Re: [CentOS-docs] Wiki Access for Cloud SiG

[Akemi Yagi]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:50 AM Amy Marrich  wrote:

> I'd like to request access to
> https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Cloud for the following
> people:
>
> amymarrich
> jpena
> AlfredoMoralejo
> yatinkarel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy
>
> *Amy Marrich*
>
> She/Her/Hers
>
> Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms
>
> Red Hat, Inc 
>
> a...@redhat.com
>
> Mobile: 954-818-0514
>
> Slack:  amarrich
>
> IRC: spotz
> 
>

Apologies for not responding to you sooner.

As stated in "https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute#Contribute_to_the_Wiki;,
user name must be in the form of FirstnameLastname. I have added
AlfredoMoralejo to the ACL list, but need the wiki user names for other 3
people.

Thanks,

Akemi
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:41:11PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
> I am not sure that speaking in absolutes does anyone any good.

Sure. Anything can happen, but these particular things are highly unlikely,
and not just arbitrarily. If either of them were to happen, there would
absolutely (sorry, can't help it) be worse problems than "can rebuilds still
be made?"

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

On January 22, 2021 5:06:41 PM CST, Matthew Miller  wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:35:44PM +, Jamie Burchell wrote:
>> Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?
>
>Yes, in two possible ways.
>
>First, Red Hat could stop making RHEL. The amount of work that goes
>into
>this is _quite_ significant, particularly in terms of the long-term
>stability that everyone is very excited about. Rebuild projects would
>then
>have nothing to rebuild.
>
>But, Red Hat isn't going to do that, because RHEL is important to Red
>Hat
>both as a product and as a base for the company's other projects.
>
>Second, Red Hat goes way beyond the obligations of the licenses of many
>of
>the pieces of software that comprise the distribution. Large, vital
>swaths
>of RHEL are not under "copyleft" style licenses. Without the full
>source
>published in a regular and timely manner, rebuilds couldn't exist.
>
>But, Red Hat isn't going to do that, for a number of reasons but mostly
>because free and open source is essential to what Red Hat *is* as a
>company.
>And it's not just a goodwill thing or whatever: everyone from the front
>lines up to the highest levels knows that it's key to our business
>success.

Will not speak about future, but about the past. As external observer for about 
a couple decades I would second that. I always praised RedHat for meticulous 
following GPL. They are required to make available source of their derivative 
work. They do more, as rpms are more than just source. To my folks I maintain 
machines for as sysadmin I always mention as example cygwin. After RedHat 
bought out Cygnus Solutions, they kept cygwin alive, available and active 
project. BTW, cygwin was the first where guest system calls were on the fly 
colverted to host system calls. Which makes virtualization really fast. 
Compared to emulating generic CPU what vmware was doing at that time. No one 
mentions that, but proprietary parallels desktop is doing the same, having 
learned it from cygwin, and VMware later followed the same route I bet. Of 
course, one can only guess about proprietary software.

Not happy about CentOS change, but where credit is due, I can not avoid 
mentioning it.

Valeri


Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[John R. Dennison]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 06:06:41PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 

I am not sure that speaking in absolutes does anyone any good.





John
-- 
Everything happens for a reason.  And that reason is normally physics.

- Anonymous


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[edward via CentOS]

On 1/22/2021 7:24 AM, mark wrote:
Well, y'know, right now is sorta like after RH 9, when suddenly there 
was this RHEL, and IIRC, you could get it for free for home/small use, 
then suddenly it was "nope, gotta pay".


Been here before, not happy.

mark 



    i think Fedora linux is a great  continuation for the defunct product
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:35:44PM +, Jamie Burchell wrote:
> Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?

Yes, in two possible ways.

First, Red Hat could stop making RHEL. The amount of work that goes into
this is _quite_ significant, particularly in terms of the long-term
stability that everyone is very excited about. Rebuild projects would then
have nothing to rebuild.

But, Red Hat isn't going to do that, because RHEL is important to Red Hat
both as a product and as a base for the company's other projects.

Second, Red Hat goes way beyond the obligations of the licenses of many of
the pieces of software that comprise the distribution. Large, vital swaths
of RHEL are not under "copyleft" style licenses. Without the full source
published in a regular and timely manner, rebuilds couldn't exist.

But, Red Hat isn't going to do that, for a number of reasons but mostly
because free and open source is essential to what Red Hat *is* as a company.
And it's not just a goodwill thing or whatever: everyone from the front
lines up to the highest levels knows that it's key to our business success.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Phil Perry]

On 22/01/2021 21:08, Frank Cox wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 20:51:09 +
Jamie Burchell wrote:


So RH could make it difficult for downstream projects such a Rocky Linux.


I don't imagine Redhat will go out of their way to make it easy for Rocky Linux.

But there's a point beyond which they can't go without contravening the GPL 
(and other licenses) so they couldn't do that legally, and there's also a point 
beyond which they'll alienate more of their customers.



At the moment, Red Hat currently make the source code of RHEL 8 
available as push commits to a git repo (git.centos.org) that CentOS 
pull and rebuild.


Once CentOS Linux 8 is gone, this git repository will presumably be gone 
too (or replaced by Stream), so one wonders were the public RHEL sources 
for other projects to rebuild will be :-/


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Frank Cox]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 20:51:09 +
Jamie Burchell wrote:

> So RH could make it difficult for downstream projects such a Rocky Linux. 

I don't imagine Redhat will go out of their way to make it easy for Rocky Linux.

But there's a point beyond which they can't go without contravening the GPL 
(and other licenses) so they couldn't do that legally, and there's also a point 
beyond which they'll alienate more of their customers.

-- 
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] RHEL changes

[Jamie Burchell]

So RH could make it difficult for downstream projects such a Rocky Linux. 

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 20:46, Valeri Galtsev  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/22/21 2:39 PM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:
 Am 22.01.2021 um 21:36 schrieb Jamie Burchell :
>>> 
>>> Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?
>> No.
> 
> Theoretically, no. I'm confident solid company will always comply with GNU 
> license.
> 
> But in practice one can change the way source rpms are accessible, which will 
> effectively break scripts of downstream vendor, thus making a lot of 
> unnecessary work on downstream side. And other things.
> 
> That said, no one probably will intentionally do so. But in the past we 
> observed things change in upstream, causing a lot of work/changes in 
> downstream. Observed externally that is.
> 
> Just my $.02.
> 
> Valeri
> 
>>> 
> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS 
> wrote:
> I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their
> December announcement.
 
 I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan 
 with
 Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
 happening.
 
> Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.
 
 This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
 there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
 very soon.
 
 
> If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing
> to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by
> multiple registrations.
 
 There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Matthew Miller
 
 Fedora Project Leader
 ___
 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
> 
> -- 
> 
> Valeri Galtsev
> Sr System Administrator
> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
> University of Chicago
> Phone: 773-702-4247
> 
> ___
> 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] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

On 1/22/21 2:39 PM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:




Am 22.01.2021 um 21:36 schrieb Jamie Burchell :

Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?


No.



Theoretically, no. I'm confident solid company will always comply with 
GNU license.


But in practice one can change the way source rpms are accessible, which 
will effectively break scripts of downstream vendor, thus making a lot 
of unnecessary work on downstream side. And other things.


That said, no one probably will intentionally do so. But in the past we 
observed things change in upstream, causing a lot of work/changes in 
downstream. Observed externally that is.


Just my $.02.

Valeri




On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Matthew Miller  wrote:

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their
December announcement.


I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan with
Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
happening.


Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.


This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
very soon.



If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing
to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by
multiple registrations.


There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.



--
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
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



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Jamie Burchell]

Good. At least I can consider moving to that without fear of RH pulling the 
plug!

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 20:39, Marc Balmer via CentOS  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 22.01.2021 um 21:36 schrieb Jamie Burchell :
>> 
>> Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?
> 
> No.
> 
>> 
> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS 
> wrote:
> I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their 
> December announcement.
>>> 
>>> I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan with
>>> Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
>>> happening.
>>> 
 Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.
>>> 
>>> This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
>>> there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
>>> very soon.
>>> 
>>> 
 If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing 
 to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by 
 multiple registrations.
>>> 
>>> There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matthew Miller
>>> 
>>> Fedora Project Leader
>>> ___
>>> 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
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Marc Balmer via CentOS]

> Am 22.01.2021 um 21:36 schrieb Jamie Burchell :
> 
> Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?

No.

> 
>>> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Matthew Miller  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS 
>>> wrote:
>>> I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their 
>>> December announcement.
>> 
>> I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan with
>> Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
>> happening.
>> 
>>> Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.
>> 
>> This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
>> there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
>> very soon.
>> 
>> 
>>> If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing 
>>> to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by 
>>> multiple registrations.
>> 
>> There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matthew Miller
>> 
>> Fedora Project Leader
>> ___
>> 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] RHEL changes

[Jamie Burchell]

Can RH put a stop to projects like Rocky Linux?

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS 
> wrote:
>> I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their 
>> December announcement.
> 
> I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan with
> Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
> happening.
> 
>> Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.
> 
> This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
> there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
> very soon.
> 
> 
>> If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing 
>> to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by 
>> multiple registrations.
> 
> There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Miller
> 
> Fedora Project Leader
> ___
> 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] RHEL changes

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:25:04AM -0500, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
> I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their 
> December announcement.

I mean really the only thing we can do is live up to the given plan with
Stream and RHEL options, which as far as I can see is exactly what's
happening.

> Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.

This is just the announcement of it, of course. The full details will be
there when the whole thing is launched, which the announcement says will be
very soon.


> If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing 
> to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by 
> multiple registrations.

There are always going to be cheaters. Don't be one of them.



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

On 1/22/21 11:42 AM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:

Le 22/01/2021 à 18:04, Valeri Galtsev a écrit :

I tried SUSE maybe 2-3 years later than you (around 2003). The first thing I
disliked was: they have yast on top of standard configurations. First of
all, it is quite unpleasant to deal with: infinitely long single file
containing all configs. Next, you change one single thing, and yast to
enable your change touches all config files. Some time after you made some
change you discover something (unrelated) doesn’t work anymore, and you can
not use timestamps to investigate when bad change happened and how. I was
joking about SUSE with my German friends: how come German tool is named as
abbreviation of English (yet another system tool), not German?


All the hardcore distribution users out there (Slackware, Arch, Gentoo, Crux,
FreeBSD) like to make fun of YaST.



Never heard FreeBSD folks making fun of anybody else, including SUSE. 
And I'm on their lists for very long time. I would say they are the most 
generous, considerate, and forgiving folk of all technical lists I have 
been on.


Valeri


Ever tried to connect any Linux or BSD desktop to an LDAPS server running Red
Hat Directory Server for authentication?

With YaST it's done in less than 30 seconds in half a dozen mouse clicks, and
it JustWorks(tm).

I know because I'm using it in our local school.

Now try and do the same thing on Debian, FreeBSD, Slackware or one of the
*buntus. You'll get a vague idea of what hell looks like.

:o)



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Nicolas Kovacs]

Le 22/01/2021 à 18:04, Valeri Galtsev a écrit :
> I tried SUSE maybe 2-3 years later than you (around 2003). The first thing I
> disliked was: they have yast on top of standard configurations. First of
> all, it is quite unpleasant to deal with: infinitely long single file
> containing all configs. Next, you change one single thing, and yast to
> enable your change touches all config files. Some time after you made some
> change you discover something (unrelated) doesn’t work anymore, and you can
> not use timestamps to investigate when bad change happened and how. I was
> joking about SUSE with my German friends: how come German tool is named as
> abbreviation of English (yet another system tool), not German?

All the hardcore distribution users out there (Slackware, Arch, Gentoo, Crux,
FreeBSD) like to make fun of YaST.

Ever tried to connect any Linux or BSD desktop to an LDAPS server running Red
Hat Directory Server for authentication?

With YaST it's done in less than 30 seconds in half a dozen mouse clicks, and
it JustWorks(tm).

I know because I'm using it in our local school.

Now try and do the same thing on Debian, FreeBSD, Slackware or one of the
*buntus. You'll get a vague idea of what hell looks like.

:o)

-- 
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] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

On 1/22/21 9:15 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

Le 21/01/2021 à 23:30, Scott Robbins a écrit :

People pull up all sorts of technical reasons to justify
what is, in the end, an emotional decision.


There is, of course, the possibility to go beyond that. For example, I am
not
exactly fond of Oracle as a company, for reasons you probably know as good
as
me. They did some horrible things to Solaris, MySQL and Java, their CEO


IMHO they didn't do anything horrible to us. They just wasted a lot of
money buying companies and then didn't continue the open source
developments in a way which worked for the community. However the project
are not dead by now, they just run under a different name these days.


supported Trump, etc. But it also happens that they do have one of the


IMHO it's a feature of something called democracy that even CEOs are free
to support whoever they want - without asking anyone and like everybody
else.



Agreeing about freedom of opinion, but can not help to mention: freedom 
of speech belongs more to liberty, not democracy. Democracy (decision of 
majority...) is in its essense a tyranny of majority over minority.


My apologies for adding to political discussion on technical list, which 
better be avoided, so not continuing it and inviting others spare the 
list of politics, religion, and other non-technical issues.


Valeri


better
maintained RHEL clones out there, with fast updates and an excellent
documentation.


For me OL works very well. I've just modified the migration/installation
so that it removes all OL specific stuff like UEK and changes things back
to upstream EL versions. If I ever regret the move to OL I know know quite
well how to migrate to another clone. And I mean a full migration which
changes every bit.

Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 5:12 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic  wrote:
> 
> On 1/22/21 9:29 AM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:
>>> Hence it is as good as dead in my mind when looking into the future, I
>>> am looking for future distro of choice.
>> 
>> A little mentioned choice would be openSUSE, which is direction I am taking.
> 
> I do not like system where configuration app can overwrite manualy set
> config. I started with ClarkConnect in 2005-2006 and to route public
> subnet into my network I had to delete last iptables command then add my
> own, but only after config system did it's own iptables commands. I had
> to learn iptables before any other Linux commands and although I
> mastered it, it is left in unpleasant memory (it took me weeks and help
> from rare Linux admins to find a solution).
> 
> I did try SUSE around 2000 but it was complicated to do manual changes
> (if it was not provided in YAST), so after ClarkConnect I had no desire
> to even experiment with YAST.

I tried SUSE maybe 2-3 years later than you (around 2003). The first thing I 
disliked was: they have yast on top of standard configurations. First of all, 
it is quite unpleasant to deal with: infinitely long single file containing all 
configs. Next, you change one single thing, and yast to enable your change 
touches all config files. Some time after you made some change you discover 
something (unrelated) doesn’t work anymore, and you can not use timestamps to 
investigate when bad change happened and how. I was joking about SUSE with my 
German friends: how come German tool is named as abbreviation of English (yet 
another system tool), not German?

But what really did it for me was: stock installation from SUSE DVD (that 
specific release) was easily crashed by program with memory leak run by regular 
user. I replace SUS stock kernel with downloaded and compiled with all default 
option kernel from kernel.org, and it happily kills memory leaking program 
(even the one run by root). Not kernel shipped with SUSE. This: memory leak, 
out of memory condition is one of the tests I usually do when I’m testing 
[quite] new for me system (and some other stuff).

I turned away from SUSE then, and never looked back.

Just my $0.02

Valeri

> 
> -- 
> 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

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Julio E. Gonzalez]

On 1/22/21 1:46 PM, Frank Cox wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 16:15:28 +0100
Simon Matter wrote:


OL specific stuff like UEK

Here might be a good place to ask a question that I haven't really found a 
definitive answer to.

What, exactly, is the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel?

RHEL/Centos 8 has kernel version 4.18.  The current Fedora kernel is 5.8.  The 
current kernel listed on the main page of kernel.org is 5.10.

Where does UEK 5.14.x fit in here?  Is it a fixed/enhanced/customized version 
of the current kernel on kernel.org, is it something to do with Fedora, or is 
it something entirely different and unrelated that runs on Oracle's own 
versioning scheme?

And on that note, what does UEK do for you that the standard RHEL kernel 
doesn't?   Would the average schmoe like me actually gain anything by running 
UEK over the standard Redhat kernel if I'm not running stuff like the Oracle 
database?

Oracle UEK kernel is newer (based on 5.4.17 I think), probably support 
more hardware.
Also, Oracle UEK kernel supports BTRFS filesystem, that Redhat don't 
even allow you to use it. I use UEK because this.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Frank Cox]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 16:15:28 +0100
Simon Matter wrote:

> OL specific stuff like UEK 

Here might be a good place to ask a question that I haven't really found a 
definitive answer to.

What, exactly, is the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel?

RHEL/Centos 8 has kernel version 4.18.  The current Fedora kernel is 5.8.  The 
current kernel listed on the main page of kernel.org is 5.10.

Where does UEK 5.14.x fit in here?  Is it a fixed/enhanced/customized version 
of the current kernel on kernel.org, is it something to do with Fedora, or is 
it something entirely different and unrelated that runs on Oracle's own 
versioning scheme?

And on that note, what does UEK do for you that the standard RHEL kernel 
doesn't?   Would the average schmoe like me actually gain anything by running 
UEK over the standard Redhat kernel if I'm not running stuff like the Oracle 
database?

-- 
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] Infiniband special ops?

[Peter Kjellström]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:33:56 +
lejeczek via CentOS  wrote:

> Hi guys.
> 
> Hoping some net experts my stumble upon this message, I have 
> an IPoIB direct host to host connection and:
...
>  > $ iperf3 -c 10.5.5.97  
> [ ID] Interval   Transfer Bitrate Retr
> [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  16.2 GBytes  13.9 Gbits/sec 
> 0 sender
> [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  16.2 GBytes  13.9 
> Gbits/sec  receiver
> 
> It's rather an oldish platform which hosts the link, PCIe is 
> only 2.0 but with link of x8 that should be able to carry 
> more than ~13Gbits/sec.
> Infiniband is Mellanox's ConnectX-3.

If you want to test the infiniband performance you ib_write_bw for
example not iperf.

IPoIB will always be quite a bit slower than native IB.

That said, if you want to optimize IPoIB for performance make sure
you're running connected mode not datagram mode.

/Peter
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Nicolas Kovacs]

Le 22/01/2021 à 16:16, Lamar Owen a écrit :
> For my uses and purposes, Fedora's six month cycle is too fast (I've been on
> that roller coaster before, no desire to go back to it). CentOS Stream's
> continuous release cycle is too fast, especially in the kernel ABI 
> department. 
> I believe that, for my uses at least, a two-to-five year cycle is going to be
> the sweet spot.  And the fact of the matter is that CentOS and the ten-year
> cycle isn't nearly as stable as you might first think; install CentOS 7.0 on a
> test VM and carefully compare to 7.9, especially on the workstation side with
> Firefox and Thunderbird!

Back in 2017, I installed an intranet server for a south french regional
administration. Their intranet CMS was a heavily modded SPIP and depended on
PHP < 5.6. In-house development in these administrations is slow and takes
years. So I simply offered to use CentOS 7 with PHP 5.4 and support until 2024.
They're happy because that leaves them plenty of time.

As for desktops and workstations, I'm a big fan of OpenSUSE Leap, a hybrid
solution based on a semi-rolling model on top of a rock-solid SUSE Linux
Enterprise base system.

On servers, I only run RHEL clones (and sometimes the real thing).

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] RHEL changes

[mark]

On 1/22/21 9:10 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 08:32, Gionatan Danti  wrote:


Il 2021-01-22 13:43 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:

I think we can expect Rocky Linux to provide a real solution to CentOS
future. We shall know very soon, so let's just wait for a short while.


Hi, there are any specific reasons to not use Spingdale Linux?
As far I know, it already ships a RHEL 8.3 clone.



My guess is that no one wants to go to a new OS alone. They want to go with
all their mailing list buddies but they also want to make a STATEMENT to
stick it in the eye of Red Hat for doing this. Going to a staid and quiet
existing OS doesn't make that statement. Going to a competing company like
Oracle does have the stick in the eye, but it already has its own community
and ways of doing things in an Oracle way. A lot of grumpy old sysadmins
are a drop in the bucket. Now Rocky has no history, no existing community
and a bunch of old sysadmins could jump in and be just like they were
elsewhere. So try and get everyone you know to go there.. [it also doesn't
exist so if it doesn't work out you won't have moved your systems to it and
then found you had to move it something else.]

Well, y'know, right now is sorta like after RH 9, when suddenly there 
was this RHEL, and IIRC, you could get it for free for home/small use, 
then suddenly it was "nope, gotta pay".


Been here before, not happy.

mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Lamar Owen]

On 1/21/21 5:50 PM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
Debian has an average of two years[*] per support. Oracle has ten like 
upstream RHEL. Choice is pretty clear to me. [*] one year after 
subsequent release, so an average of one to three years depending on 
installation date


So, I want to address the "ten years of support" albatross.  On the 
surface, ten years of support sounds like a big win; it certainly did to 
me back when it was first introduced.  I have found that the reality is 
far more nuanced than that.  I have found in my own career that the "ten 
years of support" argument has made me lazy in keeping up with newer 
technologies and methodologies, stagnant in my own server and 
workstation deployments, and increasingly frustrated once the 
five-to-seven year point has passed in what I can't do or can't build 
because "ten years support!  Stability! Stability! Stability at all costs!"


For my uses and purposes, Fedora's six month cycle is too fast (I've 
been on that roller coaster before, no desire to go back to it). CentOS 
Stream's continuous release cycle is too fast, especially in the kernel 
ABI department.  I believe that, for my uses at least, a two-to-five 
year cycle is going to be the sweet spot.  And the fact of the matter is 
that CentOS and the ten-year cycle isn't nearly as stable as you might 
first think; install CentOS 7.0 on a test VM and carefully compare to 
7.9, especially on the workstation side with Firefox and Thunderbird!


Further, when it's budget time, updating stagnating services running on 
a stagnant OS becomes an easy mark for cutting from the budget, because 
"ten years!" - until those ten years are over and you find out that 
you've just delayed all the effort into one lump instead of spreading it 
out a little bit each year or two (or three to five).


But ten-year stagn^H^H^H^Hupport also makes me less marketable if I were 
to need to change jobs, especially if that ten-year stability has 
calloused my learning skills to the point that I feel personally 
threatened by major changes to, say, the init system underneath everything.


So, in my career, I'm not sure relying on ten-year support has been a 
good thing.  YMMV as I'm sure there are places where ten years of 
support really is critical; just not for me.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Simon Matter]

> Le 21/01/2021 à 23:30, Scott Robbins a écrit :
>> People pull up all sorts of technical reasons to justify
>> what is, in the end, an emotional decision.
>
> There is, of course, the possibility to go beyond that. For example, I am
> not
> exactly fond of Oracle as a company, for reasons you probably know as good
> as
> me. They did some horrible things to Solaris, MySQL and Java, their CEO

IMHO they didn't do anything horrible to us. They just wasted a lot of
money buying companies and then didn't continue the open source
developments in a way which worked for the community. However the project
are not dead by now, they just run under a different name these days.

> supported Trump, etc. But it also happens that they do have one of the

IMHO it's a feature of something called democracy that even CEOs are free
to support whoever they want - without asking anyone and like everybody
else.

> better
> maintained RHEL clones out there, with fast updates and an excellent
> documentation.

For me OL works very well. I've just modified the migration/installation
so that it removes all OL specific stuff like UEK and changes things back
to upstream EL versions. If I ever regret the move to OL I know know quite
well how to migrate to another clone. And I mean a full migration which
changes every bit.

Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Lamar Owen]

On 1/22/21 9:10 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
My guess is that no one wants to go to a new OS alone. They want to go 
with all their mailing list buddies but they also want to make a 
STATEMENT to stick it in the eye of Red Hat for doing this. Going to a 
staid and quiet existing OS doesn't make that statement. Going to a 
competing company like Oracle does have the stick in the eye, but it 
already has its own community and ways of doing things in an Oracle way. 


Well said.  The 'in your face!' attitude of 'sticking it to The Man' is 
pretty juvenile.


I'm going to be transitioning to the most staid and quiet of those 
choices myself.  It will be like starting over from scratch in terms of 
community, and at this point in my career I think that's ok.  If the 
need were to arise like it arose for me back in 1999 when I stepped up 
in Red Hat Land to maintain the upstream PostgreSQL RPMs then I would 
step right in as a newcomer and build a reputation in that community.  
There's something to be said for starting from scratch with a nearly new 
reputation; while your successes won't follow you, neither will your 
failures!


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 08:32, Gionatan Danti  wrote:

> Il 2021-01-22 13:43 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:
> > I think we can expect Rocky Linux to provide a real solution to CentOS
> > future. We shall know very soon, so let's just wait for a short while.
>
> Hi, there are any specific reasons to not use Spingdale Linux?
> As far I know, it already ships a RHEL 8.3 clone.
>
>
My guess is that no one wants to go to a new OS alone. They want to go with
all their mailing list buddies but they also want to make a STATEMENT to
stick it in the eye of Red Hat for doing this. Going to a staid and quiet
existing OS doesn't make that statement. Going to a competing company like
Oracle does have the stick in the eye, but it already has its own community
and ways of doing things in an Oracle way. A lot of grumpy old sysadmins
are a drop in the bucket. Now Rocky has no history, no existing community
and a bunch of old sysadmins could jump in and be just like they were
elsewhere. So try and get everyone you know to go there.. [it also doesn't
exist so if it doesn't work out you won't have moved your systems to it and
then found you had to move it something else.]


> Thanks.
>
> --
> Danti Gionatan
> Supporto Tecnico
> Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
> email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
> GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Valeri Galtsev]

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 6:43 AM, Nikolaos Milas  wrote:
> 
> On 22/1/2021 2:25 μ.μ., Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
> 
>> Also, I can still expect they will again change their mind close to
>> 2021's end. In short, I have hard time trusting RH in such a situation.
> 

Then flee from RedHat AND clones. RedHat can do things making life of clones 
hard, different, constantly needing to invest into change. And they may give up.

But it is your decision about your future, and yours to deal with consequences.

Am I not stating the obvious?

Valeri

> That's exactly how I feel too. I don't trust them.
> 
> I think we can expect Rocky Linux to provide a real solution to CentOS 
> future. We shall know very soon, so let's just wait for a short while.
> 
> There is such a huge (staggering) number of CentOS installed base, esp. 
> including service providers (hosts etc.), that the market NEEDS a real 
> reliable successor of CentOS. This need cannot be covered by RHEL new 
> licensing. A real open source, community solution will be needed; for the 
> time being, Rocky Linux seems to have the right specs to fill the gap.
> 
> The market itself will finance (through donations) its future, because it is 
> a real need. A CentOS successor is a real need.
> 
> OL will be last resort, but I believe Rocky Linux will most probably be the 
> way to go. It displays good momentum, steady progress and great manpower.
> 
> My 2c.
> 
> Nick
> 
> ___
> 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] RHEL changes

[Scott Robbins]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:39:08PM +, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/01/2021 12:25, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
> 
> 
> > JMNSHO.

Just My Not So Humble Opinion.

I wonder if it's just because I'm old, but I do get tired of acronyms,
especially when people actually say O M G or L O L.


-- 
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Nicolas Kovacs]

Le 21/01/2021 à 23:30, Scott Robbins a écrit :
> People pull up all sorts of technical reasons to justify 
> what is, in the end, an emotional decision.

There is, of course, the possibility to go beyond that. For example, I am not
exactly fond of Oracle as a company, for reasons you probably know as good as
me. They did some horrible things to Solaris, MySQL and Java, their CEO
supported Trump, etc. But it also happens that they do have one of the better
maintained RHEL clones out there, with fast updates and an excellent
documentation.

Of course our first response will always be more or less emotional (see Malcolm
Gladwell's fascinating book "Blink" on the subject). But I think it's part of
our work routine to recognize that and go beyond it.

Cheers,

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] RHEL changes

[Gionatan Danti]

Il 2021-01-22 13:43 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:

I think we can expect Rocky Linux to provide a real solution to CentOS
future. We shall know very soon, so let's just wait for a short while.


Hi, there are any specific reasons to not use Spingdale Linux?
As far I know, it already ships a RHEL 8.3 clone.

Thanks.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Nikolaos Milas]

On 22/1/2021 2:25 μ.μ., Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:


Also, I can still expect they will again change their mind close to
2021's end. In short, I have hard time trusting RH in such a situation.


That's exactly how I feel too. I don't trust them.

I think we can expect Rocky Linux to provide a real solution to CentOS 
future. We shall know very soon, so let's just wait for a short while.


There is such a huge (staggering) number of CentOS installed base, esp. 
including service providers (hosts etc.), that the market NEEDS a real 
reliable successor of CentOS. This need cannot be covered by RHEL new 
licensing. A real open source, community solution will be needed; for 
the time being, Rocky Linux seems to have the right specs to fill the gap.


The market itself will finance (through donations) its future, because 
it is a real need. A CentOS successor is a real need.


OL will be last resort, but I believe Rocky Linux will most probably be 
the way to go. It displays good momentum, steady progress and great 
manpower.


My 2c.

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[J Martin Rushton via CentOS]

On 22/01/2021 12:25, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:



JMNSHO.


eh?

--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS]

On 21.01.2021 22:46, Victor Pereira wrote:
> I see that this is as an impulse for Fedora so that we as users do not
> leave RedHat after the news ... even so I still think how good it is for
> the linux community this whole situation makes us a good shakeup.
> Cheers,

I wonder whether RH plan to fight back FUD they've brought upon by their 
December announcement.

Personally, I found this "no-cost" promise lacking substantial details.

If RH doesn't verify everyone requesting developer subscription (forcing 
to prove identity), the 16 installations limit is easily circumvented by 
multiple registrations.

If they *do* request identity verification (i.e. copy of ID, phone, 
email, physical address... etc etc, up to last will in favor of RH), 
then I am even more uneasy having voluntarily provided them with 
personal data which are  treasure for any marketing purpose they could 
imagine.

Also, I can still expect they will again change their mind close to 
2021's end. In short, I have hard time trusting RH in such a situation. 
JMNSHO.

-- 
Sincerely,

Konstantin Boyandin
system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

On 1/22/21 9:29 AM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:
>> Hence it is as good as dead in my mind when looking into the future, I
>> am looking for future distro of choice.
> 
> A little mentioned choice would be openSUSE, which is direction I am taking.

I do not like system where configuration app can overwrite manualy set
config. I started with ClarkConnect in 2005-2006 and to route public
subnet into my network I had to delete last iptables command then add my
own, but only after config system did it's own iptables commands. I had
to learn iptables before any other Linux commands and although I
mastered it, it is left in unpleasant memory (it took me weeks and help
from rare Linux admins to find a solution).

I did try SUSE around 2000 but it was complicated to do manual changes
(if it was not provided in YAST), so after ClarkConnect I had no desire
to even experiment with YAST.


-- 
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] RHEL changes

[Jos Vos]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:30:33PM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:

   Like Valeri, I have a fondness for FreeBSD. Regardless, I think Nicolas is
   correct. I remember reading a post in an old usenet (I think) discussion of
   mutt vs. pine (before it became alpine) where someone said words to the
   effect of, People pull up all sorts of technical reasons to justify 
   what is, in the end, an emotional decision. 

Don't forget "elm" :-) :-)...  And to make it even more complex: the
outcome of all those half emotional, half technical decisions vary
during the time.  Projects may (slowly) die or get a huge momentum,
licenses change (!), etc.

-- 
--Jos Vos 
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Office: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam, The Netherlands|   Mobile: +31 6 26216181
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL changes

[Marc Balmer via CentOS]

> Am 22.01.2021 um 08:40 schrieb Ljubomir Ljubojevic :
> 
> On 1/21/21 11:40 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:36:44PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> On 1/21/21 8:53 PM, Alfredo Perez wrote:
 Is this good news for the "Centos" family?
 
>>> 
>>> There is no CentOS "family". CentOS clone is dead and will be now
>> 
>> Odd that you say it's dead when 7 doesn't sunset until June 30th, 2024.
>> 
> 
> Maybe not best choice of the word, but I meant there will not be further
> development on that front. CentOS 7 cloning will be just rinse and
> repeat of established process. If CentOS 8 was not killed almost no one
> would have installed CentOS 7 on any new server (keeping in mind desire
> for 10-year til EOL), so I see CentOS 7 as close to EOL and his
> usefulness for new systems will only decrease.

I couldn't agree more.

> 
> Hence it is as good as dead in my mind when looking into the future, I
> am looking for future distro of choice.

A little mentioned choice would be openSUSE, which is direction I am taking.

> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos