Mark Bradbury wrote:
yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes
it useful.
besides, read the title text on that page again:
QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not
official release dates, but only a guide for the
On Mon, June 27, 2011 02:26, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Not quite. Those are at least not before this date. And those are
goals set for upcoming period. If issues are found between now and
then, then schedule has to be moved. They are not Microsoft to
release unfinished product.
But I do
yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes
it useful.
besides, read the title text on that page again:
QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not
official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target
dates are subject
So,
to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it happen
in June or July?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Monday, June 27, 2011 10:46 AM, robert mena wrote:
So,
to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it
happen in June or July?
I vote who cares?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
I vote who cares?
I vote http://qaweb.dev.centos.org;.
John
--
I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.
-- Euripides (c 480
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
I vote who cares?
I vote http://qaweb.dev.centos.org;.
Too bad that does not seem to be good enough for some.
___
CentOS
On 16 June 2011 01:20, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS.
so says the person who has not done it
- the rpm tool changed, adding a non-backward compatible
compression scheme. as I
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote:
Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
In fact, it's sort of
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote:
those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart
CentOS 7 (based on upstream 7) will be a vastly different beast
CentOS 7 will most probably have systemd not upstart.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
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 doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
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
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
command line
Laurence Hurst wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from
On 06/16/2011 06:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps
I think you're referring to Solaris' init. I'm not aware of any Linux
init systems that start up by stepping through runlevels.
___
CentOS mailing list
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
I don't know about ISC UNIX (aka Interactive UNIX) but SCO did not use run
level 5 for X. I cut my teeth on System V UNIX including
Ron Blizzard wrote:
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
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote:
On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the
information
given on this site:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:19 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote:
easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more
new CentOS installs any
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:06 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that
is utterly
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
production.
*blink*
Absolutely not.
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote:
On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the
information
given on this site:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
overloaded with bloat from the very start.
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
Craig White wrote:
I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I
don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora
for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so
completely out-of-date.
Time from CentOS 5.0 to 6.0 was marked
Ron Blizzard wrote:
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
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough
for
production.
*blink*
Absolutely not.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Most of the stuff that you have to use 3rd party repos to get
on CentOS is in the stock ubuntu repositories in usably recent versions.
I've found 99% of the things I need on a CentOS
(which I only use on home servers)
is in the epel repository if it is not in the CentOS
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS?
Does it have a rival in this role?
you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos
at all.
It's just another third party repo.
There are others including some reputable and widely
On 14/06/2011 22:52, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
What 24th are you talking about?
Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned the
postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now.
gvim
___
CentOS mailing list
On 06/15/2011 02:37 PM, gvim wrote:
Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned
the postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now.
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
- KB
___
On 06/13/2011 05:56 PM, NOYK wrote:
No. Given the economy people are trying to make systems last as long as
possible and this is just 6.0 not 6.1. Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how
apps perform/behave and then wait till 6.1. Never go to a major revision.0
unless you are forced.
hopefully
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere
Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to cybernautape
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728
gvim
On 06/15/2011 02:59 PM, gvim wrote:
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere
Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to cybernautape
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728
I dont know
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
This was the original entry I saw:
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/
gvim
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
gvim wrote:
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
This was the original entry I saw:
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/
gvim
I assume that that person made an typo. There was announcement that it
will be released
On 6/15/2011 6:54 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS?
Does it have a rival in this role?
you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos
at all.
It's just another third party repo.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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 --
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote:
Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image
w/
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.
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
On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-)
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html
There are a number of Important reasons not to deploy 6.0 for
public-facing systems.
___
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-)
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html
There are a number of Important reasons not to deploy 6.0 for
public-facing systems.
Ron Blizzard wrote:
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
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote:
Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
overloaded with bloat from the
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Ron Blizzard wrote:
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
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
On 6/15/2011 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh,
VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10
minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took
On 06/15/2011 03:08 PM, Craig White wrote:
those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart
Upstart would still honor the setting in /etc/inittab.
Fedora, however, is now using systemd. It's an even more different
beast than you are familiar with:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very
slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it,
though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it
probably was. Could
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 06/15/2011 01:39 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
I'm not trying to serve as apologist for RHEL 6. I'm just saying that
there's little room in my world for an abolutist position like never
use a .0 release -- ever.
I wouldn't favor such a sentiment
On 06/15/2011 03:57 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
Maybe Red Hat will continue to obfuscate its infrastructure and
increase the burden on teams like CentOS who try to rebuild the
distribution from SRPMs
Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS.
On 06/15/2011 03:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very
slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it,
though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it
probably was. Could have been an issue in
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
On 6/15/2011 5:56 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've seen vmware disk emulation - LVM - partitions run very, very
slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking if it hurts, don't do it,
though. And I don't remember if it was a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward
production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions.
And blaming the OS being installed or the installer itself in such
circumstances is
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
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.
That's possible, yes; but not germane here as the post stated that he
was using
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:08:11PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Any disk layout that doesn't align filesystem blocks with actual disk
blocks is going to perform very badly.
I will agree this is possible in real-world environments, yes. I also
will say that this is an issue of the admin not
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS.
so says the person who has not done it
- the rpm tool changed, adding a non-backward compatible
compression scheme. as I blogged about months ago; this has
'flow through' effects as to
Paul Heinlein wrote:
In *this* case, since Red Hat has already released 6.1, it may even be
prudent to wait for the CentOS 6.1 release before public deployment.
My guess is devs will first work on critical updates and release them
before the 6.1 official release. That way 6.0 will still be
On 6/15/11 7:08 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward
production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions.
And blaming the OS being installed or the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'm not sure I'd go that far when using a different installer (or
avoiding LVM) in the same environment gives vastly better results.
Even if some quirk of the low level environment really turns
out to be responsible its not
Mark Bradbury wrote:
On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information
given on this site:
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar
It seems every time I look
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote:
easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new
CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs at
this point.
Holy shit, man! I'd never, by choice, put in an Ubuntu server. Debian,
sure
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote:
easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more new
CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5 installs
at this point.
Holy
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote:
easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more
new CentOS installs any more. I'm just going to maintain the CentOS 5
installs at this
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same.
Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I
can't possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness.
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that
is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee
that the almost daily
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that
is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee
that
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that
is utterly dependent upon a
heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same.
There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system.
Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't
possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness.
Maybe I'm just in a different kind of environment, but why do you
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:26 PM, Trutwin, Joshua wrote:
heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same.
There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system.
Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't
possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness.
Maybe
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE
ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code,
that is
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
MVNCH
Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental
releases. Even some LTS
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
production.
*blink*
Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use
Fedora for
Jerry Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough
for production.
*blink*
Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I
On 6/14/2011 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental
releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs
in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do
major-rev upgrades provided that you do not
On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's
snip
10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of
gnome, and put KDE on
I want solid and stable.
I don't get the comparisons. Do you have
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team
that's
snip
10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of
gnome, and put KDE on
I want solid and stable.
I don't get the
Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how apps perform/behave and then wait
till 6.1.
I beg to differ. Smart folks will test 6.0 and deploy it if performance
is
acceptable.
Guess you have never worked in an organization of any size where you worry
about reliability, patches, bug fixes, etc.
On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm an admin. I'm a contractor.
Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term consequences.
OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more
or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from this
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm an admin. I'm a contractor.
Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term
consequences.
Yes, I bloody well am. I work for a federal contractor, and as long as
they have the multi-year contract, and my
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
PLEASE ... let this thread die or take it to a bar somewhere
... it has NOTHING do do with the subject line
-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS
On 14/06/2011 05:07, Mark Bradbury wrote:
On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrnebyrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information
given on this site:
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar
It seems every time I look at that site the dates
on 6/14/2011 2:23 PM gvim spake the following:
,snip
Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems.
That's why I switched. Don't get it.
gvim
You forgot to switch lists... ;)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
gvim wrote:
Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems.
That's why I switched. Don't get it.
What 24th are you talking about?
QA site has 16th as pushing to internal mirrors. I was informed that all
rpm's are OK, they are just fixing few distro/ISO bugs.
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
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
On 6/14/2011 4:54 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
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
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
production.
That was me. Using fedora isn't my choice but it's been running fine
for the
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 08:59 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzardrb4cen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
