Re: [CentOS] Is Oracle a real alternative to Centos?
> On Dec 16, 2020, at 6:42 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Matti Pulkkinen" > >> As someone who is considering moving to OL, I wonder if you could elaborate >> clearly on what specific concerns you have, without the insinuation and >> analogy? Oracle's proposition [1] seems pretty straightforward to me. >> > That they'' eventually treat it to the same lawyers who've changed Java > licensing. I would second that. Basically, Oracle has some reputation. But those who consider it insinuations may have chance to learn what can happen on their own hide. Valeri >> > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Oracle a real alternative to Centos?
-- Original Message -- From: "Matti Pulkkinen" As someone who is considering moving to OL, I wonder if you could elaborate clearly on what specific concerns you have, without the insinuation and analogy? Oracle's proposition [1] seems pretty straightforward to me. That they'' eventually treat it to the same lawyers who've changed Java licensing. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
Hi Johnny, > $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take into > account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now multiply > that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all over > the world, different countries, different laws. > > .. THEN buy 30 machines minimum (servers, not workstations) for > building and testing, buy a service contract for those 30 machines, host > the bandwidth required to sync out to 600 worldwide servers. > > We need all the CI machines .. that is a bunch of blade servers for > that. They need service contacts too. I don't doubt your numbers, they sound perfectly reasonable to me. On the other hand: How many of the employees will be laid off or reallocated now that CentOS point releases are no longer published? How many of the servers will be shut down, how many service contracts will be cancelled? What's your estimate of the reduction in bandwidth that will be saved by replacing point releases by a stream of releases with more frequent updates? > In any event it doesn't matter. The decision is made. If people don't > want to use CentOS Stream, then don't. The decision is not changing. Too bad. I've just completed a migration of about 30 servers from CentOS 6 to CentOS 8, expecting to get another 9 years of lifetime out of that (substantial) work. Now I have one year left of that, in which I need to plan what to do. One option is to go with the flow and switch to Stream, but I must admit that it's not my favourite one. Rocky, Lenix or maybe Springsdale would be the next best guesses. But given the fact that I migrated the whole setup process to Ansible it might be a good idea to jump off the cliff and switch to Debian or FreeBSD. As I said, I have one year left which I plan to use for evaluation of options. Two of my big customers will definitely not have that range of options. One of them is a RHEL shop with a tendency to try Debian, and last week they strongly thought about leaving the RHEL space entirely. The FOSS team there had made substantial effort over the last year to get CentOS on the list of company-approved operating systems (currently that's only RHEL and Debian), and now that work has gone down the drain completely. You can imagine how they feel now. The other one is stuck with RHEL-based distributions (Oracle, you know) - but they consider switching to OEL with support as well. At least they'll get rid of the hassle with the RHN that way, which can be a pain in the backside. I doubt those two are the only ones. My guess is this decision will backfire big time. I would love to stand corrected in one year's time, because I really like the RHEL way of doing things. Or rather, I liked it. Until last week. Still a great set of products, but the trustworthiness of Red Hat has taken a big hit for me, and for my customers as well. Anyway, thank you and the rest of the CentOS team for all the great work you've done and are doing. It is appreciated, and it will not be forgotten. Peter. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-devel] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
-- Original Message -- From: "Rainer Duffner" So, you will quickly be back to square one, unless you want to run stuff like Debian or Ubuntu, which are mainly Linux-kernel+some stuff nowadays, whereas RHEL + CentOS forms a complete system (with additional software that RedHat has developed or acquired over the years). Been reading along and literally laughed out loud at this silliness. The vast majority of that "system" was unavailable to CentOS, always, and WAS the "compromise" in running it. Stuff like beating your head against getting Satellite running, or realizing RH hid away the meta-data from CentOS users to know what a security update was, versus a feature or bugfix, which went against what RHEL itself was SUPPOSED to do, but never really did... and couldn't control massive upstream ABI, API, or feature changes throughout the lifespan of the promised "support", even for paid RHEL. This is definitely not true for most CentOS users and is hilarious. What "system"? It NEVER existed on CentOS. Can't even get patch management software to mesh up verion numbers between RHEL and CentOS. We "put up with it all" for exactly one reason. It was a binary compatible re-spin of RHEL without closed/proprietary things. That's it. The rest is just noise. If it isn't a re-spin anymore... well, we'll "put up with" other oddities of projects that don't reverse their multi-year commitments to support things, and even stop having to "fight" with years-old packages. The IT world wants "rolling" OSes and perma-garbage always-broken releases today, apparently. Our first company meeting about who we dump CentOS for was this morning. Flipping architectures is a year long project at least, so we're out. Didn't announce alternatives THE DAY IT WAS KILLED, we can't be bothered anymore. We literally don't have the time with piles of other commerical and cloud services following suit and capitalizing on WFH and everything else about Covid. We already literally have to "fire" our firewall/VPN vendor for doing it, we're extremely annoyed with both Google and Microsoft and their changes, and we already have the continuous nightmare of literally EVERYONE releasing so many critical security bugs constantly and patching ramping toward daily... that everybody who makes that harder is flipped the bird and summarily tossed. The good news: Covid business model changes at least highlighted who we're firing faster than any hemming and hawing as things deteriorate for years on any platform we use. Whoever is reaching into our (not very deep) pockets will lose a hand this year, we have lost our patience for it. RH and the so-called "CentOS Board" (majority of RedHat people) lost touch with what companies are already going through with multiple vendors bumping prices and lowering services. Flipping distros will ultimately seem tame this year for corporate users. We may have to switch entire cloud platforms and services to avoid the ultra-greedy companies. But annoy us this year, we have zero patience. We're done with it. DUMP. BYE. You ticked us off in a long line of companies we have doing that. Horrible timing for RH, but they'll survive on government graft and large contracts. Go Big Blue. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
On 12/16/20 12:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 12/16/20 10:50 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. Because they >> want to do the development in the community. The current process of >> RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is that simple. > Johnny, let me say first of all thanks for these years of hard work. I > for one am grateful for your continued and dogged pursuit of what must > be a mostly thankless task. Thanks for the explanations from your point > of view of this transition, too. > > Having said that, I believe that in terms of RHEL development and > transparency that CentOS Stream will be a very big win. With working > resolutions to the 'unsupported by Red Hat but not third-party > out-of-tree driver kABI breaks frequently' and 'third-party out-of-tree > hardware driver kABI breaks frequently' issues I'm sure it can be a very > usable system for what I need CentOS for. And it will be very nice to > be able to have actual feedback that might actually make a difference in > the development of each next point release. That will work nicely for > my main daily driver laptop. Maybe or maybe not for my servers; that > has yet to be seen. > > But as I posted in my reply to Mike McGrath, Red Hat's reneging on the > September 24, 2019 statement that "nothing changes" for CentOS, > especially CentOS 8, still smarts. A lot. (I know it must be worse for > you and the other devs.) > Hi Lamar, glad to interact w/ you on the list. We both have been doing this for a long time. I was not thrilled about this decision and it would not have been the one made if things were up to me alone. Obviously they are not. I did support the issue from the perspective of the CentOS Board. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions in life. Many times, one wishes for another option. I do think I chose the best option available. It is very depressing to me that something I love (CentOS Linux) is going away and being replaced. I would wish for a different way. But I know that this decision is final. As always. I will do my absolute best to make any CentOS Project offering the best it can possibly be. I therefore will give my absolute all to CentOS Stream and do what I can to make it work for as many people as possible. Also, Red Hat is working on lower cost (and sometimes even free) scenarios for current CentOS users for thigns they may not have though of. People can contact (via email) centos-questi...@redhat.com This is not a list for sales leads .. it is a list to help CentOS users. Anyone can use it to see if they qualify for one of the upcoming ways to RHEL. I don't personally know anything about that list. Other than it is one of the things the CentOS Board negotiated for before our vote. Thanks, Johnny Hughes ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS advisories for 8 release
On 12/16/20 3:28 PM, Olivier Bonhomme wrote: >> Hi Olivier, >> >> this question got several answers. Since C8 was release updates on >> announces ML are not available because the tool that provides >> notification does not work with the new tool that is used to build >> packages. >> >> Actually I use RHEL advisory, but this require a RH account (not >> subscription). >> >> I asked some days ago and I got this answer: >> >> Start Quote: >> >> As I understand some kind of mapping must be implemented >> for indexcode+gitcommitid beetween CentOS and RH ... >> >> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2020-August/351263.html >> >> End Quote: >> >> So seems that something boils in the pot. We must only wait. >> >> My 2 Cents >> > > Hello Alessandro, > > Thanks for your answer. Actually my question was about more 8-Stream. > Sorry. I think my message was not clear. > > I knew that for CentOS 8, we have to wait but it was before the > transition between 8 and stream. > > So I'm now actually worried for the future. I think it's important to > have security advisories for a distribution. All the main distributions > have a security team and I always found that it was a lack for CentOS > even if of course we could use the RedHat advisories. > > CentOS Stream is a big change and something very different so I would > love to know if advisoires publications will be part of that new project. > I doubt very seriously that there will be announcements for security issues. At least I know of no plans to do so for Stream. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS advisories for 8 release
Hi Olivier, this question got several answers. Since C8 was release updates on announces ML are not available because the tool that provides notification does not work with the new tool that is used to build packages. Actually I use RHEL advisory, but this require a RH account (not subscription). I asked some days ago and I got this answer: Start Quote: As I understand some kind of mapping must be implemented for indexcode+gitcommitid beetween CentOS and RH ... https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2020-August/351263.html End Quote: So seems that something boils in the pot. We must only wait. My 2 Cents Hello Alessandro, Thanks for your answer. Actually my question was about more 8-Stream. Sorry. I think my message was not clear. I knew that for CentOS 8, we have to wait but it was before the transition between 8 and stream. So I'm now actually worried for the future. I think it's important to have security advisories for a distribution. All the main distributions have a security team and I always found that it was a lack for CentOS even if of course we could use the RedHat advisories. CentOS Stream is a big change and something very different so I would love to know if advisoires publications will be part of that new project. Thanks for your answers Regards, Olivier ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Software raid Oddity
I had an issue similar to this years ago where I helped out a former employer on a Dell Poweredge System with a RAID 5 array (Windows). The system Refused to Boot, but there were lights on the front of the backplane were the drives slid in, indicating drive fault (amber) or drive ok (green). One of the tests I did was I re-arranged the drives where they were inserted into the backplane. When I did that the same lights (slots) went amber after re-arranging the drives. The problem wasn't the drives at all, the problem was the controller card going bad. The IT guy that was there full time ended up shipping the drives off to a recovery service depo, and they recovered the data there, no problem. When I worked for Sage we had SCSI RAID Controller cards that had similar functions, where the RAID card config was backed up in the drives, and the Drive configuration was stored in the RAID controller, so they backed up the config of each other. In the event of a failure of the controller card, the same model card could be put back into the system, and the config data pulled off the recovery location in the drives, then the system was back up and going again. Perhaps that is what's happening to your system. I would take several full bare metal backups right now (and test restore the data onto a new system) there may be looming hardware failure around the corner. Chris On 12/16/2020 3:10 PM, Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:57:13 -0700 Paul R. Ganci via CentOS wrote: My gut suggests that the raid array was never degraded and that my system (i.e. cat /proc/mdstat) was lying to me. Any Opinions? I wonder if it's a ram failure in either the main computer or the drive controller. An intermittent ram failure (or cold solder joint or something equally hard to track down) could cause all manner of un-repeatable weirdness. -- Christopher Wensink IS Administrator Five Star Plastics, Inc 1339 Continental Drive Eau Claire, WI 54701 Office: 715-831-1682 Mobile: 715-563-3112 Fax: 715-831-6075 cwens...@five-star-plastics.com www.five-star-plastics.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Software raid Oddity
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:57:13 -0700 Paul R. Ganci via CentOS wrote: > My gut suggests that the raid array was never degraded and that my > system (i.e. cat /proc/mdstat) was lying to me. Any Opinions? I wonder if it's a ram failure in either the main computer or the drive controller. An intermittent ram failure (or cold solder joint or something equally hard to track down) could cause all manner of un-repeatable weirdness. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:11 PM Lamar Owen wrote: > > For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat > > provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for > > free, BUT you can have only have one license. > Yes, which makes it a bit difficult to mess around with kubernetes. That > particular case would be covered resonably well by CentOS Stream, > though, since the major part of kubernetes' behavior isn't going to > change radically within a point release cycle. > UBI should be used with k8s, not a full OS install. It has a fully free to use license. https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/ubi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Software raid Oddity
I have a CentOS 7.9 system with a software raid 6 root partition. Today something very strange occurred. At 6:45AM the system crashed. I rebooted and when the system came up I had multiple emails indicating that 3 out of 6 drives had failed on the root partition. Strangely I was able to boot into the system and everything was working correctly despite > cat /proc/mdstat also indicating 3 out of 6 drives had failed. Since the system was up and running despite the fact more than 2 drives had failed in the root raid array I decided to reboot the system. Actually I shut it down, waited for the drives to spin down and then restarted. This time when it came back the 3 missing drives were back in the array and a cat /proc/mdstat indicated all 6 drives were again in the raid 6 array. So a few questions: 1.) If 3 our of 6 drives of a raid 6 array supposedly fail, how does the array still function? 2.) Why would a shutdown/restart sequence supposedly fix the array? 3.) My gut suggests that the raid array was never degraded and that my system (i.e. cat /proc/mdstat) was lying to me. Any Opinions? Has anybody else ever seen such strange behavior? -- Paul (ga...@nurdog.com) Cell: (303)257-5208 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 09:50:43AM +0100, Mathieu Baudier wrote: > I guess that all these "side projects" (and SIGs, etc.) will disappear as > well, won't they? The FAQ on this isn't super-helpful, unfortunately (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-centos-stream-updates#Q7) That said, I don't see why these things couldn't continue based on Stream. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead
On 12/16/2020 12:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 12/14/20 10:54 AM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: The article states that CentOS will now be "upstream" of RHEL instead of "downstream". This is strange to me. I never thought CentOS was upstream or downstream of RHEL; I always thought it *was* RHEL -- perhaps a little delayed, but that's not the same as being "downstream". CentOS has always been 'downstream' of RHEL. The CentOS team rebuilt the source packages with the goal of getting as close as possible to what RHEL shipped, but it has never been 100% identical. You can do the same by pulling all of the package contents from git.centos.org and build the sources in the correct order with the correct software and the correct options to rpmbuild. Building from git.centos.org is not really hard at all; what is hard is figuring out the order and figuring out the other bits you might need that aren't necessarily on git.centos.org. Building from git is documented at https://wiki.centos.org/Sources?highlight=(git.centos.org) and you can look at an example of how I rebuilt a CentOS 8 RPM to get a non-distributed subpackage rebuilt at https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.php?f=54=73376=314200#p314200 CentOS has never *been* actual RHEL. It's also clear that Red Hat didn't understand the importance of the 10-year support period. If they didn't understand it, they wouldn't offer it for RHEL. They just believe that if you need that you should pay something for it. Yes and no. Yes, in a sense that RedHat always meticulously followed requirements of GPL, and was putting sources of their "derivative" work of backporting as srpms. And "paid" meant putting effort into correctly rebuilding everything, so yes, what we used (roughly called "binary replica" if RHEL) in fact was paid by downstream vendors' efforts. No, in a sense, RedHat never had, and shouldn't have been expecting being paid for just following GPL letter and having source RPMs freely available. A always praised them for always following GPL. With utmost respect, And fully agreeing with the rest of your post, Valeri A 10-year support lifespan, even doing a straight rebuild of the packages from RHEL, has a huge cost, and someone has to pay those costs. Should Red Hat's paying customer base subsidize those costs? (if you say 'Red Hat should pay for it' that actually means you think Red Hat's paying customers should pay for it, because that's where Red Hat's money comes from). In the case of Oracle Linux, Oracle has decided that yes, their paying support customers should subsidize the cost for those who aren't paying. Someone, somewhere, must pay the costs; in a volunteer project the volunteers typically pay the labor cost themselves, and in many cases pay the cost of the compute hardware, bandwidth, and electricity required; these are not small costs, and someone, somewhere, must pay them. If the costs aren't adequately covered, the project's deliverables suffer, and users complain. It really just boils down to a cost without a tangible return on investment. It remains to be seen if the intangible ROI was as large as the vocal reaction to the transition announcement would imply. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead
On 12/14/20 10:54 AM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: The article states that CentOS will now be "upstream" of RHEL instead of "downstream". This is strange to me. I never thought CentOS was upstream or downstream of RHEL; I always thought it *was* RHEL -- perhaps a little delayed, but that's not the same as being "downstream". CentOS has always been 'downstream' of RHEL. The CentOS team rebuilt the source packages with the goal of getting as close as possible to what RHEL shipped, but it has never been 100% identical. You can do the same by pulling all of the package contents from git.centos.org and build the sources in the correct order with the correct software and the correct options to rpmbuild. Building from git.centos.org is not really hard at all; what is hard is figuring out the order and figuring out the other bits you might need that aren't necessarily on git.centos.org. Building from git is documented at https://wiki.centos.org/Sources?highlight=(git.centos.org) and you can look at an example of how I rebuilt a CentOS 8 RPM to get a non-distributed subpackage rebuilt at https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.php?f=54=73376=314200#p314200 CentOS has never *been* actual RHEL. It's also clear that Red Hat didn't understand the importance of the 10-year support period. If they didn't understand it, they wouldn't offer it for RHEL. They just believe that if you need that you should pay something for it. A 10-year support lifespan, even doing a straight rebuild of the packages from RHEL, has a huge cost, and someone has to pay those costs. Should Red Hat's paying customer base subsidize those costs? (if you say 'Red Hat should pay for it' that actually means you think Red Hat's paying customers should pay for it, because that's where Red Hat's money comes from). In the case of Oracle Linux, Oracle has decided that yes, their paying support customers should subsidize the cost for those who aren't paying. Someone, somewhere, must pay the costs; in a volunteer project the volunteers typically pay the labor cost themselves, and in many cases pay the cost of the compute hardware, bandwidth, and electricity required; these are not small costs, and someone, somewhere, must pay them. If the costs aren't adequately covered, the project's deliverables suffer, and users complain. It really just boils down to a cost without a tangible return on investment. It remains to be seen if the intangible ROI was as large as the vocal reaction to the transition announcement would imply. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead
On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > Even out side the maintenance phase .. there will be some bugs that will > get incorporated into the next point release. Those should be in Stream > first. > > There will never be another 'downstream rhel source code build' done by > Red Hat. This is just not in the cards. Yes, but the ones that were in the "current" point release were in Stream earlier, right? Is it really that hard to just label them as such (and maybe not delete them from the repo) ? Noam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 7:13 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 12/16/20 12:55 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >> Off-topic: >> >> On 12/16/20 4:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> 2.) The enthusiasts who were building their own machines from parts. >>> That group is small, but they also tend to be very vocal; IT >>> professionals often fall into this group, and MS wanted to keep them >>> happy for all the reasons previously posted. >> In less developed countries PC's are sold without any software, even >> laptops. ... >> Since it is illegal to install pirated software, PC resellers are not >> allowed to preinstall pirated software, but no one can prevent them to >> sell it without any OS/software on it, so 70-80% of PC's sold in Serbia >> are sold without it. Similar is in many countries outside of "Western >> countries". > It is certainly different in different countries; I can only speak for > what I see in my own area. I don't see a lot of new PCs sold without > some license of some kind; Dell Precision workstations and PowerEdge > servers are available with Linux preinstalled, and PowerEdge servers can > be purchased without any OS. Most PC manufacturers here have deals with > Microsoft to prevent them selling PCs without OS. That is because MS had deal with Intel that every x86 chip already had bundled "MS DOS" and large companies that sell PC's formed in 1980-1990's. Before ~1990 only way to buy PC in Yugoslavia/Serbia was "smuggle" it (individual could legally bring parts into the country up to certain amount of money, so several people had to travel and bring in separate parts, share/pool the money limit) from Austria and Germany. Software would be bought Austria/Germany but then cloned for free since there was no one to enforce laws from USA. After brake up of Yugoslavia, sanctions were introduced that prevented legal import so PC clones were imports from Asia and profit-driven software pirates rose up, charging only small amount of fee for cloning/copying service rendered. So everyone learned that pirated software is "safe" and after few decades of very low incomes and cheep hardware, all large PC shops grew from small "assemble parts and install pirated software"businesses and good luck in teaching population software has to be paid for when it is 40%+ of price of hardware. Only way to not use pirated software and not be considered a moron for wasting hard earned money is FOSS, free Linux, then you are *forced* to use Libre Office, Gimp, Inkscape. Then you are considered only a weirdo, eccentric... It does not help that any banking software is Windows only and any document that comes from govt is made in MS Office and always have some small but important compatibility issues. That is why I bought laptop with bundled Windows and dualbooted CentOS, so I can legally run Windows VM for banking software... :-( -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 11:24 AM, John Plemons wrote: I have a DEC Alpha sitting in my warehouse collecting dust what a great machine it was.. Was sorry to see Linux Support die for it.. I used to work at a university, where one of my colleagues has (I think he still has it) a pdp11/10 You know, paper tape, an actual TTY (also paper). Every so much time he needs to replace capacitors, and sees if he can fire it up, and shows students how to program it.(no Linux for it I think, haha) john On 12/16/2020 1:18 PM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 11:10 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 12/16/20 11:24 AM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 8:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. Well yes it is, but it started with a remark about licensing. I don't use Windows much, not even a handful of times in the last decade. Thing is that MS has something called their "Developers Network" (named something along those lines). If you're in higher education, R etc you can be in that network, in sortof an R category, for 'free'. ... I have a whole shelf full of MSDN CDs and binders; it wasn't free, but it wasn't terribly expensive either. In some cases the activations/keys for the software expire after a few months. Still have the last Windows 2000 Beta CD for the DEC Alpha architecture DEC remember that.. the other day I ran into a windows 95 box, I might even have an old drive with windows for work groups *lol* here in that set. Something similar for RHEL beyond the single-entitlement developer subscription would be cool. But all kidding aside; It would be cool to have an MSDN equivalent for RH for those that do a lot with RH, and that "take their work home and vice versa". That is what I use(d) Centos for, at home that is For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for free, BUT you can have only have one license. Yes, which makes it a bit difficult to mess around with kubernetes. That particular case would be covered resonably well by CentOS Stream, though, since the major part of kubernetes' behavior isn't going to change radically within a point release cycle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
On 12/16/20 10:50 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. Because they want to do the development in the community. The current process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is that simple. Johnny, let me say first of all thanks for these years of hard work. I for one am grateful for your continued and dogged pursuit of what must be a mostly thankless task. Thanks for the explanations from your point of view of this transition, too. Having said that, I believe that in terms of RHEL development and transparency that CentOS Stream will be a very big win. With working resolutions to the 'unsupported by Red Hat but not third-party out-of-tree driver kABI breaks frequently' and 'third-party out-of-tree hardware driver kABI breaks frequently' issues I'm sure it can be a very usable system for what I need CentOS for. And it will be very nice to be able to have actual feedback that might actually make a difference in the development of each next point release. That will work nicely for my main daily driver laptop. Maybe or maybe not for my servers; that has yet to be seen. But as I posted in my reply to Mike McGrath, Red Hat's reneging on the September 24, 2019 statement that "nothing changes" for CentOS, especially CentOS 8, still smarts. A lot. (I know it must be worse for you and the other devs.) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
I have a DEC Alpha sitting in my warehouse collecting dust what a great machine it was.. Was sorry to see Linux Support die for it.. john On 12/16/2020 1:18 PM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 11:10 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 12/16/20 11:24 AM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 8:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. Well yes it is, but it started with a remark about licensing. I don't use Windows much, not even a handful of times in the last decade. Thing is that MS has something called their "Developers Network" (named something along those lines). If you're in higher education, R etc you can be in that network, in sortof an R category, for 'free'. ... I have a whole shelf full of MSDN CDs and binders; it wasn't free, but it wasn't terribly expensive either. In some cases the activations/keys for the software expire after a few months. Still have the last Windows 2000 Beta CD for the DEC Alpha architecture DEC remember that.. the other day I ran into a windows 95 box, I might even have an old drive with windows for work groups *lol* here in that set. Something similar for RHEL beyond the single-entitlement developer subscription would be cool. But all kidding aside; It would be cool to have an MSDN equivalent for RH for those that do a lot with RH, and that "take their work home and vice versa". That is what I use(d) Centos for, at home that is For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for free, BUT you can have only have one license. Yes, which makes it a bit difficult to mess around with kubernetes. That particular case would be covered resonably well by CentOS Stream, though, since the major part of kubernetes' behavior isn't going to change radically within a point release cycle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 11:10 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 12/16/20 11:24 AM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 8:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. Well yes it is, but it started with a remark about licensing. I don't use Windows much, not even a handful of times in the last decade. Thing is that MS has something called their "Developers Network" (named something along those lines). If you're in higher education, R etc you can be in that network, in sortof an R category, for 'free'. ... I have a whole shelf full of MSDN CDs and binders; it wasn't free, but it wasn't terribly expensive either. In some cases the activations/keys for the software expire after a few months. Still have the last Windows 2000 Beta CD for the DEC Alpha architecture DEC remember that.. the other day I ran into a windows 95 box, I might even have an old drive with windows for work groups *lol* here in that set. Something similar for RHEL beyond the single-entitlement developer subscription would be cool. But all kidding aside; It would be cool to have an MSDN equivalent for RH for those that do a lot with RH, and that "take their work home and vice versa". That is what I use(d) Centos for, at home that is For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for free, BUT you can have only have one license. Yes, which makes it a bit difficult to mess around with kubernetes. That particular case would be covered resonably well by CentOS Stream, though, since the major part of kubernetes' behavior isn't going to change radically within a point release cycle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 12:55 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Off-topic: On 12/16/20 4:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: 2.) The enthusiasts who were building their own machines from parts. That group is small, but they also tend to be very vocal; IT professionals often fall into this group, and MS wanted to keep them happy for all the reasons previously posted. In less developed countries PC's are sold without any software, even laptops. ... Since it is illegal to install pirated software, PC resellers are not allowed to preinstall pirated software, but no one can prevent them to sell it without any OS/software on it, so 70-80% of PC's sold in Serbia are sold without it. Similar is in many countries outside of "Western countries". It is certainly different in different countries; I can only speak for what I see in my own area. I don't see a lot of new PCs sold without some license of some kind; Dell Precision workstations and PowerEdge servers are available with Linux preinstalled, and PowerEdge servers can be purchased without any OS. Most PC manufacturers here have deals with Microsoft to prevent them selling PCs without OS. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 11:24 AM, R C wrote: On 12/16/20 8:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. Well yes it is, but it started with a remark about licensing. I don't use Windows much, not even a handful of times in the last decade. Thing is that MS has something called their "Developers Network" (named something along those lines). If you're in higher education, R etc you can be in that network, in sortof an R category, for 'free'. ... I have a whole shelf full of MSDN CDs and binders; it wasn't free, but it wasn't terribly expensive either. In some cases the activations/keys for the software expire after a few months. Still have the last Windows 2000 Beta CD for the DEC Alpha architecture here in that set. Something similar for RHEL beyond the single-entitlement developer subscription would be cool. For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for free, BUT you can have only have one license. Yes, which makes it a bit difficult to mess around with kubernetes. That particular case would be covered resonably well by CentOS Stream, though, since the major part of kubernetes' behavior isn't going to change radically within a point release cycle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
On 12/16/20 10:39 AM, Frank Saporito wrote: I may be cynical, but I think this is a business decision. By gaining control of CentOS, RedHat gained control of its biggest (apparent) competitor. This action should increase the value of RedHat. A few years later, IBM buys RedHat for a staggering 34 BILLION dollars. I would expect that before the purchase, there is an internal "PowerPoint" slide discussing the elimination of CentOS Linux. Despite the commentary otherwise, I believe CentOS Stream is a type of "beta" release. RedHat can release changes into CentOS Stream to make sure it is all good before the point release of RHEL to the paying customers. Or maybe not. That is exactly my thought. IBM is a very big company, 'physically' as well as capital wise and they do top notch, state of the art, research and development, and they can pretty much solve any problem. The only problem that IBM always had a problem with dealing with is their competition. (The numerous, researchers, scientists, mathematicians, engineers they employ, tremendously increases their overhead, hence everything IBM is expensive. (I expect that to happen to their licensing too, for redhat in the future) FCS On 12/15/20 10:59 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 12/15/20 7:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote: Why would RedHat invest millions more in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta? Indeed. Often, when you can't find a reasonable answer to a question, it is because the premise of the question itself is wrong. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
Off-topic: On 12/16/20 4:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > 2.) The enthusiasts who were building their own machines from parts. > That group is small, but they also tend to be very vocal; IT > professionals often fall into this group, and MS wanted to keep them > happy for all the reasons previously posted. In less developed countries PC's are sold without any software, even laptops. In Serbia where I live 70+% of Windows and paid-for software are illegal/pirated versions. If you want to live from servicing PC's you HAVE to install pirated software. I am focused on supporting businesses and govt made a deal long time ago with BSA for Serbian "IRS" to check software licenses. It was done in a way that "IRS" is demanding proof from businesses that they *paid taxes* on software that is not free of charge. So if you have use software with licences you need to pay for, show us you paid taxes on that software (20%). Even then some small businesses refuse to pay for OS/software, calculating "IRS" has no time to check them. If you buy laptop, you can use magic to write it off the books so "IRS" has no legal right to check it for software (they do not touch private citizens for a reason). Since it is illegal to install pirated software, PC resellers are not allowed to preinstall pirated software, but no one can prevent them to sell it without any OS/software on it, so 70-80% of PC's sold in Serbia are sold without it. Similar is in many countries outside of "Western countries". -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future ("Long goodbye"?)
> On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:38 AM, R C wrote: > > > On 12/16/20 9:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> My apologies about top posting. >> >> I join Matthew on all counts. >> >> The following might sound as a rant, but it is not, given the circumstances >> we have been put into. >> >> First, and most important: thank you CentOS team for all great work you have >> done during all these years. As user who used results of your work without >> giving much back (not counting maintaining public mirror, or helping others >> on the list whenever I felt my expertise adequate), I can not express how >> high I value what you gave to all of us. >> >> Now, that CentOS as we knew it (as a “binary replica” of RedHat Enterprise) >> ceases to exist many of us are trying to figure out new long term solution >> for their “enterprise” sort of systems. Luckily I only partly have to do >> that, as for servers I already did migration quite long ago. My mentioning >> it on this list was causing more annoyance than I would like to, so I >> stopped mentioning it. But now it is time to mention it again, just to help >> everyone arrive at best decision. But first some thoughts on migration to >> different Linux Distro: >> >> One of obvious possibilities is to migrate to some other “binary clone” of >> RHEL. One can find several, Oracle Linux (even though many are cautious of >> Oracle, they - Oracle - didn’t drown out of existence mysql so far, maybe >> thanks to mariadb fork existence, …), Scientific Linux (which is effort of >> really small team, and I evaluated it well below CentOS when I had to make >> decision, and it confirmed true over time), and others... However, once >> RedHat (or rather its owner IBM) made fundamental decision, it is not as >> much about the one who clones (binary rebuilds) of RHEL, as it is about RHEL >> itself. At least fo me it is. As, by undermining trust, even if they roll >> everything back to what it was, the trust is already lost by the knowledge >> of everyone that any moment they can do that in a future. This alternative >> is just out of question for me. Will I maintain RHEL for my current or >> potential future employer? Yes, definitely. Will I recommend fair (and way >> cheaper, better, longer lasting) alternative? By all means, yes, and with my >> experience of migration, and documented migration steps, etc... >> >> Another possibility for pure Linux folks is switch to different distro. Not >> with 10 years life cycle (here RedHat was unique), but shorter one, yet with >> much easier upgrade from one release to another. [Even knowing about Ubuntu >> LTS] Debian would be my choice, which I am going to pursue for CentOS number >> crunchers and workstations I maintain. Laptops are Debian clone Ubuntu since >> long ago. This will be “rolling release", i.e. mostly you will have to >> upgrade packages to latest release, and constantly will take chance >> something will break with change of internals of given software from one >> release to another. It will be more work (for 24/7/365 servers most gravely >> notable). But it may outweigh the single event when your “enterprise” life >> is cancelled one day, and you have to redo the whole infrastructure all at >> once. Think about it and about peace of mind avoiding that eventuality. >> >> This leads me at last to telling that my sever infrastructure was migrated >> long ago to FreeBSD. One can chose different BSD successor based on one’s >> own assessment of suitability. First of all, pure Linux folk, it is not that >> challenging as one may think. I would say here the same thing I was telling >> to my users who we just starting to use UNIX (or Linux). How many command do >> you need to know to start using UNIX? Just 5-6 is enough. Start doing >> things, and in a couple of Months you will feel you know everything. In 6 >> Months you will be top expert: > > > > I work in HPC, pretty much exclusively with redhat and it's > clones/derivatives, in very large scale environments. I mostly do R > 'stuff', and very much rely on our admins doing that, I constantly talk with > them for advice, or just to discuss system stuff, most of them have been > doing this longer then I have. I still consider myself a rookie. > > so yeah 6 months *chuckle* you should consider applying in > places like that if you're that good. > No I am not considering myself “that good”. Even after running FreeBSD servers for what? about last decade probably. And running or using UNIXes long ago before I became "Linux guy”. Not at all. But this is not about myself, this is for those who decide to switch to [Free]BSD. Remember how soon after starting with Linux you felt comfortable with it? Now mind it that being Linux expert, you will become facile with [Free or any other]BSD much sooner. You will likely get rid of “Linuxisms” 6 Month down the road, and develop strong BSD-isms when dealing with Linux then.
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
I may be cynical, but I think this is a business decision. By gaining control of CentOS, RedHat gained control of its biggest (apparent) competitor. This action should increase the value of RedHat. A few years later, IBM buys RedHat for a staggering 34 BILLION dollars. I would expect that before the purchase, there is an internal "PowerPoint" slide discussing the elimination of CentOS Linux. Despite the commentary otherwise, I believe CentOS Stream is a type of "beta" release. RedHat can release changes into CentOS Stream to make sure it is all good before the point release of RHEL to the paying customers. Or maybe not. FCS On 12/15/20 10:59 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 12/15/20 7:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote: Why would RedHat invest millions more in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta? Indeed. Often, when you can't find a reasonable answer to a question, it is because the premise of the question itself is wrong. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future ("Long goodbye"?)
On 12/16/20 9:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: My apologies about top posting. I join Matthew on all counts. The following might sound as a rant, but it is not, given the circumstances we have been put into. First, and most important: thank you CentOS team for all great work you have done during all these years. As user who used results of your work without giving much back (not counting maintaining public mirror, or helping others on the list whenever I felt my expertise adequate), I can not express how high I value what you gave to all of us. Now, that CentOS as we knew it (as a “binary replica” of RedHat Enterprise) ceases to exist many of us are trying to figure out new long term solution for their “enterprise” sort of systems. Luckily I only partly have to do that, as for servers I already did migration quite long ago. My mentioning it on this list was causing more annoyance than I would like to, so I stopped mentioning it. But now it is time to mention it again, just to help everyone arrive at best decision. But first some thoughts on migration to different Linux Distro: One of obvious possibilities is to migrate to some other “binary clone” of RHEL. One can find several, Oracle Linux (even though many are cautious of Oracle, they - Oracle - didn’t drown out of existence mysql so far, maybe thanks to mariadb fork existence, …), Scientific Linux (which is effort of really small team, and I evaluated it well below CentOS when I had to make decision, and it confirmed true over time), and others... However, once RedHat (or rather its owner IBM) made fundamental decision, it is not as much about the one who clones (binary rebuilds) of RHEL, as it is about RHEL itself. At least fo me it is. As, by undermining trust, even if they roll everything back to what it was, the trust is already lost by the knowledge of everyone that any moment they can do that in a future. This alternative is just out of question for me. Will I maintain RHEL for my current or potential future employer? Yes, definitely. Will I recommend fair (and way cheaper, better, longer lasting) alternative? By all means, yes, and with my experience of migration, and documented migration steps, etc... Another possibility for pure Linux folks is switch to different distro. Not with 10 years life cycle (here RedHat was unique), but shorter one, yet with much easier upgrade from one release to another. [Even knowing about Ubuntu LTS] Debian would be my choice, which I am going to pursue for CentOS number crunchers and workstations I maintain. Laptops are Debian clone Ubuntu since long ago. This will be “rolling release", i.e. mostly you will have to upgrade packages to latest release, and constantly will take chance something will break with change of internals of given software from one release to another. It will be more work (for 24/7/365 servers most gravely notable). But it may outweigh the single event when your “enterprise” life is cancelled one day, and you have to redo the whole infrastructure all at once. Think about it and about peace of mind avoiding that eventuality. This leads me at last to telling that my sever infrastructure was migrated long ago to FreeBSD. One can chose different BSD successor based on one’s own assessment of suitability. First of all, pure Linux folk, it is not that challenging as one may think. I would say here the same thing I was telling to my users who we just starting to use UNIX (or Linux). How many command do you need to know to start using UNIX? Just 5-6 is enough. Start doing things, and in a couple of Months you will feel you know everything. In 6 Months you will be top expert: I work in HPC, pretty much exclusively with redhat and it's clones/derivatives, in very large scale environments. I mostly do R 'stuff', and very much rely on our admins doing that, I constantly talk with them for advice, or just to discuss system stuff, most of them have been doing this longer then I have. I still consider myself a rookie. so yeah 6 months *chuckle* you should consider applying in places like that if you're that good. the one who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn’t know. My choice was based on the following facts: FreeBSD is most widely used (even Microsoft was once noticed to run some of their servers on FreeBSD). FreeBSD has excellent documentation. FreeBSD community is as eager to help the one who got stuck with something as our CentOS community is. They have as excellent experts as Johnny, Matthew, ... sorry I can not mention everyone, that will take separate huge post... And now, with my servers gone to FreeBSD long ago, I can share this nice experience. On FreeBSD (base system is separate, and Linux, BTW, decided to go same excellent way), and extra stuff can be added from huge port collection, most part of which is available as binary packages. Ports/packages are up to their maintainers, and pretty much
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future ("Long goodbye"?)
I would like to echo the thanks in this post, and to add a bit of information that I have learned doing some quick research on where to go. Scientific Linux is basically no more, they deferred to Centos and pretty much ended their distribution. Oracle seems to be the easiest and quickest migration, they have a script which will make all of the changes to your server, switching you over to the Oracle flavor of Linux. On the horizon is Rocky Linux, a start up from the people who brought you Centos. As well as Cloud OS who says they are going to pick up where Centos left off, and continue a down stream version of the product. Worst case, we / you will have Oracle to fall back on if Rocky Linux or Cloud OS doesn't come through.. But once again, a BIG THANK YOU to Centos for all the years of work. John Plemons On 12/16/2020 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: My apologies about top posting. I join Matthew on all counts. The following might sound as a rant, but it is not, given the circumstances we have been put into. First, and most important: thank you CentOS team for all great work youhave done during all these years. As user who used results of your work without giving much back (not counting maintaining public mirror, or helping others on the list whenever I felt my expertise adequate), I can not express how high I value what you gave to all of us. Now, that CentOS as we knew it (as a “binary replica” of RedHat Enterprise) ceases to exist many of us are trying to figure out new long term solution for their “enterprise” sort of systems. Luckily I only partly have to do that, as for servers I already didmigration quite long ago. My mentioning it on this list was causing moreannoyance than I would like to, so I stopped mentioning it. But now it is time to mention it again, just to help everyone arrive at best decision. But first some thoughts on migration to different Linux Distro: One of obvious possibilities is to migrate to some other “binary clone” of RHEL. One can find several, Oracle Linux (even thoughmany are cautious of Oracle, they - Oracle - didn’t drown out ofexistence mysql so far, maybe thanks to mariadb fork existence, …), Scientific Linux (which is effort of really small team, and I evaluated it well below CentOS when I had to make decision, and it confirmed trueover time), and others... However, once RedHat (or rather its owner IBM)made fundamental decision, it is not as much about the one who clones (binary rebuilds) of RHEL, as it is about RHEL itself. At least fo me it is. As, by undermining trust, even if they roll everything back to what it was, the trust is already lost by the knowledge of everyone that any moment they can do that in a future. This alternative is just out of question for me. Will I maintain RHEL for my current or potential future employer? Yes, definitely. Will I recommend fair (and way cheaper, better, longer lasting) alternative? By all means, yes, and with my experience of migration, and documented migration steps, etc... Another possibility for pure Linux folks is switch to different distro.Not with 10 years life cycle (here RedHat was unique), but shorter one, yet with much easier upgrade from one release to another. [Even knowing about Ubuntu LTS] Debian would be my choice, which I am going to pursue for CentOS number crunchers and workstations I maintain. Laptops are Debianclone Ubuntu since long ago. This will be “rolling release", i.e. mostly you will have to upgrade packages to latest release, and constantly will take chance something will break with change of internals of given software from one release to another. It will be more work (for 24/7/365 servers most gravely notable). But it may outweigh the single event when your “enterprise” life is cancelled one day, and youhave to redo the whole infrastructure all at once. Think about it and about peace of mind avoiding that eventuality. This leads me at last to telling that my sever infrastructure was migrated long ago to FreeBSD. One can chose different BSD successor based on one’s own assessment of suitability. First of all, pure Linux folk, it is not that challenging as one may think. I would say here the same thing I was telling to my users who we just starting to use UNIX (or Linux). How many command do you need to know to start using UNIX? Just 5-6 isenough. Start doing things, and in a couple of Months you will feel you know everything. In 6 Months you will be top expert: the one who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn’t know. My choice was based on the following facts: FreeBSD is most widely used (even Microsoft was once noticed to run some of their servers on FreeBSD). FreeBSD has excellent documentation. FreeBSD community is as eager to help the one who got stuck with something as our CentOS community is. They have as excellent experts as Johnny, Matthew, ... sorry I can not mention everyone, that will take
Re: [CentOS] Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead
On 12/16/20 10:47 AM, James Pearson wrote: > Johnny Hughes: >>> >>> As others have said, it misses the _really_ important bit about the >>> traditional CentOS model which is to follow the RHEL ~10 year life cycle >>> It doesn't matter how good/rock solid/whatever CentOS Stream turns out to >>> be, but if it only has a 5 year life cycle for each major release, >>> then it no good to me (and I suspect many others) >> >> There is a 2 year overlap with the next version of stream as well .. in >> this case CentOS Stream 9. How long is Debian or Ubuntu LTS maintained >> for free? > > I don't use Debian or Ubuntu LTS, so have no idea > >> 5 years may not be long enough for you .. but it certainly pretty long. >> And I am TRYING to get that extended. I may not be successful, we'll >> have to see. > > Why not just have CentOS Stream revert to using whatever RPMS are released > for the matching RHEL major release when it is in the maintenance part of its > lifecycle? > Even out side the maintenance phase .. there will be some bugs that will get incorporated into the next point release. Those should be in Stream first. There will never be another 'downstream rhel source code build' done by Red Hat. This is just not in the cards. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
> > This is aarch64: > > https://people.centos.org/pgreco/CentOS-Userland-8-stream-aarch64-RaspberryPI-Minimal-4/ > Great! I had missed this one. Thank you. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead
Johnny Hughes: >> >> As others have said, it misses the _really_ important bit about the >> traditional CentOS model which is to follow the RHEL ~10 year life cycle >> It doesn't matter how good/rock solid/whatever CentOS Stream turns out to >> be, but if it only has a 5 year life cycle for each major release, >> then it no good to me (and I suspect many others) > > There is a 2 year overlap with the next version of stream as well .. in > this case CentOS Stream 9. How long is Debian or Ubuntu LTS maintained > for free? I don't use Debian or Ubuntu LTS, so have no idea > 5 years may not be long enough for you .. but it certainly pretty long. > And I am TRYING to get that extended. I may not be successful, we'll > have to see. Why not just have CentOS Stream revert to using whatever RPMS are released for the matching RHEL major release when it is in the maintenance part of its lifecycle? James Pearson ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future ("Long goodbye"?)
My apologies about top posting. I join Matthew on all counts. The following might sound as a rant, but it is not, given the circumstances we have been put into. First, and most important: thank you CentOS team for all great work you have done during all these years. As user who used results of your work without giving much back (not counting maintaining public mirror, or helping others on the list whenever I felt my expertise adequate), I can not express how high I value what you gave to all of us. Now, that CentOS as we knew it (as a “binary replica” of RedHat Enterprise) ceases to exist many of us are trying to figure out new long term solution for their “enterprise” sort of systems. Luckily I only partly have to do that, as for servers I already did migration quite long ago. My mentioning it on this list was causing more annoyance than I would like to, so I stopped mentioning it. But now it is time to mention it again, just to help everyone arrive at best decision. But first some thoughts on migration to different Linux Distro: One of obvious possibilities is to migrate to some other “binary clone” of RHEL. One can find several, Oracle Linux (even though many are cautious of Oracle, they - Oracle - didn’t drown out of existence mysql so far, maybe thanks to mariadb fork existence, …), Scientific Linux (which is effort of really small team, and I evaluated it well below CentOS when I had to make decision, and it confirmed true over time), and others... However, once RedHat (or rather its owner IBM) made fundamental decision, it is not as much about the one who clones (binary rebuilds) of RHEL, as it is about RHEL itself. At least fo me it is. As, by undermining trust, even if they roll everything back to what it was, the trust is already lost by the knowledge of everyone that any moment they can do that in a future. This alternative is just out of question for me. Will I maintain RHEL for my current or potential future employer? Yes, definitely. Will I recommend fair (and way cheaper, better, longer lasting) alternative? By all means, yes, and with my experience of migration, and documented migration steps, etc... Another possibility for pure Linux folks is switch to different distro. Not with 10 years life cycle (here RedHat was unique), but shorter one, yet with much easier upgrade from one release to another. [Even knowing about Ubuntu LTS] Debian would be my choice, which I am going to pursue for CentOS number crunchers and workstations I maintain. Laptops are Debian clone Ubuntu since long ago. This will be “rolling release", i.e. mostly you will have to upgrade packages to latest release, and constantly will take chance something will break with change of internals of given software from one release to another. It will be more work (for 24/7/365 servers most gravely notable). But it may outweigh the single event when your “enterprise” life is cancelled one day, and you have to redo the whole infrastructure all at once. Think about it and about peace of mind avoiding that eventuality. This leads me at last to telling that my sever infrastructure was migrated long ago to FreeBSD. One can chose different BSD successor based on one’s own assessment of suitability. First of all, pure Linux folk, it is not that challenging as one may think. I would say here the same thing I was telling to my users who we just starting to use UNIX (or Linux). How many command do you need to know to start using UNIX? Just 5-6 is enough. Start doing things, and in a couple of Months you will feel you know everything. In 6 Months you will be top expert: the one who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn’t know. My choice was based on the following facts: FreeBSD is most widely used (even Microsoft was once noticed to run some of their servers on FreeBSD). FreeBSD has excellent documentation. FreeBSD community is as eager to help the one who got stuck with something as our CentOS community is. They have as excellent experts as Johnny, Matthew, ... sorry I can not mention everyone, that will take separate huge post... And now, with my servers gone to FreeBSD long ago, I can share this nice experience. On FreeBSD (base system is separate, and Linux, BTW, decided to go same excellent way), and extra stuff can be added from huge port collection, most part of which is available as binary packages. Ports/packages are up to their maintainers, and pretty much all of the ones I use are available as different versions, still maintained and patched, so you not necessarily have to upgrade to latest version when it is released. In this respect, individual ports or packages can live as “enterprise” portions of your ecosystem themselves (each with its own life cycle, still…) This actually is not as challenging as it may sound, as long before end of life of some package version (like PHP-5), at every update you will get warning that it will be end of life soon (starts
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
This is aarch64: https://people.centos.org/pgreco/CentOS-Userland-8-stream-aarch64-RaspberryPI-Minimal-4/ On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:55 AM Mathieu Baudier wrote: > > > It's also worth noting that there is a CentOS 8 SD Card image for > > Raspberry Pi 4. That's what I used. It was dirt simple to "install"- > > simply dd the image file to an actual SD card, put it in the RasPi, > > and go! (Allthough in my case, I made some modifications to the > > > > Do you mean an image for armhfp (32 bits) or for aarch64 (64 bits) ? > Could you please send a link? Thank you! > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Status of DLM in CentOS?
On 12/9/20 2:16 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: I was searching for DLM for my Centos 8. But it seems there are no packages available. The "dlm" kernel module is included in the standard kernel. Locks are configured with the "pcs" package. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/16/20 8:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 12/15/20 1:24 PM, R C wrote: What I meant was that MS basically, for the longest while, had their OS pre-installed on computers sold, so it "felt" free to the buyer, it came with the machine. Universities and colleges did receive bulk licenses and .NET pretty much for free in their 'Developer Programs' and also have students keep using it. That "faillure to implement" obviously was a marketing move indeed, as was students "allowing" to keep using it on their laptops after graduation. This is way off-topic, but there are two aspects of home users using unlicensed copies of Windows: 1.) Users who bought a machine with Windows Home Edition on it who wanted either Professional or Ultimate; 2.) The enthusiasts who were building their own machines from parts. That group is small, but they also tend to be very vocal; IT professionals often fall into this group, and MS wanted to keep them happy for all the reasons previously posted. But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. Well yes it is, but it started with a remark about licensing. I don't use Windows much, not even a handful of times in the last decade. Thing is that MS has something called their "Developers Network" (named something along those lines). If you're in higher education, R etc you can be in that network, in sortof an R category, for 'free'. As a member you get access to "development versions" of pretty much anything MS, and they will give you product codes, even "bulk licenses", to be used for R, and even for educational purposes. You can do whatever you want with it, except of course use it for commercial/production purposes. I never found a mechanism like that for redhat, that is why I use Centos. It is pretty much the same thing. I have numerous netboot images around, a dozen and a half or so hardrives with Centos installed (in trays), so it is easy to just boot a machine for projects, testbeds etc, and without having to pay for a bunch of licenses while you only use a handful of installs at a time. For example, I was messing with kubernetes in a few ways. redhat provides a license for RHEL, that you can use for that purpose for free, BUT you can have only have one license. Of course there is the group of people like you mention, (I probably fall in that category by swapping hardware all the time, testbeds, R clusters etc) I don't know how well that will be working with RHEL, if Centos and Redhat start 'diverting' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
> It's also worth noting that there is a CentOS 8 SD Card image for > Raspberry Pi 4. That's what I used. It was dirt simple to "install"- > simply dd the image file to an actual SD card, put it in the RasPi, > and go! (Allthough in my case, I made some modifications to the > Do you mean an image for armhfp (32 bits) or for aarch64 (64 bits) ? Could you please send a link? Thank you! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8 future
On 12/15/20 9:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take into >> account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now multiply >> that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all over >> the world, different countries, different laws. > > I'm genuinely curious about something, and this is mostly academic > since it's probably the subject of proprietary discussions within > RedHat. Presumably, RedHat had a build pipeline for RHEL that worked > well for them, by supplying alpha/beta releases of point releases to > their customers and giving them time to "cook" before releasing those > point releases into production. Why would RedHat invest millions more > in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta? Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. Because they want to do the development in the community. The current process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is that simple. I think Stream is also very usable as a distro. I think it will be just as usable as CentOS Linux is now. It is not a beta .. I keep saying that. Before a .0 release (the main, or first, main reelase) is a beta. Point releases do not really need betas .. certainly not open to anyone other than customers. Now CentOS Stream is available all the time to everyone, customer or not. Once the full infrastructure is in place, everyone (not just RHEL customers) can provide feed back and bugs, do pull requests, etc. All users can also interact with all interim versions of packages, not just the items that get released. You can also see what is coming at any time if you are a RHEL customer. If you are building things for RHEL .. you can build against what will be the RHEL + 0.1 source code. You (as the developer) can also make that open to public / community. Developers can also do SIGs in CentOS Stream. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
On 12/15/20 1:24 PM, R C wrote: What I meant was that MS basically, for the longest while, had their OS pre-installed on computers sold, so it "felt" free to the buyer, it came with the machine. Universities and colleges did receive bulk licenses and .NET pretty much for free in their 'Developer Programs' and also have students keep using it. That "faillure to implement" obviously was a marketing move indeed, as was students "allowing" to keep using it on their laptops after graduation. This is way off-topic, but there are two aspects of home users using unlicensed copies of Windows: 1.) Users who bought a machine with Windows Home Edition on it who wanted either Professional or Ultimate; 2.) The enthusiasts who were building their own machines from parts. That group is small, but they also tend to be very vocal; IT professionals often fall into this group, and MS wanted to keep them happy for all the reasons previously posted. But the Red Hat-based ecosystem version of that second group is on-topic, as the same sort of enthusiast exists here and has been very vocal about this change. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
It's also worth noting that there is a CentOS 8 SD Card image for Raspberry Pi 4. That's what I used. It was dirt simple to "install"- simply dd the image file to an actual SD card, put it in the RasPi, and go! (Allthough in my case, I made some modifications to the filesystems before actually booting. I made the filesystems bigger and I removed journaling from them.) On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:51 AM Mathieu Baudier wrote: > > Hello, > > given the recent change in direction of CentOS, what will become of the > AltArch repositories? (like CentOS 7 aarch64 and the related kernel > repositories) > > I have been experimenting (with some success) with running a regular CentOS > 8 aarch64 (ARM 64 bits) on a Raspberry PI 4 (with 4GB RAM), using the > aarch64 kernel-rpi2 provided by CentOS 7 AltArch [1]. (a few more technical > details below) > > This is a very different question than what is currently hotly discussed on > this list, with the end of the bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, as there were > never expectations that such settings would be supported. But on the other > hand, I liked to use CentOS for innovation in a given field (mostly Java > related) as its stability allowed one to go deep into one direction with > "other things being equal" (contrary to Fedora, which is always moving in > all directions). > > I guess that all these "side projects" (and SIGs, etc.) will disappear as > well, won't they? > > Cheers, > > Mathieu > > ## More details about running CentOS aarch64 on a Raspberry Pi 4 > > As for my experiments with running CentOS 8 on a Raspberry Pi 4, a bit more > details, so that these efforts are not completely lost. Two approaches were > working : > > - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform a CentOS 8 > aarch64 install in a chroot (with the --installroot option) + a clean > kernel-pi2 install from the CentOS 7 kernel-pi2 repository. Then copy the > chroot to an .img file, and use this image to initialise an SD card. > > - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform an in-place > upgrade to CentOS 8 (first install dnf from EPEL, then switch the repos, > and it works) > > The second approach had better device support on the Raspberry Pi 4 (most > importantly the wifi, which was not working with the first approach), but > this was probably a matter of subtle kernel / modprobe configs that were > beyond my skills. I thought that I would share all this at some point, and > ask for help from the CentOS AltArch developers; but I guess it is > irrelevant right now. > > Both approaches were working equally well on the Raspberry Pi 3 (but Fedora > support is good for this version, while Raspberry Pi 4 is not supported, so > I tend to use Fedora aarch64 on them). > > As for what is actually the point of doing all this, this is not for > weekend hobby tinkering, and it is relevant for server-side applications. > ARM 64 bits is becoming an important platform (hence the fact that RHEL is > now supporting it, MacOS will soon completely move to it, etc.) especially > if one is interested in climate-friendly low-power IT, also on the > server-side. But finding hardware is not easy and the (cheap) Raspberry Pi > have 64-bit capable processors, even though the default distrib (Raspbian, > based on Debian) does not yet support 64 bits (but they are working on it > [2]). After trying many distributions, a paradox was that CentOS was > actually the easiest to deploy and use in order to get some results (thanks > to the work of the AltArch team!) > > In my case, the main interest was to test on ARM 64 bits GraalVM, the next > generation Java platform, which can compile Java (and other programming > languages) to native code. These builds require a lot of memory, but with > an extremely slimmed down CentOS 8 and the 4 GB memory of the Raspberry Pi > 4, it worked! [3] > > On a different layer, I could also test Eclipse SWT (Java user interface > library) on this architecture (but on the plain CentOS 7 aarch64 with > GNOME), and provide some quick feedback to Eclipse developers on their > recent support for the whole Eclipse IDE on ARM 64 bits. [4] > > [1] http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/kernel/aarch64/kernel-rpi2 > [2] https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/raspios_arm64/images/ > [3] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1274263320254722050 > [4] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1291421892381937670 > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
I asked about this before. As far as CentOS itself is concerned this is an unknown. For me it's kind of annoying because I just set up a couple of Raspi 4's with CentOS 8 for a home automation system right before this announcement was made. Having said that- there is a little known distro called "RedSleeve Linux". It's just a couple of guys who do builds of RHEL 6, 7, 8 specifically for ARM systems. I contacted those guys because I did some work with them in the past, and I suggested they work with the folks at RockyLinux to combine efforts. On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:51 AM Mathieu Baudier wrote: > > Hello, > > given the recent change in direction of CentOS, what will become of the > AltArch repositories? (like CentOS 7 aarch64 and the related kernel > repositories) > > I have been experimenting (with some success) with running a regular CentOS > 8 aarch64 (ARM 64 bits) on a Raspberry PI 4 (with 4GB RAM), using the > aarch64 kernel-rpi2 provided by CentOS 7 AltArch [1]. (a few more technical > details below) > > This is a very different question than what is currently hotly discussed on > this list, with the end of the bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, as there were > never expectations that such settings would be supported. But on the other > hand, I liked to use CentOS for innovation in a given field (mostly Java > related) as its stability allowed one to go deep into one direction with > "other things being equal" (contrary to Fedora, which is always moving in > all directions). > > I guess that all these "side projects" (and SIGs, etc.) will disappear as > well, won't they? > > Cheers, > > Mathieu > > ## More details about running CentOS aarch64 on a Raspberry Pi 4 > > As for my experiments with running CentOS 8 on a Raspberry Pi 4, a bit more > details, so that these efforts are not completely lost. Two approaches were > working : > > - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform a CentOS 8 > aarch64 install in a chroot (with the --installroot option) + a clean > kernel-pi2 install from the CentOS 7 kernel-pi2 repository. Then copy the > chroot to an .img file, and use this image to initialise an SD card. > > - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform an in-place > upgrade to CentOS 8 (first install dnf from EPEL, then switch the repos, > and it works) > > The second approach had better device support on the Raspberry Pi 4 (most > importantly the wifi, which was not working with the first approach), but > this was probably a matter of subtle kernel / modprobe configs that were > beyond my skills. I thought that I would share all this at some point, and > ask for help from the CentOS AltArch developers; but I guess it is > irrelevant right now. > > Both approaches were working equally well on the Raspberry Pi 3 (but Fedora > support is good for this version, while Raspberry Pi 4 is not supported, so > I tend to use Fedora aarch64 on them). > > As for what is actually the point of doing all this, this is not for > weekend hobby tinkering, and it is relevant for server-side applications. > ARM 64 bits is becoming an important platform (hence the fact that RHEL is > now supporting it, MacOS will soon completely move to it, etc.) especially > if one is interested in climate-friendly low-power IT, also on the > server-side. But finding hardware is not easy and the (cheap) Raspberry Pi > have 64-bit capable processors, even though the default distrib (Raspbian, > based on Debian) does not yet support 64 bits (but they are working on it > [2]). After trying many distributions, a paradox was that CentOS was > actually the easiest to deploy and use in order to get some results (thanks > to the work of the AltArch team!) > > In my case, the main interest was to test on ARM 64 bits GraalVM, the next > generation Java platform, which can compile Java (and other programming > languages) to native code. These builds require a lot of memory, but with > an extremely slimmed down CentOS 8 and the 4 GB memory of the Raspberry Pi > 4, it worked! [3] > > On a different layer, I could also test Eclipse SWT (Java user interface > library) on this architecture (but on the plain CentOS 7 aarch64 with > GNOME), and provide some quick feedback to Eclipse developers on their > recent support for the whole Eclipse IDE on ARM 64 bits. [4] > > [1] http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/kernel/aarch64/kernel-rpi2 > [2] https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/raspios_arm64/images/ > [3] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1274263320254722050 > [4] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1291421892381937670 > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
Am 15.12.20 um 19:35 schrieb Matthew Miller: On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 06:21:17PM +, Phil Perry wrote: thanks to bring this up - this is a big issue. How could we communicate this? Bugzilla? Anyone listing here? Here you go: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908047 At the moment the only way we have to feed back issues is to file bugs against Stream (which is actually under RHEL8 on bugzilla) as it is not currently possible to submit fixes. Thanks for filing that. I notice that Josh moved it to the "distribution" component rather than DNF -- that makes sense because it's not really an issue with the DNF package itself. The CentOS team tells me that this is a good place to file anything similar that comes up. Thanks. Good to known ... -- Leon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] On-demand audio streaming software
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:16 PM Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > [...] > I wonder if there's some software that can stream on-demand audio like > music > playlists or podcasts. What I'd like to do is host a series of playlists > (like > "Radio Show of the week") or podcasts, and then someone who wants to > listen to > it clicks on it and can listen to it from start to end. > > Any suggestions? > Something like this: https://gitlab.com/davinkevin/Podcast-Server maybe? Kind regards Thomas ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] DLM in CentOS?
Hi, about one week ago I asked about the status of the distributed lock manager DLM in CentoOS. I could could not find it in any repositories. I also got no answer on my mail to this list. So any answer to my question? Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- [*] sys4 AG https://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG,80333 München Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263 Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer, Wolfgang Stief Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] On-demand audio streaming software
Hi, Since 2006 I had a streaming audio server based on Icecast and MPD running on CentOS. It works like a little webradio, e.g. listeners connect to a live stream with VLC, Audacious or any other client capable of this. I wonder if there's some software that can stream on-demand audio like music playlists or podcasts. What I'd like to do is host a series of playlists (like "Radio Show of the week") or podcasts, and then someone who wants to listen to it clicks on it and can listen to it from start to end. Any suggestions? Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Blog : https://blog.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fix for CVE-2020-1971 on CentOS 6.10
> Simon Matter wrote: >>Since security updates for CentOS 6 are not provided anymore, I've >> decided >>to try my best to address CVE-2020-1971 and I welcome others to do the >>same for this and other new issues which may come up. > > Thanks to Simon for doing this. > > I made my own patch which ended up the same as Simon's apart from > whitespace and formatting. It's been deployed on a CentOS 6 system that > can't be upgraded yet due to... reasons. Seems to work in the limited > testing I've done. Thanks Ron for your feedback! It gives us more confidence that the patch is correct. I'm also using it on a number of systems without issues. Regards, Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fix for CVE-2020-1971 on CentOS 6.10
Simon Matter wrote: >Since security updates for CentOS 6 are not provided anymore, I've decided >to try my best to address CVE-2020-1971 and I welcome others to do the >same for this and other new issues which may come up. Thanks to Simon for doing this. I made my own patch which ended up the same as Simon's apart from whitespace and formatting. It's been deployed on a CentOS 6 system that can't be upgraded yet due to... reasons. Seems to work in the limited testing I've done. Cheers, Ron ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] What about the AltArch repositories? (+ some experiments with aarch64 on Raspberry Pi)
Hello, given the recent change in direction of CentOS, what will become of the AltArch repositories? (like CentOS 7 aarch64 and the related kernel repositories) I have been experimenting (with some success) with running a regular CentOS 8 aarch64 (ARM 64 bits) on a Raspberry PI 4 (with 4GB RAM), using the aarch64 kernel-rpi2 provided by CentOS 7 AltArch [1]. (a few more technical details below) This is a very different question than what is currently hotly discussed on this list, with the end of the bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, as there were never expectations that such settings would be supported. But on the other hand, I liked to use CentOS for innovation in a given field (mostly Java related) as its stability allowed one to go deep into one direction with "other things being equal" (contrary to Fedora, which is always moving in all directions). I guess that all these "side projects" (and SIGs, etc.) will disappear as well, won't they? Cheers, Mathieu ## More details about running CentOS aarch64 on a Raspberry Pi 4 As for my experiments with running CentOS 8 on a Raspberry Pi 4, a bit more details, so that these efforts are not completely lost. Two approaches were working : - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform a CentOS 8 aarch64 install in a chroot (with the --installroot option) + a clean kernel-pi2 install from the CentOS 7 kernel-pi2 repository. Then copy the chroot to an .img file, and use this image to initialise an SD card. - From a plain CentOS 7 AltArch aarch64 installation, perform an in-place upgrade to CentOS 8 (first install dnf from EPEL, then switch the repos, and it works) The second approach had better device support on the Raspberry Pi 4 (most importantly the wifi, which was not working with the first approach), but this was probably a matter of subtle kernel / modprobe configs that were beyond my skills. I thought that I would share all this at some point, and ask for help from the CentOS AltArch developers; but I guess it is irrelevant right now. Both approaches were working equally well on the Raspberry Pi 3 (but Fedora support is good for this version, while Raspberry Pi 4 is not supported, so I tend to use Fedora aarch64 on them). As for what is actually the point of doing all this, this is not for weekend hobby tinkering, and it is relevant for server-side applications. ARM 64 bits is becoming an important platform (hence the fact that RHEL is now supporting it, MacOS will soon completely move to it, etc.) especially if one is interested in climate-friendly low-power IT, also on the server-side. But finding hardware is not easy and the (cheap) Raspberry Pi have 64-bit capable processors, even though the default distrib (Raspbian, based on Debian) does not yet support 64 bits (but they are working on it [2]). After trying many distributions, a paradox was that CentOS was actually the easiest to deploy and use in order to get some results (thanks to the work of the AltArch team!) In my case, the main interest was to test on ARM 64 bits GraalVM, the next generation Java platform, which can compile Java (and other programming languages) to native code. These builds require a lot of memory, but with an extremely slimmed down CentOS 8 and the 4 GB memory of the Raspberry Pi 4, it worked! [3] On a different layer, I could also test Eclipse SWT (Java user interface library) on this architecture (but on the plain CentOS 7 aarch64 with GNOME), and provide some quick feedback to Eclipse developers on their recent support for the whole Eclipse IDE on ARM 64 bits. [4] [1] http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/kernel/aarch64/kernel-rpi2 [2] https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/raspios_arm64/images/ [3] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1274263320254722050 [4] https://twitter.com/mbaudier/status/1291421892381937670 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
