On Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:51:42 AM Craig White wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 09:25 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
... there is a learning curve to get
proficient at doing Debian/Ubuntu.
... There's only what you know, how you
can adapt what you know and how well you can make it
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:33 PM, Craig White wrote:
7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however
install things like virt-install or any other virt software.
Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like
virsh
Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 01:05 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Fedora 16 moved to GRUB 2 as well. It will be in RHEL/CentOS in the
next
release. Get used to it. ;)
Grub2 really seems extraordinarily verbose.
One can't help wondering if the
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Bob Hoffman b...@bobhoffman.com wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
thought of moving from centos
due to redhats new business model.
Can someone fill me in on this new business model? Is there a thread
here on the list
Vreme: 11/14/2011 09:34 PM, Alan McKay piše:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Bob Hoffmanb...@bobhoffman.com wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
thought of moving from centos
due to redhats new business model.
Can someone fill me in on this new
And search for it. I hope nobody will start at it again, but AFTER you
read the Archives and have *specific* questions feel free to ask.
OK, Ill do some googling. I have the last several years of this list
in my gmail so away I go ...
--
“Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on
Vreme: 11/14/2011 11:18 PM, Alan McKay piše:
And search for it. I hope nobody will start at it again, but AFTER you
read the Archives and have *specific* questions feel free to ask.
OK, Ill do some googling. I have the last several years of this list
in my gmail so away I go ...
Topic is
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote:
Vreme: 11/14/2011 11:18 PM, Alan McKay piše:
And search for it. I hope nobody will start at it again, but AFTER you
read the Archives and have *specific* questions feel free to ask.
OK, Ill do some googling. I have
On 11/14/11 14:18, Alan McKay wrote:
And search for it. I hope nobody will start at it again, but AFTER you
read the Archives and have *specific* questions feel free to ask.
OK, Ill do some googling. I have the last several years of this list
in my gmail so away I go ...
it's close to
it's close to 200 replies. I'm new to centos so i had plenty of
emails to read;-)
Which thread is it, I poked around but have not found it.
What is the subject?
--
“Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV”
- Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food
On 11/14/11 16:05, Alan McKay wrote:
it's close to 200 replies. I'm new to centos so i had plenty of
emails to read;-)
Which thread is it, I poked around but have not found it.
What is the subject?
scroll all the way down until you come to the first redhat vs
centos email:
Vreme: 11/15/2011 02:39 AM, Edward Martinez piše:
On 11/14/11 16:05, Alan McKay wrote:
it's close to 200 replies. I'm new to centos so i had plenty of
emails to read;-)
Which thread is it, I poked around but have not found it.
What is the subject?
scroll all the way down until
On Saturday 12 November 2011 22:47:28 Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2011 07:44, John Hodrien wrote:
grub in EL6 can boot of ext4, and that's grub-0.97-68.el6.x86_64.
Grub (version 1) from CentOS 6 has apparently been patched to be able to
handle ext4. There's no doubt that
Vreme: 11/12/2011 07:46 AM, Errol Mangwiro piše:
Hi,
Sorry about the top-posting, I'm replying from my blackberry.
I've been following this thread for a while and really don't see why people
respond so rabidly to criticism. If something bothers/bores me about a thread
I just Ignore the
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 03:59 PM, Nataraj wrote:
I believe the standard desktop uses Ubuntu's own installer. The Ubuntu
server and the 'alternative' distribution use the debian installer. I
fought with it at first, but it is much more flexible than the redhat
installer. You can
On 11/12/2011 08:08 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 03:59 PM, Nataraj wrote:
Not to necessarily feed this thread ... but the last 2 posts have been
sane and relevant (as much as this topic can be).
I used to use Debian as my distribution of choice before RHEL came out
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 09:25 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
However, if you are Fedora, RHEL, CentOS only with respect to what you
have managed in the past, then there is a learning curve to get
proficient at doing Debian/Ubuntu.
the discussion of which distribution is better is a fool's game
Vreme: 11/12/2011 03:08 PM, Christopher Chan piše:
Using your own scripts is the only sane way to do things...ufw,
fwbuilder, even shorewall are just either inadequate, inflexible or way
too complicated to trace/optimize things.
I use shorewall for several years now. It is very flexible and
On Friday 11 November 2011 07:44, John Hodrien wrote:
grub in EL6 can boot of ext4, and that's grub-0.97-68.el6.x86_64.
Grub (version 1) from CentOS 6 has apparently been patched to be able to
handle ext4. There's no doubt that Grub 1 by itself can't boot an ext4
file system.
There's a
Just to throw out the background on the thread...
It was started questioning whether redhat is going to actively try and
make it harder over time to
clone it, thus making any derivatives of it untenable.
I tried ubuntu and that is what this sub thread is about.
I tried ubuntu from the
On 11/10/2011 07:40 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go
system. Centos has the polish, but lacks the new stuff.
sigh.
And
On 11/10/2011 07:05 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Fedora 16 moved to GRUB 2 as well. It will be in RHEL/CentOS in the next
release. Get used to it. ;)
Grub2 really seems extraordinarily verbose.
One can't help wondering if the simplicity of the old grub
offended the
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 01:05 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Fedora 16 moved to GRUB 2 as well. It will be in RHEL/CentOS in the next
release. Get used to it. ;)
Grub2 really seems extraordinarily verbose.
One can't help wondering if the simplicity of the old grub
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Craig White wrote:
grub2 has more utility (ie can boot of the newer fs types like ext4) and
thus was inevitable.
grub in EL6 can boot of ext4, and that's grub-0.97-68.el6.x86_64.
jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Reindl Harald wrote:
so tell me why i do not need GRUB2 for this more than a year?
2.6.40.8-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 1 18:17:12 UTC 2011
/dev/md1 ext4 29G 8,0G 21G 28% /
/dev/md0 ext4485M 52M 429M 11% /boot
/dev/md2 ext43,6T 602G
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 04:20 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/10/2011 07:40 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go
system.
Am 11.11.2011 14:01, schrieb John Hodrien:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Reindl Harald wrote:
so tell me why i do not need GRUB2 for this more than a year?
2.6.40.8-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 1 18:17:12 UTC 2011
/dev/md1 ext4 29G 8,0G 21G 28% /
/dev/md0 ext4485M 52M
Le 11/11/2011 10:39, Bob Hoffman a écrit :
Ubuntu opened the virtual host to the entire lan, all ports, and added
forwarding to non existent
virtual bridge that had not been built yet.
This is simply false for Ubuntu Server. After first install, there is
simply no single port opened, even 22,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
* Diatribe on Ubuntu removed *
Seriously. This is _not_ the list for this. Readers should not have to
wade through the morass of this thread or even spend the second or so
required to thread kill it. It's off-topic. This is not an
On 11/11/2011 07:11 AM, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 04:20 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/10/2011 07:40 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
The newer stuff is cool, but it
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
Seriously. This is _not_ the list for this. Readers should not have to
wade through the morass of this thread or even spend the second or so
required to
On 11/11/2011 08:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
Seriously. This is _not_ the list for this. Readers should not have to
wade through the morass of this thread or
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Reindl Harald wrote:
IT IS NOT BACKWARD-COMPATIBLE
try to mount native ext4 (extent) with ext3-driver and you will see it
My bad. I thought you could mount it ro with the old driver, but I'm
definitely wrong.
jh
___
CentOS
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
This list is for the community to use to get and provide support for
CentOS ... not for constant bellyaching and non stop whining. This list
has become non usable because of the trash that it has become.
Are you
On 11/11/2011 09:50 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
This list is for the community to use to get and provide support for
CentOS ... not for constant bellyaching and non stop whining. This list
has become non usable because of
Alain wrote
---
Le 11/11/2011 10:39, Bob Hoffman a écrit :
/ Ubuntu opened the virtual host to the entire lan, all ports, and added
// forwarding to non existent
// virtual bridge that had not been built yet.
/
This is simply false for Ubuntu Server. After first
Vreme: 11/11/2011 03:16 PM, Johnny Hughes piše:
This list is for the community to use to get and provide support for
CentOS ... not for constant bellyaching and non stop whining. This list
has become non usable because of the trash that it has become.
Starting today, I will be banning people
: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On 11/11/2011 08:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
Seriously. This is _not_ the list for this. Readers should not have to
wade
: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On 11/11/2011 08:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
Seriously. This is _not_ the list for this. Readers should not have to
wade
On 11/10/2011 05:44 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu server.
You think centos/redhat is a bit tough or not polished?
One day with ubuntu server and you will look at centos install and setup
as a god!
I'm assuming your refering to
Bob Hoffman wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model.
Forgive the length, but I had to share.
Thank you, very much, for the details (not that I was planning on going to
ubuntu...)
Two things:
Vreme: 11/10/2011 02:44 PM, Bob Hoffman piše:
In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat
turns around. Maybe scientific linux.
Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not
cutting edge and very insecure.
So maybe centos, even if a year or
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote
Vreme: 11/10/2011 02:44 PM, Bob Hoffman pis(e:
/ In closing, it is down to suse or back to centos and just pray redhat
// turns around. Maybe scientific linux.
// Ubuntu is not ready for prime time and a HUGE step backwards. It is not
Vreme: 11/10/2011 03:36 PM, Bob Hoffman piše:
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote
My only real concern was where red hat was going with this clone war (just a
yoda line :) )
I decided to try out some non red hat versions.
I really was excited about ubu and getting somewhat newer packages of things
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:18:43AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Bob Hoffman wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model.
Forgive the length, but I had to share.
Thank you, very much, for
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
thought of moving from centos
due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to share.
I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Scott Robbins wrote:
Yeah, all kidding aside, I think the whole crippling of the RH text
installer was a step in the wrong direction. A text installer is
smaller, faster, and doesn't suddenly, as has happened to me with
various video card monitor combos, stop working or
Vreme: 11/10/2011 04:30 PM, Scott Robbins piše:
Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.
systemd will be much much more once it is done.
From
I just want to say that this is the stupidest conversation I have ever had
heard - Screw this I am going back to FreeBSD.
Benjamin Warriner
Technology Specialist
Region 7 Education Service Center
1909 North Longview Street
Kilgore, Texas 75662
Phone: (903) 988-6949
Fax: (903) 988-6965
Region 7
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Warriner, Benjamin bwarri...@esc7.net wrote:
I just want to say that this is the stupidest conversation I have ever had
heard - Screw this I am going back to FreeBSD.
Thank you, yuou made my Friday
___
CentOS mailing
On 2011-11-10 17:07, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 11/10/2011 04:30 PM, Scott Robbins piše:
Well, Fedora is going to systemd, which seems more designed for
desktop/laptop users, where speed of a boot seems to be the most
important goal, so I suspect RH will get there too.
systemd will be
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:33:38 AM Craig White wrote:
[Ubuntu is] different - not better, not worse (save for the fact that with
Ubuntu I have been able to get timely updates this year). Also, I much prefer
their packaging of Apache BIND9 to Red Hat's.
[snip]
If your expectation was
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:33:38 AM Craig White wrote:
[Ubuntu is] different - not better, not worse (save for the fact that with
Ubuntu I have been able to get timely updates this year). Also, I much
prefer their packaging of Apache
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:16:18 PM Craig White wrote:
I would generally agree with this (brevity is not your strongest trait)
That would be correct. As Mark Twain once said, I didn't have time to write a
short letter, so I wrote a long one instead. And I type (and read) relatively
Lamar Owen wrote
If you doubt the speed at which a non-locked-down system can be exploited, take
a 1990s vintage copy of
, say, RHL 6.2, go ahead and pre-download the last set of updates for that
distribution, do the install
on a public IP with no firewall
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go
system. Centos has the polish, but lacks the new stuff.
sigh.
And right there is the core (or maybe it's 'sore') point to all of this; it
really depends on what you
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
CentOS is what it is: as close as possible to upstream EL without being
upstream EL. Nothing more, nothing less, and bug-for-bug compatible. If
that's not what you need, then CentOS won't meet your need.
Yes, but that
- Original Message -
| This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the
| thought of moving from centos
| due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to
| share.
|
| I went ahead and downloaded the 5 year supported version of ubuntu
| server.
|
- Original Message -
| Bob Hoffman wrote:
snip
| Yes. Just like the grub ubuntu uses, that is a bloody script, and a .d
| directory *full* of files, rather than the clean, simple menu with
| RHEL/CentOS.
| snip
|
| I don't want to have to read scripts to find out how to configure
|
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:42:36PM -0800, James A. Peltier wrote:
Then you downloaded the alternative, netboot or server installer. The
desktop installer is fully graphical, however, is lacking many
features such as LVM and RAID support selections. This is *entirely*
different than
James A. Peltier wrote:
Fedora 16 moved to GRUB 2 as well. It will be in RHEL/CentOS in the next
release. Get used to it. ;)
Grub2 really seems extraordinarily verbose.
One can't help wondering if the simplicity of the old grub
offended the developers.
Simplicity does not seem to be highly
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 02:20:25 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
The newer stuff is cool, but it lacks the polish of a ready to go
system. Centos has the polish, but lacks the new stuff.
sigh.
And right there is the core (or maybe it's
When all of you mean to stop wasting our time bickering among yourself?
If there was ANY chance ANY of you would change it's mind then I would
be willing to endure senseless flame war. Since that is not likely to
happen in next 100 years, I ask you nicely to finish this thread with
we agree to
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:33 PM, Craig White wrote:
7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however
install things like virt-install or any other virt software.
Infact, no guest installation tools were added, though things like virsh
were installed. Sigh.
8-
On Friday, November 11, 2011 12:37 AM, Thomas Johansson wrote:
Compare systemd to Solaris Service Management Facility. Solaris SMF is a very
nice and useful part of Solaris.
A lot of similarities between systemd and SMF. Solaris is mainly a server OS.
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 11:07 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:33 PM, Craig White wrote:
7- The install, of the virtual host, added libvirt. It did not however
install things like virt-install or any other virt software.
Infact, no guest installation tools
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:49:33PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
I just can't embrace installing an OS whose security updates have
consistently lagged 3-6 months behind.
You've made this point, repeatedly, for the past few months. It's
getting old; we are all well aware of your feelings about
On Friday, November 11, 2011 11:49 AM, Craig White wrote:
If you want something heavy duty you could simply 'apt-get install
shorewall'' but I suspect that you just want to be pedantic. The point
that Lamar made - that was that there wasn't any firewall installed by
default at all, which I
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 22:07 -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:49:33PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
I just can't embrace installing an OS whose security updates have
consistently lagged 3-6 months behind.
You've made this point, repeatedly, for the past few months.
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:12 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
I would not have said much if you have pushed Debian but Ubuntu? It's a
joke. I only happen to have one Ubuntu Hardy server because I did not
have a Centos disk at hand when I had to do an emergency installation of
a box to take
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:49 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Craig White wrote:
I just can't embrace installing an OS whose security updates have
...
Then please leave -- your sustained venom and bile are not
needed, wanted, nor useful here, let alone remotely on topic
On Friday, November 11, 2011 12:33 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:12 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
I would not have said much if you have pushed Debian but Ubuntu? It's a
joke. I only happen to have one Ubuntu Hardy server because I did not
have a Centos disk at hand
72 matches
Mail list logo
