the install the way it is now, are there any dis advantages of leaving the file system the way it is - spread over two hard drives? nope, just that if you loose one drive, you loose everything ( potentially ) on the entire filesystem Should just get another hard drive and back it up the way it is? Would ther be any problems with my backup if left the way it is? Both those should be fine Or ahould I just do a complete re install of the OS after backing up my data... What do you reccomend -leave it as is, re configure it, or re install it? I'd recommend you spend the time in learning about lvm and resize the filesystem down to one drive, LVM does take about 2 - 3 hours to work out, but once you do work it out - its fantastic and something that makes Linux really worthwhile :D but that is my personal opinion, you should still do whatever you feel like - it is, after all, a free world :D Hi there, I downloaded and burned the LiveCD, and am able to boot off ot it, at least I got off to a start! You mentioned a few days ago the LVM HowTo - Is this what you were talking about: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/ ? Or did you mean someplace on the Centos site? I'm going through the other URL you posted - http://www.centos.org/docs/5/, have not found anything specifically titled lvm how to yet. Also I tried booting off of LiveCD and got the below warning, wondered if you could give me a clue as to where to start: Warning: Cannot Find Root File System! Create symlin /dev/root and then exit this shell to continue the boot sequence. Bash: No job control in this shell bash-3.1# _ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-USocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] C5 krb5 updates do not get applied
Hi, the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror servers, but yum update shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4 were installed on all of my Centos 4 servers without any problem. Does somebody have any idea what could cause the problem on Centos 5? Thanks in advance, Bernd. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C5 krb5 updates do not get applied
Bernd Bartmann wrote: Hi, the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror servers, but yum update shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4 were installed on all of my Centos 4 servers without any problem. Does somebody have any idea what could cause the problem on Centos 5? I am just looking into the issue. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Daniel de Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel de Kok wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions. Not at all ... You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed. True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork. You can argue this as much as you want... and if you pay enough money to some lawyer they will agree with you on that. However, most lawyers including the ones at the FSF do not agree. The purchaser got into a service contract with Red Hat that Red Hat would offer the purchaser compiled versions of the product. That contract also says that they will pay Red Hat for every copy of the compiled executable installed. They can give that executable to someone else, but they are supposed to pay Red Hat for those copies also. These are not seen as restrictions of rights on the user by the FSF because you have the main thing the FSF wants you to have: The Source Code. And the contract does not restrict your rights to edit, recompile, or redistribute the source code. It even doesn't restrict you from redistributing the binaries. You just promised you would pay for every copy which is not considered a 'legal' restriction on your rights. If you do not pay them, they have the right to require you to remove those executables because you broke your contract with them. Again as far as contractual law and the FSF faq's.. this is NOT an abridgment of the rights that the GPL gives you and thus legal/ However, as with all things dealing with legal: GET A LAWYER This is not binding legal advice. I am not a lawyer, do not want to be a lawyer, and while my explanations were given to me by non-RH lawyers several years ago.. I may have forgotten important pieces not worded it in a way that is legally sound etc. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Johnny Hughes wrote: copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK. Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN. By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions? It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it. Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions. If you don't want to do that, then you need to get your linux from some place else. I thought if you didn't follow the terms of the GPL you couldn't redistribute at all. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK. Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN. By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions? It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it. Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions. Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't. Beyond that, we will just have to disagree. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: copyright law? Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently. So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK. Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN. By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions? It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it. Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions. Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't. They may seem like two different things, but they aren't if one is required as a condition of the other. I'm sure a lawyer could be paid to take either side on this issue if you felt like paying a lawyer. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: C5 krb5 updates do not get applied
Karanbir Singh wrote: Bernd Bartmann wrote: Hi, the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror servers, but yum update shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4 were installed on all of my Centos 4 servers without any problem. Does somebody have any idea what could cause the problem on Centos 5? I am just looking into the issue. Apparently a problem with the repositories, not the RPMs. If I manually download the RPMs, then yum localinstall ... does the update correctly. -- Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Health Monitoring
Hey, I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min to 5 mins. I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and cpu spikes. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Health Monitoring
Hey, I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min to 5 mins. I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and cpu spikes. How about sar? It is part of the sysstat rpm. Barry ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Health Monitoring
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ed Donahue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min to 5 mins. I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and cpu spikes. Cacti will do this, and generate nice pretty graphs via rrdtool for you. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Health Monitoring
sar and iostat are perfect, thanks! yum install sysstat Ed On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Barry Brimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min to 5 mins. I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and cpu spikes. How about sar? It is part of the sysstat rpm. Barry ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Xen or VMWARE on CentOS 5
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote: Ern jura wrote: Does anyone out there have a comprehensive tutorial on installing VMware and successfully managing virtual machines with either xen or vmware? VMware is pretty simple: download the server rpm, install it, run the vmware-config.pl setup script to set the options and install your (free) license key. Then run vmware locally or from some other machine to access the console where you can create and start the virtual machines. Once created, you can treat the virtual machines like they were separate physical boxes except that they contend for host resources (and once they are up on the network I prefer to connect directly to them with ssh, X, freenx, or vnc instead of using the VMware console. You'll want plenty of RAM on the host machine and if you run several VM's they will perform better if you can spread them over different disk drives. I just started playing with VMware-server-1.0.5-80187 on a 64-bit CentOS 5 system system, and am having some issues with the hotkey switching. Running the vmware-server-console via an ssh connection from a PPC Mac Mini, it doesn't recognize the ctrl-alt sequences, which isn't totally surprising as I'm using a PS/2 Microsoft Natural keyboard on a KVM switch with a USB-PS/2 adapter. When I try running it directly on the CentOS system's console through the same KVM switch, it doesn't respond either. I have installed SCO Openserver 5.0.6a on a virtual image, and that seems to be working OK (my primary object now with VMware is to have a fall-back when customer's OSR5 system's hardware goes south). I have had at least one situation where it didn't recognize the CTRL-RightButton sequence in an xterm running on the OSR5 image. This is a CentOS 5 system with ``yum update'' reporting that everything is current. The system has 2GB RAM. uname -a returns: Linux atramax2.mi.celestial.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4400 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 2 cpu MHz : 1999.939 cache size : 2048 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips: 4002.81 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4400 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 2 cpu MHz : 1999.939 cache size : 2048 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips: 3999.96 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 Once at a social gathering, Gladstone said to Disraeli, I predict, Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease. Disraeli replied, That all depends upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
