Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, William Warren I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner. Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing delay. The security of many machines is now at stake with these continued delays. But isn't that the purpose of the CR-repo, to insure that CentOS 6.0 users get the latest security updates in a timely manner? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] non PAE support
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: you can build the kernel RPM on any other similar environment, and WHY ARE YOU/WE WASTING Y/OUR TIME ON A 6 YR OLD LAPTOP??? Get over it. Either run what works on it, or get suitable hardware to run what you need. He's not the only one interested in a non-PAE kernel for Pentium a M laptop -- so this thread is definitely not a waste of time for me -- though I'll probably stick with CentOS 5.x on the laptop. And I, personally, don't have a computer that's *less* than six years old. But they still work fine for me -- the desktop (GX270 from 2004) *does* support PAE, so I have the option to go to CentOS 6.x on it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] non PAE support
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Marc Deop damnsh...@gmail.com wrote: And how exactly would you do that if the installation just can't proceed if it detects you do not have a PAE processor? Here's a work-around method posted at Scientific Linux to install version 6 on a non-PAE computer. I'm pretty sure it could be applied to CentOS as well. I don't know how practical it is in the long run but, at the very least, I think it would give you a bootable CentOS (or SL) 6 install on a non-PAE system. From there you could probably compile your own kernel. It all starts by booting from a netinst iso for Fedora 13. http://scientificlinuxforum.org/index.php?showtopic=621 -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] centos x11
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Based on my experience on RHEL Beta1, Xorg --configure will create xorg.conf which you can then tweak and use. On older Intel graphics chip I had to use nomodeset kernel option to have normal picture. New Xorg tries to read EDID information from monitor but monitor makers EDID code is not always compatible with what Xorg expects. That is why you get only minimal resolution and need xorg.conf file. I've had to fight this lack of xorg.conf in other distributions -- that and the nouveau video driver and grub2 -- and was kind of dreading the day it would come to CentOS. At least we didn't get Gnome 3. Not quite sure why these kinds of changes are being made, but there are a lot of things I don't understand -- and I'm sure there are good reasons for all of it. I'll just adjust and find ways to work around it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] centos x11
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: the reason that you don't want an xorg.conf file is that multiple users can have different display settings instead of being locked in by an overall configuration file. Okay. But I've always left my root account at default video settings and changed my user account's video settings, and it seemed to work fine that way before? But, I think, once you install the proprietary nVidia driver, that an xorg.conf is built anyhow -- so this probably won't be an issue for me. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Installing from CD
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote: With an HP DL140 we open the cover and temporarily plug in a standard atapi 5.25 DVD drive in place of the CD drive. If he's talking about a standard Optiplex GX240, it takes a regular IDE DVD drive which is almost a throw-away item these days. I would be tempted to just pick one up on eBay and permanently install it. (I realize this may not be an option if you have a whole floor of GX240s, but for just the one I would think it would sure make life easier.) -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Installing from CD
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:54 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On 07/12/11 11:53 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com wrote: With an HP DL140 we open the cover and temporarily plug in a standard atapi 5.25 DVD drive in place of the CD drive. If he's talking about a standard Optiplex GX240, it takes a regular IDE DVD drive which is almost a throw-away item these days. an HP DL140 is a 1U server that uses a very slim laptop style drive. Even laptop style DVD drives have become a near throw-away item. Everyone wants DVD writers now. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Installing from CD
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 13:44 -0700, david wrote: Folks The machine I'm trying to load does not have a DVD reader, but only a CD reader. Are the multiple CD images of CENTOS 6 available somewhere? Earlier versions had them. ubuntu LTS installs from a single CD allows you to partition prior to install Just sayin' You can do the same with Puppy Linux, too -- and (probably) a hundred other distributions. None of them would be CentOS. But soon you won't have to compromise. Reportedly a Live CentOS CD is on the way and it will also allow installation. The best of both worlds. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Installing from CD
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:13 PM, david da...@daku.org wrote: I wish I could, but this machine can boot only from a CD, a diskette or a HardDrive. USB is not an option. Am I stuck on Centos 5.x forever, or will the multi-CD images appear eventually? The CentOS 6 announcement says that a Live CD (which will allow installation) and a Minimal Install CD are on the way within a few days. I don't know for sure, but I think I remember that Upstream decided to no longer support multiple CDs when they went to version 6 of their product. You'll no longer find CD sets of version 6 at Scientific Linux either -- although they also have various Live and Minimal CDs available. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: That is exactly why I intend to create Desktop version, regular CentOS with additional repositories and virtual package(s) pulling necessary real packages. If launched from main menu it could be done as an add-on package enhancing existing CentOS. Sounds like a great idea. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote: Actually, I think first major Cloud player to be majorly hacked will be a double whammy to kill off the 'cloud' mentality: At least the following two will occur: * Everyone will question the security and privacy of their data in the 'cloud'. * The cloud provider will shut down for a couple of weeks (like the Playstation saga) to investigate what was accessed and how. Can your company afford to be without your apps and data for a couple of weeks, while some hacker organisation has it? I think not. But it's not like you can't do both. The Cloud has the benefits of convenience (available from anywhere) and flexibility (OS agnostic). You would hope 1) That people back up their work (at least to other locations in the Cloud), and 2) That they have a local substitute suite of applications. And it's not like local machines are immune to hardware and security break downs, especially for the majority who use Windows. At this point my music is stored online (Amazon, listening to it now), a lot of my documents are created with Google Docs or Zoho, my email is almost completely online (has been for years), my recent pictures are stored and edited online (Picasa and Piknic), almost all my TV watching is done online (Hulu, Crackle, TheWB) and a big chunk of my movies are supplied from online sources (Hulu, Crackle, Netflix). That said, I think it may happen that amount of traffic ultimately falls in on itself. I don't see how Netflix (in the U.S.) can continue to use nearly a quarter of the Web's bandwith (for example) without paying some kind of tariff from the cable and DSL providers. So all this streaming might slow down quite a lot if Hulu, Crackle, Netflix and the others have to charge their customers for bandwith. We'll see what happens. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote: On 10/07/2011 10:40, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Giles Coocheygi...@coochey.net wrote: Can your company afford to be without your apps and data for a couple of weeks, while some hacker organisation has it? I think not. But it's not like you can't do both. The Cloud has the benefits of convenience (available from anywhere) and flexibility (OS agnostic). You would hope 1) That people back up their work (at least to other locations in the Cloud), and 2) That they have a local substitute suite of applications. And it's not like local machines are immune to hardware and security break downs, especially for the majority who use Windows. Well, do both then, but at double the cost!! The whole point to CEOs and CFOs about going with the Cloud is that they will save money on IT infrastructure and possibly get rid of 'that scruffy guy in the basement 'who's done our IT for the last few years'... they never really trusted him anyway, and 'Joe and Bill' from 'ABC Cloud Consulting' seemed like 'my kind of people on the Golf course last Thursday afternoon.' I get your point about CEOs and CFOs (greed blunts good sense in many instances), but don't most corporations already have local and network backups? So they are already redundant. If they go to the Cloud I would assume they would continue local backups. At this point my music is stored online (Amazon, listening to it now), a lot of my documents are created with Google Docs or Zoho, my email is almost completely online (has been for years), my recent pictures are stored and edited online (Picasa and Piknic), almost all my TV watching is done online (Hulu, Crackle, TheWB) and a big chunk of my movies are supplied from online sources (Hulu, Crackle, Netflix). I'm not really referring to your music, movies and porn. I'm referring to the enterprise applications that corporations use. Porn? You trying to piss me off, pal, with your dismissive bullshit? Quit projecting. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote: The reference to 'porn' was meant to be a light hearted reference to 'your personal stuff', as opposed to 'your work stuff'. Okay, you've made good points. Sorry about over-reacting. I'll eventually learn that a CentOS desktop is the exception and try to think in terms of servers. Though I think this thread was basically started as a call to promoting CentOS on the desktop. Again, please accept my apology. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Congratulations to the Centos Team for the hard work on Centos 6
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Philip L Pinto pi...@dpcomputersolutions.com wrote: I just wanted to say Congratulations and thank you to the Centos Team for all of the work on Centos 6 - I know the last few months have not been easy - but the real benefit will be that Centos 6 will be as good and as stable as Centos 5 has been for me and everyone who has been using it for the past 4 years. It has never a matter of just getting it done - but getting it done right. +1... and thanks. i386 torrent download was very fast (less than an hour) and I have been seeding for two or three hours now. I'll just let it go for at least a few days. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Always Learning cen...@u6.u22.net wrote: Experience 44 years - it makes me seem old :-( as computer programmer and the usual collection of other computer posts/tasks/assignments I truly believe with Centos and Gnome 90% of ordinary M$ Windoze users have what they need. If they use specialist databases and applications not HTML compatible (all mine are HTML compatible so they run on any operating system) they need something which will run in Centos/Gnome. I agree. I set my brother and family up with CentOS about two years ago and his whole family uses it -- once it was set up it has required zero maintenance from me. Basically I just had to put the RPM forge in the repository. I have family and friends who use Windows and I've spent a *lot* more time supporting them then I do my father and brother who use Linux. That said, neither my Dad nor brother play major games on the computer, nor have they ever used M$ Office. My wife uses PowerPoint presentations and she doesn't want to change, so I support XP (on her Desktop) and Windows 7 on her Laptop. (The desktop came with Vista, but she had me install XP -- it took about 20 hours for her to make that decision -- Vista was a dog -- with apologies to dogs.) So, anyhow, you (generic you) might be surprised how many people could get along just fine with CentOS on the desktop now. A lot (I would almost say most) personal computer usage is now web-centered. Which is why Android and iOS (and others) are taking off. For me, personally, I went completely to Linux about three years ago. I never was a big game player and *never* liked M$ Office. I used WordStar for DOS for years, then went to Lotus SmartSuite before moving to Linux. I use a couple specialized Windows programs (NetObjects Fusion and Screenwriter -- and sometimes dBASE for Windows) which run fine in a Windows 2000 virtual machine under VirtualBox. I also occasionally use DOSBox, where I can run WordStar for DOS and dBASE for DOS. That's about all the Linux non-native stuff I use. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Always Learning cen...@u6.u22.net wrote: The truth is my mp3 playing ability was installed about a year ago when I was first introduced to Centos and I experienced a very rapid and steep learning curve (which I successfully overcame as usual). I do not know where the mp3 playing ability came from. To me it really doesn't matter where it (and the DVD stuff) comes from -- it's just a one-time repository set up anyhow and then it updates itself. What Windows users don't realize is that most of their codecs come from the add-on applications that need to be installed. At least it did in XP (not sure about Vista and Vista 7). Try playing a DVD without installing PowerDVD or burning CDs or DVDs without Nero (for example). The reason most Windows' users don't run into this issue is because their computers usually come pre-installed with OEM software. If you install Linux Mint (for one) you never have to worry about any of this either. And it's only a minor issue with CentOS and those distributions that don't come with codecs (and Flash, etc) pre-installed. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:21 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: While that might be true, the reality of the situation is different. Until you can provide a seamless drop-in replacement for Windows that does not require a change in work-flow habits learned over the course of, for some, many years such a switchover will _never_ happen en masse. I don't think it's going to happen en masse, but I think it is happening. As more and more of computer usage goes to the Web (for non-power users, which are the majority) it becomes easier and easier to accept something other than Windows. I think, for example, the Asus running MeeGo is going to be more successful than Asus' previous Linux netbooks because folks are getting used to using Android and iOS on the Internet. They are beginning to think of the web browser as a replacement for the desktop. I think Google's ChromeOS *might* have been a success, had they not over-priced the machines -- but, personally, I want local storage. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Well, larger and lager fear of malware, trojans and regular viruses is excellent motivator. Especially when you add need to pay for good AV/IS solution. My country men are poor and paying even 20 EUR per year for good AV/IS software is something they hate and most never do. And when you add the slowdown good AV/IS brings... jackpot. Yep. This is mainly why my brother and father went to Linux -- and it was finally why I finally went completely to Linux. I didn't have any major issues, I just got tired of waiting for my machines to download, update and run anti-virus and anti-malware applications each time I started them up. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:45 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Always Learning wrote: You will probably find that all USA anti-virus products have included a backdoor for at least the last ~15 years or longer. Uncle Sam wants to see inside your computer. Google tracks your browsing especially via Firefox. Why else would Google give Mozilla USD 50 million and more? In Firefox type into the URL box: about:config then search for these strings:- Glad to see you've got your tin hat on. Any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? So... did you always send your love letters on post cards? It's a matter of privacy. The government doesn't have the right to rifle through your computer without cause. It's a matter of principle. Or do you not believe that back doors exist? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Always Learning cen...@u6.u22.net wrote: On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 16:45 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: Glad to see you've got your tin hat on. Any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? Those with functioning brains should be able to realise the consequences of over-surveillance of civilian communities especially in times of peace :-) Exactly. In the U.S. the whole Constitution was built around limiting government access to your private affairs. The Bill of Rights specifically laid it out: Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Celebrating Centos 6.0 Day World-wide
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Always Learning cen...@u6.u22.net wrote: I used Ami Pro 3 (from 1993) until I totally switched to Centos last year. I liked Word Pro (never went as far back as Ami Pro) because it was cleaner than Office or WordPerfect. At first I tried WordStar for Windows, but it really wasn't WordStar and it was limited. Word Pro was just a better alternative. My Dad has Lotus SmartSuite installed in Wine, but he hardly ever uses it now -- he's gone to OpenOffice. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Where can I download centos 6
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Steven Crothers steven.croth...@gmail.com wrote: Thankfully some good things have come of this complete disaster that is CentOS 6. * Scientific Linux 6 * Oracle Enterprise 6 (Which is free to download folks) * Clear-OS Core (Which is ran by a professional organization instead of a group if you're into that) Uh... Scientific Linux didn't come from CentOS. It's been in existence since 2004. Oracle Linux? Go for it, if supporting a parasitical, ungrateful corporation is your thing and if you like to pay for updates to them (I would just use Red Hat, if it were me). Clear-OS Core? Strange, I don't see its 6.0 version available for download yet. They've got an alpha out there, but it remains to be seen how will they'll rebuild Red Hat and how long their rebuilding project will last. I'm guessing they'll find it's a lot of work, go back to using CentOS and put their time back into their main product line. But we'll see. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Where can I download centos 6
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+cen...@betteradmin.com wrote: PLEASE STOP. WE DO NOT NEED THIS AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SO CLOSE TO RELEASE. Except it won't end with the release of 6.0. The same people will immediately go into whining about the release of 6.1. It's FUD -- for what purpose, I don't know. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack PAE support. This laptop is a Latitude D400, which I think were made in 2005. It definitely doesn't have PAE support. I discovered that when I tried to test Red Hat beta 6 on it. It's okay though, it probably won't last much longer than CentOS 5 support anyhow. It'll work out fine. I'm hoping CentOS doesn't fight me when I try to load the proprietary nVidia driver on the desktop. The only way I could do it in Linux Mint was to blacklist Nouveau in the Grub boot menu. And Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line (when you just want to do it for maintenance, like installing a video driver). -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: ElRepo has kernel modules already compiled: http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia so I guess it should be OK. Playing around with recompiling nVidia drivers was a real pain in a Bookmarked. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line. To boot into everything but X, you can append text to the kernel (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration. Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Ron Blizzard wrote: Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what kludging process I had to go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver had loaded, which is why I eventually had to blacklist it before installing the proprietary nVidia driver. Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the command line (which you can reach via ctrlalt-f1) or I think you can append 3 to the kernel line That was the first thing I tried (coming from the CentOS world). I don't think there is any such thing as runlevel 3 in Ubuntu/Mint. They use a different model. But the text entry did the job -- glad to know that (thanks). (I wonder why no one on the Ubuntu/Mint forums pointed me to that.) As for cntr-alt-f1, that gets me to the CLI, but, by that point, the Xorg has already been loaded. So it didn't help with installing the proprietary nVidia driver. As a matter of fact, even when I got it to log into non-graphics mode (doing whatever it was that I did), the Nouveau driver was still loaded -- which is why it had to be blacklisted in Grub. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: I do not in any way believe your claims of an hour-long install process, even if done manually by walking through anaconda screen by screen. I've had a couple network installs take a long time (Desktop installs not Servers) but that was because the mirror I chose at random was really slow. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the graphics card and monitor right (which does surprise me), and she had fun trying to find in which submenu the X settings were (applications, not system!). My brother called this weekend. He's a Windows programmer who has recently started experimenting with Linux. Ubuntu, specifically. He upgraded and then his ATI video card quit working correctly. He finally found the solution, but he searched all day (I was no help to him). I have one partition set up with Linux Mint 10 (because my Dad uses Linux Mint and I want to be able to support him over the phone). Every time I boot up, Nautilus and Gnome-Panel don't come up. (I have to go to a terminal and type pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel to get them to work.) So, although Mint is pretty and uses modern packages, it's not rock solid like CentOS. Of course desktops are different than servers and I can only speak from personal (limited) experience. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first place because Centos didn't include a driver for the wifi and ubuntu 'just worked'. Opposite of my experience. All functions on my Dell work with CentOS, including sleep, etc. Linux Mint can't replicate that -- if I close the lid, for example, I have to reboot. I haven't been able to find a fix for this. But I think it depends on your hardware. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have something other than an intel wifi chip? No, not any more. I had a Broadcom card, but an older laptop we gave away needed a WiFi card, so I invested $12 into an Intel card on eBay and installed the Broadcom card in the old laptop (it worked fine under Windows). I got the Broadcom working with FWCutter under CentOS, but its speed was all over the place. The thing I've never been able to get working in Linux Mint, is the hibernation. If I close the lid, it locks, unless I hibernate it first. But the main thing I don't like about Ubuntu/Mint is that each upgrade is an adventure. Of course, CentOS 6 won't work on my laptop (no PAE) but I've still got CentOS 5.x for that. We'll see what issues it has on desktop. I'm hoping that installing the proprietary Nvidia drivers won't be the hassle they are under Linux Mint. Nouveau is getting better, but it's still not good enough. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for Ubuntu. I don't have to generalize, I go to the forums and see all the issues -- often the same issues I'm having when I upgrade. What's frustrating about it is that, usually, there are no solutions. You often get the same advice I used to get when running Windows... upgrade your hardware. I often wonder if these Ubuntu issues are why Linux hasn't been more widely adopted on the Desktop. A lot of people come to Linux via Ubuntu. If an upgrade kills the video driver -- or the sound quits working -- or it doesn't even boot anymore, then their impression of Ubuntu (which many equate with Linux) is not going to be too good. Ubuntu is cutting edge, kind of like Fedora. I don't use Fedora because I prefer stability over cutting edge features. I choose CentOS over Ubuntu/Mint for the same reason I chose it over Fedora several years ago. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ClearOS rebuild
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: That's not what I said. I said Red Hat's redistribution restriction created the need for Ubunutu. And that the community that is now dependent on RH-rebuilds might be better served by a distribution that does not restrict redistribution in the first place. These aren't cause/effect but you could put them together if you want. Everyone is free to use what they want -- that's the cool thing about Linux -- choice. But, for me, Ubuntu is too bleeding edge to be a viable replacement for Red Hat/CentOS. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ClearOS rebuild
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I'm having some problems with the way the conversation is going. RedHat *was* a company; to me, the RHEL was aimed as a wedge, to get into corporate America. For that matter, who started offering their distro of RHEL around then? Why, the same company that offered this new o/s on their brand new product, the IBM PC in 1980: IBM. I see it this way. Red Hat tried to get into the retail desktop market, with some limited success. They were basically selling the media, CD and books. That market dried up when high speed Internet became more common -- everyone could download and burn their own CDs. So they reinvented themselves. Whether that was a good or bad decision for the community, their focus on the corporate market seems to have paid off for them. And, honestly, it appears to have worked out pretty well for others who use SL or CentOS, or one of the many products based on CentOS (like most of the open VOIP switches and ClearBox, Blue Onyx, etc.). -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Past numbers debunks this myth: CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. You left out and failed to respond to the following explanations. From Johnny Hughes earlier response: ~~ The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. The Original CentOS 3 release did not even have a ZERO release. We didn't finish it until 3.1 had been out for some time and we released 3.1 as our first release. That first release happened (for 3.1) on 3.19.2004: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2004-March/15.html The Red Hat 3.0 release happened on October 23, 2003. That is 5 months. The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many non released packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. ~~ Note, the reasons why 4.0 and 5.0 *could* be released more quickly: The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. And why 6.0 (like 3.0) is a different animal. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many non released packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. And also the fact that two point releases also came out in the same time frame: Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. Why do you snip the explanations and ignore the arguments contained in the text you snipped? Why no mention of the time it took to get 3.1 (not 3.0) out the door? Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. You know Les, you're talking in hypotheticals. Johnny and the other CentOS developers are actually *doing* the work. Everything is easy when you're not actually doing it. If you know so much about *how* it should be done, why don't you and your like-minded friends start your own rebuild project? That would give you something else to do rather than sniping from the sidelines here. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman jny...@jbtec.org wrote: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, Hopefully, deep down, the CentOS developers know that it's the same few whiners over and over and over and over again... like broken records. They've got it in their mind that they know so much better how it *should* be done. Armchair quarterbacks always *know* better. At any rate, +1. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: No, but I'm not the only member of the public. And your suggestion of starting by reproducing someone else's work from scratch instead of building on it would be like Linus telling everyone to just write their own unix-like kernel before trying to add to it. If he had done that instead of letting others build on the existing work we wouldn't be talking about usable Linux distributions today at all. And yet that's what the CentOS developers originally had to do (and apparently had to do all over again with 6.0). So a little respect and gratitude would be in order, don't you think? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Mathis These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars. The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to result in a discussion that ultimately improves the project. Ass kissing never has the potential to improve the project. Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very angry people who feel like they wasted their time promoting and using CentOS. Give me a break. Any human being, who's been working his ass off for nearly seven months to get out three separate releases of CentOS, would lose patience when all that comes from the sidelines is the constant drip, drip, drip of unending whining from a few repeat-o-matic cranks. I've basically ignored this mailing list for months because of it -- and have just recently come back to read it, and I'm already fed up with it. How the developers have put up with it for months, I have no idea. And, as for ass-kissing (as you so politely put it), I use and *like* CentOS and am grateful for all the work the developers put into it. And, especially since the ungrateful whiners can only bitch and bitch and bitch, I think every now and then the developers need to hear that there are those who appreciate their work. As I've told Les, if you know so much better how to do this, why don't you rebuild your own Red Hat distribution? So much easier to do it when you're not actually doing it, isn't it? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiu r...@pengooin.net wrote: The main fear the developers have is that somebody could steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system scripts. I think this is obvious by now. It is also pretty obvious that the developers have a strong hope that by keeping CentOS closed, somebody will notice their skills and will pay them a fortune for their knowledge by hiring them. This is my opinion and it is based on what I read on this list during the last months. What a load of undiluted crap. They've been doing this for over seven years. But nothing is stopping you from starting your own Red Hat rebuild project. You *know* so much better how it *should* be done. Enlighten us. Actually do it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. Clearly they have gotten a massive code base for free and though the cost of assembling it into a redistributable system is not inconsequential, it's clear that if this attitude was prevalent, we wouldn't have the massive code base available as it were. Disdain for users? You mean disgust for constant whiners, don't you? Strange to say, I share the developers disdain. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Brian Mathis The constant drip drip drip, as you put it, is generated from the disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who asks how much longer or how they can help is immediately slapped down and told to go away. Bullcrap. I've seen the same old droning by the same posters for at least a year now. It's not constructive criticism it's whining. When the developers tell you that adding more and more work will slow (not speed) CentOS development, they probably know what they're talking about. You think? The understanding that's missing from the Devs and sycophants is that users are asking BECAUSE THEY CARE. BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PROJECT. BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LOT OF WORK. And their concern is met with nothing but derision and accusations of being constant freeloading whiners. When all I see is constant whining, and empty threats to move to another distribution, what else can I conclude except that whiners will be whiners. If you suggest something, and it's rejected (for whatever reason) it's no longer constructive criticism to keep droning on about it. I don't see concern, I see whining. As for appreciating the developers, that is what all of the posts complaining about the process are about. People complain they can't help. People complain they can't do anything. People complain that when they ask, they are shut out instead of welcomed in. All of this comes from a desire to help the project. No, what *some* users whine about is that they can't control the process. They're miffed because their great suggestions are rejected. I realize that I'm probably lumping all complainers into the same category -- sorry but I'm fed up with the constant drip, drip, drip. At the very least let the developers get out from under the workload before offering yet more constructive criticism. The sycophants simply unable to have any real discussion. Those with criticisms have valid ones, but the responses do not actually address the problems -- they just ignite the flames. Anyone making personal attacks like calling people whiners or crybabies are really the ones causing the problem here, because there is no hope of ever making those constructive. Ignite the flames? Right. When I come here I see whining. I see complaints about the time required to rebuild CentOS. I see myself called a sycophant for defending the developers. But I'm the one igniting the flames. What a pant load. While the whiners my not have done anything to help, what have the supporters done? Any one of them could start digging in to the available and possibly back-channel information to have something to supply other than calling people names. Surely working to get that information out to users would stop these constant email chains more constructively than the name-calling? So I guess anyone not doing that is also a freeloading leech? We supporters (like he quotes, by the way) don't see the huge problem the concerned constantly yammer on about. We appreciate all the hard work and realize that CentOS is not Red Hat and that, if we absolutely have to have the newest releases immediately, we can go with the upstream. Good thing the concerned don't engage in name calling like the us sycophants. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Perhaps an interesting development....
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: Well, not to take away too much from the tinderbox, but I'd like to point everyone's attention to: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-open-source-love-expands-centos-li Headline: Microsoft's open source love-in expands with CentOS Linux support Short version: Microsoft now supports CentOS officially in Hyper-V. I wouldn't say it has anything with a love-in for open source, it's bowing to reality. CentOS is one of the biggest Web Server OSes and Microsoft was probably failing to gain market from VMWare because they didn't support CentOS. They also probably think it's a way to harm Red Hat. We'll see how it works out for them. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a lull in the whining. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: On May 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a lull in the whining. I know, once Idol finishes and Centos 6 relz, we'll have to find some thing else to rail about. I guess 6.1 is around the corner. Heck, this particular thread could still be going by the time 7.0 comes out. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Brian Mathis People don't complain just for the fun of it (if that's the world you live in, I feel sorry for you), they complain because something is bothering them. In this case, it is the very real and measurable delays in releases that seem to be getting longer. Release delays are an incontrovertible fact in this case, and anyone arguing otherwise needs their logic unit replaced. Up until 6.0 (with three releases at once 6.0, 5.6 and 4.9) we've seen the average delay for 5.x releases was 41.5 days. 5.5 came out in 44 days. If you can't wait a month and a half (or even two months) you should probably buy Red Hat. The case becomes even stronger given that, as you say, people have been complaining for at least a year now. That shows a long term pattern of the same issue coming up over and over and bothering people. There really can be no stronger case that is supported by both logic and evidence that there is a problem. It has been mentioned in numerous blog posts, twitter posts, and tech magazines. No, the same *very* few people have been complaining for over a year now. And they're not just complaining about delays, they're complaining about lack of community input into what constitutes CentOS. Even to the point of saying that they should be in the loop in deciding what goes into CentOS (like Fedora). News to whiners, CentOS is a rebuild project, the goal is to rebuild Red Hat. (No further input needed on that subject.) As for length of time, CentOS 5.5 came out less than a year ago. It took 44 days. Again, if that's too long of a wait, maybe you should move to Red Hat. Given that the issue is so clear, it adds insult to insult when someone asks about it and is treated like the problem doesn't exist. Suggestions given by people are rejected flat out not because they don't like the suggestion, but by countering that the problem doesn't exist. This is what's so inflammatory and causes so many flame wars. Having a constructive discussion is derailed most frequently not by the complainers, but by the if-you-don't-like-it-get-off-my-lawns. No, the issue isn't that clear. The average time of releases has slipped from the original 28 days to 41.5 days (pre 5.6 and the triple whammy). For me the real issue *is* the whining. The constant drip, drip, dripping... and I'm just reading the mailing list. Imagine what it must be like for those who are actually doing the work. Nothing is holding you to CentOS, so I'm guessing (despite the delays) it must fill a need you have. Maybe a little understanding (putting yourself in the other person's shoes) and a bit gratitude should be forthcoming. And, by the way, not directed specifically at you, but reading between the lines it appears that one issue may be that some contractors are selling cheap Red Hat to their customers and then, when the customers ask Where's the update? they're scrambling to explain the situation. They need to be up front. We're using a Red Hat rebuild, CentOS... updates are delayed. It's the nature of a rebuild. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] So sorry! was: Re: EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Smith li...@benjamindsmith.com wrote: The choices are clear, however: 1) Stick w/CentOS, get a high quality, highly compatible release at little/no cost, with an uncertain release date. I would say the uncertain release date is pretty much moot now, as CentOS has reached QA. According to the calendar, the date CentOS (tentatively) is going to start syncing to the mirrors is May 31st. http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/ -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote: On 05/12/2011 02:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? As far as users know, all work on 6.0 was postponed to get 5.6 done. At the time of 5.6's release, it was the only release the team was working on. Work on 5 should have been something the team was quite familiar with by that time. If 5.6 took 3 months to finish, then Dag's question is quite fair: why would we expect 6.1 to take so much less time? You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as mentioned by one of the developers) that they had to start from scratch on 6.0 -- that they'll be set up for 6.1 when it comes out. You're also leaving out the fact that SL had to rebuild the same three releases -- and they're still working on the last of those -- so the amount of time it's taking CentOS developers squares with the amount of time required by the SL developers. Check out the history of point releases between SL and CentOS. If I remember correctly the release dates are pretty close -- I think CentOS is usually out slightly earlier then SL,(realizing, of course, that the two distributions are handled differently). A quick review. 6.0 -- CentOS - (Soon)SL - 3/3/11 -- same time frame (1 of 3) 5.6 -- CentOS - 4/8/11SL - (Soon) -- same time frame (1 of 3) 5.5 -- CentOS - 5/14/10 SL - 5/19/10 5.4 -- CentOS - 10/21/9 SL - 11/4/9 5.3 -- CentOS - 3/31/9SL - 3/19/9 5.2 -- CentOS - 6/24/8SL - 6/26/8 5.1 -- CentOS - 12/2/7SL - 1/16/8 5.0 -- CentOS - 4/12/7SL - 5/4/7 4.9 -- CentOS - 3/2/11SL - 5/6/11 -- same time frame (1 of 3) 4.8 -- CentOS - 8/21/9SL - 7/28/9 4.7 -- CentOS - 9/13/8SL - 9/3/8 4.6 -- CentOS - 12/16/7 SL - 3/12/8 You can look them up on Wikipedia if you want more. Do you see any huge change in patterns here? I don't. Note the first of CentOS' releases on these three updates came out on 3/2/11, SL's first release came on 3/3/11. It appears that the last of the three releases (one for each distribution) will happen at about the same time also (I don't know how long it takes a CentOS release to get through QA or how long it takes SL to go from beta to finished, but they're both on the home stretch.) So, overall, it's taking both distributions a little less than seven months on these two point releases and one major release. If you're cynical you could say it's taken CentOS almost seven months on 6.0, where it took SL a bit less than four months. But, if I were cynical, I could say, yeah, but it only took CentOS about three weeks on 4.9 and it took SL nearly three months. And CentOS got 5.6 out in three months where it's taking SL nearly five months. (I realize this doesn't tell the whole story but I'm trying to drive home the point that there are three releases and both rebuild distributions developers are taking about the same amount of time. It is the priorities that are different.) I don't see the need for constant harping. (Sorry to ramble.) -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote: No, I'm not. Neither I nor Dag, as far as I saw, brought SL into the conversation at all. The question is not whether CentOS can build releases in less time than SL, or even a reasonable amount of time. The question that Dag posed was why users (or the release team) should expect 6.1 to be done in one month, when 5.6 took three and was a fairly well rehearsed process by that point. Obviously I missed the part where I (or someone) said (or claimed) that 6.1 could be done in a month. What does a month have to do with anything? There is a certain amount of time required to rebuild the upstream releases. Whatever that amount of time is, CentOS and SL seem to require about the same number. So I'm trying to figure out... why is CentOS attacked so much for taking too long? -- whereas SL is lauded as the go to distribution? As I showed in the list of release dates, CentOS and SL have almost always been fairly close (CentOS usually a little quicker). So why the claim that CentOS is getting worse on release dates? (General claim, not specifically yours.) I see no pattern in the release dates to indicate CentOS is generally falling behind SL. As has mentioned too many times now, CentOS is slower getting 6.0 out because they chose to update 4.x and 5.x first. But the time to get all three releases released appears to almost the same for both distributions. And the reason I bring this up is 1) SL is mentioned in the subject line and 2) SL is (I believe) the only other major community Red Hat rebuilding project. So, who else should I be comparing CentOS release dates with? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote: Look at wikipedia's page describing CentOS. They include a column for the delay between the upstream release and CentOS's. For the 5 series, it looks like: Release Delay 5 28d 5.1 25d 5.2 34d 5.3 69d 5.4 49d 5.5 44d 5.6 85d Almost every release in the 5 series took longer than the initial release for 5.0. Even if you ignore the release of 5.6, there is a generally upward trend in the amount of time taken for each release. How could anyone reasonably claim that CentOS is NOT getting worse on release dates? So, when you take 5.6 out of the mix (taking into account the three releases at once), the average time from Red Hat 5.x release to CentOS 5.x release is 41.5 days. And 5.5 was 44 days. Your point? Up until 5.6 the longest it took for a CentOS 5.x release was 69 days, 5.4 took 49 days and 5.5 took 44 days. Is that going up or down? Take 5.3 out of the mix (as well as the three-release 5.6) and you've got an average of 36 days. Just barely over a month. Even with 5.3 it averages about a month and a half. 5.6 (and 5.3) were the aberrations, not the average. Thanks for the figures. They don't prove your point. I can't even begin to comprehend the logical failure behind the idea that because SL and CentOS are keeping up with each other that CentOS is not getting worse. Again, Dag interjected only to ask why any reasonable person would expect 6.1 to take only one month when 5.6 took three. The fact that there is a general trend toward longer release delays supports that question. Again, three releases at once. Up until then, the previous two 5.x releases came down in the number of days between upstream release and CentOS rebuild. You've got the facts right in front of your nose and you still get it wrong. And I don't know what happened at release 5.3, but SL took 57 days on that one -- so I'm guessing something was added to the mix. That's fine, but that's not what's being discussed. So, on average (without 5.6) less than a month a half per release -- so a month for 6.1 is not that far off. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: Lastly, Johnny has made clear that this is not supposed to be an SL discussion list but curiously enough, SL is invoked by those who want to use SL to justify the alacrity of the CentOS 6.0 release. As was pointed out, though their 5.6 update was slow or apparently still not out, the updates all came out long ago so what you are actually referring to was the set of installation discs that are only really needed by people who want to install on newly supported hardware. Give me a break. Comparing SL and CentOS release dates is not the same as saying I've moved to SL, but I'm still going to come to the CentOS mailing list and bitch about it for the rest of my life. My point is that both CentOS and SL had to deal with two point releases and a major release all at the same time... err... in the same time frame. They each chose to handle the situation differently, and it appears that both will *finish* their three releases at approximately the same time. This is an exceptional case, it doesn't happen very often. By it's very nature a rebuild's distribution release *must* be delayed from its upstream release. Most CentOS users understand and accept this. So, if you *must* have the newest, cutting edge, release *immediately* you're going to need to license the upstream product. If you want to call that a take it or leave it proposition, then use that phrase. Personally I see it as simply bowing to the dictates of reality. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. Same time frame, if you want to be technical. As we've seen, work started on CentOS 6 and was suspended while the developers worked on 4.9 and 5.6. So, during the same time frame, two point releases and a major release all needed to be done. Sorry I didn't carefully choose my words or go into lawyer speak mode. And, has been noted, Scientific Linux gave preference to 6.0 and, as of yet, still have not completed 5.6. It's not often that either development team gets hit with a triple whammy like this. Scientific Linux chose one path, CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to agree with CentOS' choice here. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide. I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even use CentOS any more? (Serious question.) -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Brian Mathis It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. How so? By installing it? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as it is a valued brand now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they would make you take out all references just like RH do. It sounds to me like your big beef is that you can't run the CentOS distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or Scientific Linux. As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS name. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.ad...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you look at who has been complaining, a select few names span several years -- even when there are no point releases pending, they complain. Anyone who has ever used a newsgroup knows that some people delight in disrupting the process. They're called trolls on newsgroups. When someone continually repeats the same thing over and over and over, *ad nauseum*, then I would not conclude that they speaking for nine others who are silent. Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another. Doubtful. Some people have an extremely negative outlook or they have an agenda that they hope achieve by being the constantly squeaking wheel. Or, as in newsgroups, they have a need to be always stirring the pot. and this is how they stroke their egos. Whatever it is, many complainers are never satisfied, even when they get what they want. That's just their personality and it's not going to change. The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs. I haven't been following the mailing list that closely lately, but when the same people constantly harp on the same subject it tends to get under your skin. I would imagine when the developers (who have had two point releases and a major release thrown at them all at one time) are already tired due to the extra work, the ungrateful and repetitious bitching from the same few complainers would tend to be extremely irritating. snip. And does anyone really think trying to nuke a project with constant, public criticism is really going to groom these whiners to be great cheerleaders when (if) they ever get their way? Sorry, but some of them have the destructive personality of gossips. They've already shown their true colors. And I'm not saying this about everyone, especially not those who've occasionally complained about a specific issue and are often airing a legitimate gripe. It's those who have been fed up with CentOS for years and are going to leave any millennium now if they don't immediately get their way. I don't think I need to mention any names. You've seen them (again and again) here and at just about any public forum they can use to harm CentOS. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Why? Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and improve_ what they do. Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do closed development. Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others. Can you match the resources that Red Hat has? What's stopping you and others from going to Red Hat and doing what those who started CentOS did? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about the timeliness now. Yeah, genuinely concerned. And that concern is supposedly best served by bad-mouthing CentOS at every opportunity? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these issues. Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they are using? This may not be what you're looking for, but it's the link to bug posted on the forum. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693882 -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM, fred smith fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote: What works for me is, after I log in and find the panels are empty, do CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE then log in again and the panels are working. A fairly low-pain workaround. It is for me also (with the pkill gnome-panel work-around). The only reason I'm a bit surprised is that this sort of thing is so rare for Red Hat. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote: Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers? And only Evolution and Gnome-Panel? And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit (or only 64-bit)? I can't say -- this is just my personal experience. The two machines that are affected are 32-bit with nVidia video cards and proprietary drivers. The two that are not affected are using Intel video chips. I think it only affects Gnome-Panel and Evolution -- so it's a pretty selective bug to start with. I have a batch of 32-bit diskless workstations, powered by a 32-bit server (all but one uses an Intel video chip, and the last is something else -- not nVidia), one regular workstation (don't think it is nVidia either). A 32-bit laptop with a ATI video chip and a 64-bit desktop with a nVidia video chip, but NOT the proprietary nVidia driver (I have no use for 3D accel and refuse to mess with nVidia's proprietary drivers). All of these machines are still at CentOS 5.5, but I'd like to update them to 5.6. Oh, the laptop and the 64-bit workstation are *my* machines and *I* don't use *any* desktop manager (neither GNome nore KDE) on either machine. Oh, no one uses Evolution on any of these machines (one person uses Thunderbird). Again, I'm merely asking others whether this bug is selective as far as video chips go pr not (I'm trying to find a pattern).. Don't not come to any conclusions based on my four machines. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström c...@nsc.liu.se: On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote: For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution and Gnome-Panel, correct? Those are the only known problems with this glibc version. We've been running ~2000 servers with the update and no problems for ~2 weeks. That's what I thought -- non-graphical servers are fine. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so they don't _quite_ understand (or word) that correctly - the slowness didn't go all the way back to 5.0, but the point stands. Unless I'm mistaken there has *always* been a delay in certain patches when the CentOS team is rebuilding the point updates. Again, unless I misunderstand, many of the updates for 5.6 (for example) apply to the packages in the 5.6 updates (not the packages in 5.5). So you would, in effect, be updating files on CentOS that don't yet exist in CentOS. I did notice a few updates before 5.6 came out. I would assume these were critical security updates. I always notice that, once a point update comes out, many patches follow shortly after. I'm sure it would be possible to use a rolling update system, but this is never how the CentOS rebuild process has been done. (At least this is my understanding.) -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander leon...@den.ottolander.nl wrote: Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the forums. Perhaps it is possible to give a heads up about such breakage via the CentOS general or announce mailing list before such a broken package is released into the wild? That would actually make it an advantage to swim down stream :-) . Hi Leonard, When the issue came up for me, I went to CentOS.org with the intent of posting a question about the bug, but found the announcement right at the top. I didn't think to echo it on the mailing list because I always assumed that those on the mailing list were more informed than those who use the forum. You make a good point. But these upstream bugs are pretty rare -- the most common problems I've found with CentOS are issues with the add-on repositories for non-core applications -- and that's usually a matter of updates in the pipes. BTW, has anyone been able to figure out a pattern with this particular bug? My two computers with nVidia video chips have the problem, my laptop and my brother's computer (both running on Intel video chips) don't have the problem. I'm curious if all those who have this issue are using nVidia cards. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Gnome Notification Applet
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: Most likely because of the increasing number of noobs that delete/remove parts of the panels and then whine helplessly for someone to help them revert it back to default state. But there's nothing to keep them removing the Notification Applet -- and when they do that, there's no Volume Control or Network Manager or several other applets (in some distributions) in the applets add-on dialog, so their problem is worse than it was before. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote: There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that version of glibc. That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are four CVEs closed by this glibc update, one of which is potentially a remote privilege escalation (and that one is NOT the one that is causing the issue). If, for some reason, you cannot update then you should seriously consider whether or not those systems can connect to the Internet, or if you should get the glibc from Scientific Linux that has the 3 patches that do not cause an issue in the meantime. For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution and Gnome-Panel, correct? If so, for most servers, the update should not be a concern. I've updated four desktops -- the two with Intel video chips are not affected at all. The two with nVidia chipsets and proprietary nVidia drivers *are* affected. Since I don't use Evolution, the work-around for me is to issue the pkill gnome-panel command. Usually doing this once will fix it, but sometimes it requires a couple shots. I dual-boot into Linux Mint 10 (so I can remotely support my father who uses Linux Mint -- I need to be able to replicate his errors when he has them). It has a very similar issue, except, in its case, both Nautilus and Gnome-Panel do not come up. I have to go to a tty terminal and issue the pkill nautilus and pkill gnome-panel commands. I didn't have this problem *until* I updated the video driver to nVidia's proprietary one. So, again, it appears it might have something to do with the nVidia's driver. At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution, the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat has not issued a fix yet. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Gnome Notification Applet
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Patrick Lists centos-l...@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote: On 04/16/2011 06:34 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: [snip] without success. Is there a configuration file I can change or a configuration program I can run to customize this? Afaik there is no way to make Gnome applets that make use of the Notification Area by design to do something outside of the Notification Area. Well... that's not good. I realize it's not a huge deal, but it's an irritant. Why does Gnome want to limit the ability to customize? If you want the ability to customize everything have a look at KDE. Or maybe XFce. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Gnome Notification Applet
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Lars Hecking lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: I realize it's not a huge deal, but it's an irritant. Why does Gnome want to limit the ability to customize? Check out Gnome3 then. And weep. Hopefully Red Hat (and CentOS) will continue using Gnome 2.x.x for a while yet. I don't understand why you would want to take away the ability to customize. That's one of the main reasons I like Linux. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Gnome Notification Applet
I tried out Scientific Linux 6 Live to see (basically) what I can expect with CentOS 6 and was pleased to find that everything looks pretty familiar and is easily customizable to make it look and feel like 5.6 -- except for one thing that I also noticed in Ubuntu's newest beta (my Dad uses Linux Mint). For whatever reason, Gnome has decided to put the Volume Control and Network Manager in the Notification Applet. (It's worse with Ubuntu, they've put four applets there by default.) On my desktop I don't display the Network Manager, but I like the Volume Control to be there (on the very right beside the clock). I spent most of my trial time with SL 6 trying to figure out how to separate these two applets from the Notification Applet -- without success. Is there a configuration file I can change or a configuration program I can run to customize this? I realize it's not a huge deal, but it's an irritant. Why does Gnome want to limit the ability to customize? Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Luigi Rosa li...@luigirosa.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just one thing: THANK YOU ALL!!! Ciao, luigi Seconded (or thirded, or fourthed... or...) Update went without issue on the desktop -- currently updating the laptop. I don't anticipate problems because these are pretty generic installs. Didn't do anything special, not even a 'yum clean all' (forgot about it again). Thanks everyone. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Luigi Rosa li...@luigirosa.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just one thing: THANK YOU ALL!!! Ciao, luigi Seconded (or thirded, or fourthed... or...) Update went without issue on the desktop -- currently updating the laptop. I don't anticipate problems because these are pretty generic installs. Didn't do anything special, not even a 'yum clean all' (forgot about it again). Thanks everyone. No issues with the laptop update either. Great work. Thank you. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Full screen Flash in CentOS 5.5 again
I'm happy to report that, as of (at least) the last Flash update, full screen Flash (on Hulu and Youtube) is again working on my machine. I know some folks weren't updating Flash because of this so it might be time to update. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Grub upgrade for CentOS 5.5?
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote: You don't need to upgrade grub, I'm quite happily dual booting rhel6 GA on a CentOS-5 system (using C-5 GRUB). Only thing I did differently is the rhel6 /boot partition is mounted on an ext3 partition whereas I _think_ the default might be ext4 which, as a wild guess, is probably unsupported by CentOS-5 GRUB ? The rest of the system is quite happily sitting in an ext4 partition using md raid on lvm. Hi Nick, Thanks for writing back. I'm using ext3 also. Is it possible to see your RHEL 6 grub entry? Did you install grub on the RHEL boot partition and use a chainloader, or were able to just do a normal entry? Again,t hanks for any ponters. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Grub upgrade for CentOS 5.5?
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote: Yes, I installed rhel6's grub to the rhel6 /boot partition during the rhel6 installation and then added a chainloader entry to the end of the CentOS-5 /boot/grub/grub.conf to boot rhel6: title RHEL6 Buildsys rootnoverify (hd0) root (hd0,1) chainloader +1 Adjust to suit your partitioning scheme :-) Thanks. I'm guessing that's my problem. Red Hat installed grub to the MBR, then I overwrote it with the CentOS grub. So there's nothing to chainload on the partition. I'll fix it and report back. Again, thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Grub upgrade for CentOS 5.5?
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote: Yes, I installed rhel6's grub to the rhel6 /boot partition during the rhel6 installation and then added a chainloader entry to the end of the CentOS-5 /boot/grub/grub.conf to boot rhel6: title RHEL6 Buildsys rootnoverify (hd0) root (hd0,1) chainloader +1 Adjust to suit your partitioning scheme :-) That's all it needed. Thanks. Writing from Red Hat now. Would have been here sooner, except SELinux did a relabel -- whatever that is. Probably didn't like me messing with grub. I thought I could do a normal Linux grub entry (like CentOS) but I got an grub error number 2 when I tried that (13 with the chainloader, which makes sense since I didn't have grub there). I'll use the chainloader from now on when I tri-boot. Thanks very much. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ... err RHEL 6 Evaluation ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Another Satisfied Linux Customer!
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Keith Roberts ke...@karsites.net wrote: Well this guy is obviously running Centos 5.5, and can't wait for the upcoming 6 release. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xed9LiMf1Qgfeature=aso Happy New Year all ;) Happy (late) New Year. I like the video -- saw it with some other soundtrack earlier. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Grub upgrade for CentOS 5.5?
Stupid question (I'm guessing). I'm currently tri-booting (or would like to be) VectorLinux 6 Deluxe, CentOS 5.5 and an evaluation copy of Red Hat 6. I'm using CentOS's grub. VectorLinux and CentOS boot fine, but Red Hat won't load. I think I read somewhere that CentOS's grub is too old for ext3, 256 (something or others). So, is it possible to download and install a newer version of grub for CentOS 5.5? (This has been a problem with other tri-boot attempts). If not, is their a way to boot Red Hat from the install DVD? Since it's only a 30 day evaluation, booting from DVD or CD would be fine, but I don't see the option. Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] {SOLVED} Re: Google Picasa / GNOME / how to launch application?
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Lanny Marcus lmmailingli...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Dejan cen...@bektchiev.net wrote: I had a similar issue with Picasa on my Fedora 14 laptop. The solution was to download the latest Picasa version for Windows and run it under Wine. Dejan: Thank you. That's the easiest way! I uninstalled the version of Picasa for Linux I'd gotten from the google yum repository, installed wine and then I downloaded the M$ Windows version (3.8) of Google's Picasa and installed that with Wine. Working! :-) Strangely, in the Help About it shows that it is Picasa version 3.8.x for Linux. :-) Thanks to the 3 of you who replied. Much appreciated! Lanny I'm just running Piscasa as an app under the Chromium Web Broser. Also running Picnik the same way. They work well together. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] centos 5.5 - using mp3
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM, cybernet cyberne...@yahoo.com wrote: centOS 5.5 is for servers not for desktops, please get use to that use another distribution like ... a very popular one for desktops Or just install the multimedia add-ons and use it as your desktop. For MP3s, I just install XMMS and the MP3 codec for XMMS. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] centos 5.5 - using mp3
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Johan Scheepers johans...@telkomsa.net wrote: Good day, Been googling about this matter. Afraid I am now confused. Too many options..: for/against/whatever. Some is years ago. Kindly please a step x step manner in which to accomplish to enable mp3 please. Thanks Johan Here's a good link on setting up multimedia with CentOS. http://linuxforeverything.com/wordpress/?p=73 -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Flash problems in newest upgrade?
Hi, I just upgraded to the newest kernel and Flash. Hulu now grays out when I try to go to full screen. I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the proprietary video drivers (no difference either way), so I'm guessing it has something to do with either the new Flash or the new kernel. Anyone else experiencing this problem? Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] flash-plugin crashes on full screen
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com wrote: I noticed in the announcement at: https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhsa-announce/2010-November/msg4.html the following quote: During testing, it was discovered that there were regressions with Flash Player on certain sites, such as fullscreen playback on YouTube. Despite these regressions, we feel these security flaws are serious enough to update the package with what Adobe has provided. Sorry that I started another thread on this subject. Now I understand the issue. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] sound
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM, mattias m...@mjw.se wrote: Are the sound muted as default? It has been on some of my CentOS installs and not on others. I can't explain why and why not. Once you know about the issue, it's easy to fix. CentOS is not the only Gnome distribution that does this. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] CentOS on laptops
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Saulius Pobedinskas spobedins...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, My username is SauliusPobedinskas And i want to add an article in CentOS wiki. HowTos/Laptops add my Fujitsu Siemens Amilo 1645 Laptop expierence with CentOS. ( http://www.hydro2control.com/FTP/InfosTecni/SiemensFuyitsuDriverCD/SiemensfujitsuDriverUtilitys/manual/amilo_ax64x_mx425_mx405/AMILO_A1645G_Generic.pdf ) I am very pleased to announce by far CentOS was the most friendly distro Regards, Saulius Pobedinskas CentOS works very well on my Dell Latitude D400. I think I've still got a HowTo Wiki on that install as well. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] Went with OpenDNS for now
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Lanny Marcus lmmailingli...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: A few weeks ago I asked about firewalls and family filters. Lanny Marcus, I believe, suggested OpenDNS. Just wanted to thank him (and everyone here) for their suggestions. snip Ron: My pleasure. Usually, I am the one receiving help from the list. Glad you found OpenDNS useful. Lanny I've already set it up at my brother's house, it has to be the easiest family filtering solution for multiple computers. The only downside is this allows me to put off learning anything about Linux servers... again. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Went with OpenDNS for now
A few weeks ago I asked about firewalls and family filters. Lanny Marcus, I believe, suggested OpenDNS. Just wanted to thank him (and everyone here) for their suggestions. Eventually I would like to learn about firewalls, but I don't really want to run another machine at this time. OpenDNS is trivial to set up on the router and looks to be just about exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Sorry to have dropped out of the other thread without thanking everyone or reporting the results -- I just last night dug up the thread (google search) and saw the OpenDNS suggestion. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Drew drew@gmail.com wrote: LVM adds flexability that regular partitioning can't. Example 1. Say you've mounted an entire 2TB disk as /home and it's almost full. Now you want to add another 2TB to /home. How do you? Easiest way is with LVM. You just add the new disk into LVM's pool of storage and expand the home partition (Logical volume) to use the new space. Now you have a single filesystem spread across two disks. Example 2. Now let's say that you bought a NAS device (QNAP, Drobo, Buffalo) that does iSCSI or NFS and you want to move your data off the two local disks. With LVM you just add the new 'disk' into the pool then tell LVM to move existing data off the 'old' disk. Try doing that with parted. :-P I understand the advantages when using a server, but my personal computer is a Small Form Factor Dell GX270 with only one hard drive slot. But I'll look closer into LVM options when I install on the bigger hard drive. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Fajar Priyanto fajar...@arinet.org wrote: You don't need LVM if you don't plan to expand the filesystem (or a particular mount point). Okay, thanks. By reading the responses, it appears the very least I should do is not let CentOS do a standard setup -- in other words I should save some space on the hard drive. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Juergen Gotteswinter j...@internetx.de wrote: * snaphotting (great for db backup) * resizing partition * online partitioning I didn't know LVM would do snapshots -- I'll have to look into that. But I'm guessing the feature is pretty much worthless if the whole hard drive is taken up by one LVM partition -- which has been my CentOS default setups. Thanks. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote: LVM has a number of useful features and advantages. The 'default' RedHat/CentOS LVM setup (basically creating one LVM volume taking up all available space for the root file system), is pretty useless. With modern *large* disks. LVM (if set up properly) allows creating and/or resizing logical disks without having to shutdown and/or rebooting the system. This is often usefull for installing virtual processes (eg with xen). Thanks. I don't know if my 160 Gig hard drive would qualify as a modern *large* disk or not, but it's definitely bigger than the current 20 Gig one. I thought an external USB drive would work fine, but I'm finding the current situation is too cramped. Is there any way to mount an LVM partition from another Linux distribution? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Benjamin Franz jfr...@freerun.com wrote: You can use LVM for taking snapshots as well (very useful if you want to quiesce databases for the shortest possible time for backups) . And you can use LVM to migrate data from an old drive to a new one or even to *shrink* a partition. I've never found LVM to 'be a pain'. 99% of the time it's invisible, and 1% of the time it's indispensable. I guess my ignorance is showing. It could also be that the small hard drives that I usually use with CentOS really can't take advantage of this feature. So far I haven't done much with servers, but I have been experimenting with Asterisk and plan to work through the Foundations of CentOS -- so that should change. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] When should LVM be used?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Todd Denniston todd.dennis...@tsb.cranrdte.navy.mil wrote: Best use for LVM I have seen... Reducing the number of times you need to enter the LUKS pass phrase to once per boot, i.e., one LUKS containing an LVM of / and Swap so that the system can boot with one entry of the pass phrase and if you then have other partitions, such as an independent /home, /etc/crypttab can be used (with appropriately constructed and protected cryptpassphrase files). At this point I don't even know what a LUKS pass phrase is -- is this something I'm liable to run into on a home desktop computer? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] When should LVM be used?
In my old computer I have a much bigger hard drive then in this one -- and I plan to hand that old computer down to one of my sons -- keeping his current drive from an even older computer. Currently the hard drive on my old computer has SuSE Linux, but that will go. I'll rebuild CentOS 5.5 on it, but I want to leave some free space for whatever comes up and also dual-boot Vector Linux. Which, at last, brings me to the question... Is there any reason to use LVM on a personal desktop install of CentOS? It seems to me, for my purposes, that LVM is just a pain in the neck -- although I've always just let CentOS set it up during the install in the past. I would like to be able to use parted to resize partitions when I want to, and also I'd like Vector Linux to be able to read and write data to the CentOS partition. Would I be missing something by not installing LVM, or is this mostly for server purposes anyhow? Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Booting from a USB hard drive?
I'm trying to learn Asterisk (specifically Trixbox) and, as you probably know, it runs on CentOS. I want to run it on my laptop and thought that I could install it to an external USB hard drive, like I've done with Fedora 12 and Linux Mint 8 (I like to keep my small CentOS/Windows dual booting hard drive in the laptop's hard drive slot). But it won't work. It kept giving me hard drive errors when I tried to install it to the USB drive, so I installed it in the regular hard drive slot in the laptop -- where it works fine. But when I move it to the USB enclosure, it starts to boot, but can't mount the partitions and goes into kernel panic. I checked this with my CentOS hard drive and it does the same. I'm guessing the only reason Linux Mint works is because it refers to all partitions as sda instead of hda -- so it doesn't know it's in the wrong slot (just a guess). Is there an easy fix for this? Is there some configuration file that I can change entries from hda to sda so the partitions will mount or is it more involved than that? Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xulrunner 1.9.0.19-1: Does it exist or what?
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote: According to 'yum info xulrunner' version 1.9.0.19, release 1.el5_5 exists and is an available package. But when I try to update it, yum claims there is nothing to do and when I try a general update, yum complains that it cannot update firefox because it cannot find xulrunner = 1.9.0.19-1. What is going on here? I had the same problem. Just waited till the next morning and everything synced fine. Wasn't this just a Firefox update? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Update successful. Thanks.
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: how about yum.log ? if you dont mind attaching that, I think there is enough info for a bugreport on bugs.centos.org The yum.logs don't show anything about memory issues. Maybe I only assumed it was a memory issue and quit out of the update process before it was done needlessly. When I updated my brother's computer, there was some of the same behavior (at least it appeared to be the same) and I think it had something to do with shutting down the VirtualBox kernel. I just let it go in that case and everything updated fine. I've just updated my laptop without any issues (no VirtualBox on this computer). I guess what I'm saying is that I think the only software problem was the software between the computer screen and the chair. Sorry for bringing it up -- next time I'll document any problems -- real or imagined. And thanks again for your great work on CentOS. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Update successful. Thanks.
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 05/15/2010 08:05 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: My desktop updated without a hitch... well, actually, I ran out of disk space after the download completed, so had to clear some space, yum tries to do some space required estimates before starting the process, so its clearly got that wrong in your case here. Would you mind filing a bugreport at bugs.centos.org about this issue ? and also add details like a 'df -h' and exactly how much yum got things wrong by. thanks I can give a current 'df -h' but, unfortunately, I didn't write down any specifics while updating. Here's what I currently have. [r...@localhost ~]$ df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 35G 30G 3.4G 90% / /dev/hda1 97M 37M 56M 40% /boot tmpfs502M 0 502M 0% /dev/shm The issue came up *after* I had downloaded all the update files. My used space was 99%, approximately 230 Megs were shown available at /. There was no memory available in my tmpfs directory/partition. I believe yum kicked me out of the update process. There were a lot of messages without line breaks -- filled up the screen. When I cleared about 3 Gigs of memory and re-ran 'yum update' it started back up where I left off and finished the updated without issue.. If you think that I have enough information to file a bug report I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks again. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Update successful. Thanks.
My desktop updated without a hitch... well, actually, I ran out of disk space after the download completed, so had to clear some space, but the update process continued from where I left off without a hitch -- and that's hardly CentOS's fault. I've still got to update my laptop, but am a little leery, because I think I've a got a hard drive failing. At any rate, thank you *again* for all your hard work. I don't know if I'm imagining it or not, but overall speed seems to be slightly snappier with the new update. -- RonB CentOS 5.5 - Optiplex GX270 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Wireless Made Easy (for Home Desktops)
For those of you who use a wireless router and may work on one or two (or even several) machines in your computer room, an AP Client is a nice solution. When you move to another machine you can just move the wireless net adapter to the new machine and you're up and running on the network immediately. I've been using a D-Link G730AP for a while -- but it's not really made for this -- it's a pocket adapter meant to carry with you laptop. And, unlike my old Asus WL-330, it won't hook up to a switch. Asus also makes a more powerful, larger, wireless AP/Client/Bridge/Reapeater, the WL-320gE. I bought two of these on eBay and they work great as Clients (network adapters) or Stations in Asus talk. They have a range of 850 meters (as compared to the pocket AP's range of 40 meters) so, in my room, I've got the full speed of my Cable wirelessly. It's three to four times faster than the D-Link G730AP, and it's solid (the D-Link was iffy). But, more importantly, I can hook it up to a wired (standard) switch and have as many simultaneous network connections as ports in the switch (in this case, four -- but I only use two). I've also set one up in the back of the house with a switch for my son's computers -- through several walls they're still getting very fast service. This is the only way I've used this device, but a lot of people buy them as repeaters. (I could mine up a repeater/client and my kids would have an even stronger single, but it's not necessary.) Another feature of Asus is that you can use it simultaneously as a bridge and as a wired client. It works well, the documentation is a bit inadequate, but it doesn't take long to translate. Anyhow, I've rambled again. The reason I bring this up is that these things are currently selling for $25 on eBay -- which is about the cost of mid-range USB adapter. The seller has nearly 800 of them. (I have no relationship with the seller, except I'm a customer.) The eBay link is at http://tinyurl.com/ykysncw -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.4 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
