On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
No! No!
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 14:15, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come
--On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:46 PM -0400 James B. Byrne
byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
No! No! This topic IS the RAPTURE. First there will be wars and
rumours of wars. . .
Delayed until October. :P
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
on 5/24/2011 1:06 PM Brunner, Brian T. spake the following:
snip
When the 7th seal is opened there will be silence in heaven for about
the space of half an hour (Rev 8:1), implying that the net will be down
world-wide. THAT will cause Armageddon all by itself (Rev 9:16, 16:16).
I thought
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 04:06 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
Yesiree, before the Great Rapture, we who read this list are all going
to be out of work.
Who want to try to top me for spiritual silliness?
You've already been topped if you have not noticed by a certain person
who's been
On 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie
On 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie
On 5/23/11 4:44 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
The community does many, many things for CentOS.
And some of those things could probably be better too, but...
We never said, anywhere, that the community would build the packages,
nor did we say we would teach people how to make the distribution ...
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals
for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current
situation? If more community participation is off the
table, what else could help?
Johnny points out that we get crickets at he
R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals
for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current
situation? If more community participation is off the
table, what else could help?
Tell you what, Les -- YOU
2011/5/23 Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org:
I have said this a million times ... but you are flat out wrong.
The community does many, many things for CentOS.
It is the community that makes the CentOS Fora one of the best place to
get information.
The community does all the articles on the
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response
to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free
entitles its proponents to be rude to those using it.
You must be new to this
On 05/23/2011 03:01 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Here, we are asking for someone to get involved with the project. As
usual, the trolls who say CentOS is closed do not volunteer to help
actually do things. Nothing from them but the sound of crickets when we
actually ask for help.
I did.
2011/5/23 R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response
to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free
entitles its proponents to be
On 05/23/2011 09:08 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
regarding the fact we are not contributing as much as we want to the
project, i'm afraid is basicaly a documentation problem. i'd personally
like to do something to help, but i don't have the required education to
do that.
Fedora provides
R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response
to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free
entitles its proponents to be rude to those
How about a fundamental change? A completely open development process
like at Fedora?
Fedora is not suitable to what CentOS is, for several reasons.
1: Fedora is a bleeding-edge engineering development project, CentOS is
a reverse-engineering effort.
2: Fedora is for avid hobbyists, CentOS
2011/5/23 Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com
On 05/23/2011 09:08 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
regarding the fact we are not contributing as much as we want to the
project, i'm afraid is basicaly a documentation problem. i'd personally
like to do something to help, but i don't have the required
Gordon Messmer wrote on 05/23/2011 11:41 AM:
What was it about Patrice's work
that you found unsatisfactory?
I don't think anyone found Patrice's work unsatisfactory. He just
stated that he did not have much time to work on the CentOS-6 LiveCD/DVD
and asked for someone else to take the lead.
On 05/23/2011 10:06 AM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
I don't think anyone found Patrice's work unsatisfactory. He just
stated that he did not have much time to work on the CentOS-6 LiveCD/DVD
and asked for someone else to take the lead.
If it's satisfactory, the live cd would be considered done. If
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
Having slept on that, I don't think my previous reply was direct to
your
accusation.
snip
My entire participation in the last long thread was directed at users
who have unrealistic expectations of the CentOS release team.
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
___
CentOS
On May 23, 2011, at 7:50 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
This seems to me to be an unnecessarily agressive response
to what appeared to me a rational question from Les Mikesell.
But I don't think the fact that a service is free
entitles its proponents
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5/23/2011 11:02 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic spake the following:
snip
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture
On 05/23/2011 11:02 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I was first to suggest that C6.1 **might** be released in **about** a
month from C6.0. Why? Because I suspect that since RHEL 6.1 srpms are
already published, devs could use free time, while waiting for QA team
to find bugs, to dry-run 6.1
On 5/23/2011 1:31 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture just *wasn't* what it was cracked up to
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/23/2011 1:31 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Then everybody cough on that and started endless flame-war.
I survived the rapture to come back to this? LMAO
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/
What, more flamewars?
The Rapture just *wasn't* what it
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I've never seen the developer suggest that releases are longer because
they don't remember how the last one was finished.
Where on earth did you dig this out? I said they **could** be faster
since it is all fresh in their memory. I was explaining what conclusion
made me
On 05/20/2011 05:55 AM, Drew wrote:
An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any
real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release
build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.
You weren't reading the very long thread of the last week
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
implying an unmet obligation
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
implying an unmet obligation
The only obligation that I think exists is for everyone to have
reasonable expectations of the project. If I have ever implied
otherwise, please point me toward
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
you're important. What
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever.
I don't mind-read as to what a third party meant so well as
you, it seems
2011/5/23 R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com
A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early
design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the
mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and
encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager
--On Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:22 AM -0400 R P Herrold
herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
At the risk of opening another can of worms:
If you deferred releasing a 6.0 and instead immediately
On 05/20/2011 07:46 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:22 AM -0400 R P Herrold
herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
At the risk of opening another can of worms:
If
If you deferred releasing a 6.0 and instead immediately started working on
6.1, how much additional time would that add to getting 6.1 out? I'm not so
much asking for an actual estimate, as I am whether it would be easier just
to go directly to 6.1 if it fixes any issues that make building the
only FYI:
http://osnews.com/story/24760/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_6_1_Released
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 19 May 2011, carlopmart wrote:
Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_6_1_Released
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011, carlopmart wrote:
Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_6_1_Released
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
-- Russ herrold
Which means, that RHEL6.0 should have just now come
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
herrold earlier:
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
Which means, that RHEL6.0 should have just now come out today; the
release called 6.0 was a teaser and a beta of the
Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011, carlopmart wrote:
Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_6_1_Released
and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
Which means, that RHEL6.0 should have just now
On 19.5.2011 15:56, R P Herrold wrote:
There is an old piece of wisdom in IT to avoid the public 'dot
zero' products so that some-one else gets to be the advance
guard scout (you know, the one who staggers back to base camp,
festooned wth arrows in him)
Oh Lord! If everyone would avoid
(possible duplicate -- the first post had some mal-formed
headers that the MailMan should have rejected)
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Markus Falb wrote:
Oh Lord! If everyone would avoid 'dot.zero' products then no
bugs would be discovered and no 'dot.one' product would be
released. You basically
On 5/19/2011 9:40 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
There is an old piece of wisdom in IT to avoid the public 'dot
zero' products so that some-one else gets to be the advance
guard scout (you know, the one who staggers back to base camp,
festooned wth arrows in him)
Oh Lord! If everyone would avoid
no, the saying is...
if it aint broken, dont fix it !
especially on weekends, monday, or friday
;-
that is why everyone should have a small or large lab for testing and
rollout...
- rh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Everyone expected this from Red Hat before the 'EL' versions when
publishing a free CD of community work was the way QA was done. (And if
you've forgotten, go dig through some changelogs of that era to see just
how bad things were and how much we
Les wrote:
Everyone expected this from Red Hat before the 'EL' versions
when publishing a free CD of community work was the way QA
was done. (And if you've forgotten, go dig through some
changelogs of that era to see just how bad things were and
how much we gained from that process).
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:59:45 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
Everyone expected [dot-zero bugfest] from Red Hat before the 'EL' versions
when
publishing a free CD of community work was the way QA was done. (And if
you've forgotten, go dig through some changelogs of that era to see just
how
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/19/2011 9:40 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
There is an old piece of wisdom in IT to avoid the public 'dot
zero' products so that some-one else gets to be the advance
guard scout (you know, the one who staggers back to base camp,
festooned wth arrows in him)
Oh Lord! If
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
started holding my breath when RHEL 6 Beta was released, and my face is
not blue any more but totally black :-)
Yowzer -- Zombies!!!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 5/19/2011 10:15 AM, R - elists wrote:
Les wrote:
Everyone expected this from Red Hat before the 'EL' versions
when publishing a free CD of community work was the way QA
was done. (And if you've forgotten, go dig through some
changelogs of that era to see just how bad things were and
R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
started holding my breath when RHEL 6 Beta was released, and my face is
not blue any more but totally black :-)
Yowzer -- Zombies!!!
The CDC can help with that
Per Qvindesland wrote:
Hello List
I am just wondering if anyone knows if RedHat did realease a power pc
version of rhel 4, I have looked around and I see some packages that says
that it is for rhel 4 ppc but I am a bit unsure since our suppliers says no
there is only for version 5.
Kind
Hi
Thanks for your feedback.
In the company we are working for we are looking at buying a p520 system
with HACMP, that it why I am looking for a ppc version.
Kind regards
Per Qvindesland
On 1/31/09 9:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arro...@arrfab.net wrote:
There is a PPC64 RHEL4.x but you
Per Qvindesland wrote:
Hi
Thanks for your feedback.
In the company we are working for we are looking at buying a p520 system
with HACMP, that it why I am looking for a ppc version.
I'd run AIX on that. PowerHA (formerly known as HACMP) is still
primarily an AIX cluster, with only
Per Qvindesland wrote:
\ In the company we are working for we are looking at buying a p520 system
with HACMP, that it why I am looking for a ppc version.
RHEL 4 and 5 both works great on the IBM power systems. Ditto for
PowerHA (nee HACMP) version 5.4 for both AIX and Linux.
With the p520, I
Hello List
I am just wondering if anyone knows if RedHat did realease a power pc
version of rhel 4, I have looked around and I see some packages that says
that it is for rhel 4 ppc but I am a bit unsure since our suppliers says no
there is only for version 5.
Kind regards
Per Qvindesland
Quoting Per Qvindesland p...@norhex.com:
Hello List
I am just wondering if anyone knows if RedHat did realease a power pc
version of rhel 4, I have looked around and I see some packages that says
that it is for rhel 4 ppc but I am a bit unsure since our suppliers says no
there is only for
Hi Brarry
Thank you for your quick response and assistance.
Regards
Per Qvindesland
On 1/30/09 9:03 PM, Barry Brimer li...@brimer.org wrote:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 4 for 64-bit IBM POWER)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
63 matches
Mail list logo
