Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Gene Heskett wrote:
I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and
doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things
to life you know.
Yeah, like repairing vintage tube radios!
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:40:57PM -0500, Nils Breunese wrote: Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run 'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd If there's no updates available, it doesn't matter how often they run yum update. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:40:57PM -0500, Nils Breunese wrote: Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run 'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd If there's no updates available, it doesn't matter how often they run yum update. That's why every system needs an admin (and not a nightly yum cron job). A real admin will know or notice there are no updates available and take appropriate action. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:39:12AM -0500, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: That's why every system needs an admin (and not a nightly yum cron job). A real admin will know or notice there are no updates available and take appropriate action. Preaching to the choir. However, there's reality for you. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Thursday 16 November 2006 08:48, Mike McCarty wrote: Gene Heskett wrote: I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things to life you know. Yeah, like repairing vintage tube radios! Chuckle, how close to right was I? Mike -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow soon. http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659 I hope this doesn't mean Legacy is going away for good. I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month window with the FC releases fall aside. This will give those who choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the chance to keep up-to-date with security fixes while they wait. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFWxr+kNLDmnu1kSkRAuCoAJ94wq8mwcSaUorE92KkFk2QDqPDvgCfTxH4 pnYlEDi+uZoFFI97hPTkn8o= =wnDn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 08:49, James Kosin wrote: I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month window with the FC releases fall aside. This will give those who choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the chance to keep up-to-date with security fixes while they wait. The Fedora project would be offering 13~ months of updates (security only for the last part), which gives you the opportunity to go from say Fedora 7 to Fedora 9 + 1 month. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpNOgml7IT3C.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing, it must not be forgotten that before it failed it worked exceedingly well. Or at least moderately well. Let's not over-sell. :) Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC goes to a 13 month support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore. IMHO, people can upgrade once a year when presented with a known/documented release cycle, and known documented alternatives. One month of annual overlap is still a bit short. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:45, James Kosin wrote: Hmmm. maybe a better upgrade path would be in order. Allowing users to keep their configuration; with minor changes and upgrade the units to FC6-FC7-FC8 etc. without any troubles. I'll have to give that a try someday. We're also committing to testing FC6 - FC8 in one jump. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpUjh6pkbJUL.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:23, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing, it must not be forgotten that before it failed it worked exceedingly well. Or at least moderately well. Let's not over-sell. :) Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC goes to a 13 month support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore. IMHO, people can upgrade once a year when presented with a known/documented release cycle, and known documented alternatives. One month of annual overlap is still a bit short. I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things to life you know. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:10, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote: I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things to life you know. So why don't you use CentOS which as a annual or every other year release? Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them. Firewire doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie camera. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 08:49, James Kosin wrote: I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month window with the FC releases fall aside. This will give those who choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the chance to keep up-to-date with security fixes while they wait. The Fedora project would be offering 13~ months of updates (security only for the last part), which gives you the opportunity to go from say Fedora 7 to Fedora 9 + 1 month. I like this idea, and I'd be happy to see official support for an FC release last ~13 months. Of course, this would end all interest I have in Fedora Legacy, which at this point is mostly to allow upgrading (well, re-installing in my case) from FCN to FCN+2. How much of this is just speculation at this point, and how close is this to being actual policy? - -Jeff -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFWzU5Ke7MLJjUbNMRApSRAJ98qSe5tHDiKuKEPFcspi2Z/OtbOQCgzC5d liw9n163X6Sml5UR73JLUXo= =/0t0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote: I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things to life you know.So why don't you use CentOS which as a annual or every other year release?-- Jesse KeatingRelease Engineer: Fedora--fedora-legacy-list mailing listfedora-legacy-list@redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list Sponsored LinkMortgage rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Mortgage for $1,698/mo - Calculate new house payment-- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:42, Bill Perrotta wrote: That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern. CentOS-3 is a rebuild of the freely available of source code of RHEL-3 CentOS-4 is a rebuild of the freely available of source code of RHEL-4 As a result of being a rebuild, Centos-X is binary-compatible with RHEL-X You can download CentOS after a very easy search at the ultra-secret-website: http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+centos Regards, Josep -- Josep L. Guallar-Esteve - IT Department -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[SPAM] LOW * Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Bill Perrotta wrote: That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern. Come on, Google is your friend. Go to http://www.centos.org/ and take it from there. CentOS 3 is exactly the same as RHEL 3, except for the branding. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Bill Perrotta wrote: That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern. www.centos.org CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL, so it is pretty similar :) -Jeff -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:41, Jeff Sheltren wrote: I like this idea, and I'd be happy to see official support for an FC release last ~13 months. Of course, this would end all interest I have in Fedora Legacy, which at this point is mostly to allow upgrading (well, re-installing in my case) from FCN to FCN+2. So by having 13~ months you would be able to do FCN to FCN+2 How much of this is just speculation at this point, and how close is this to being actual policy? Depends on your feedback (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgp9ajx8Rib1z.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:10:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: So why don't you use CentOS which as a annual or every other year release? We use CentOS too. However, people a) want more cutting-edge and b) want Fedora. And if my group doesn't provide something that covers that demand, people will go off on their own, and then the security team will go back to being hugely overloaded with Linux break-ins. To expand on my earlier kvetching (sorry, no coffee yet): I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to encourage good practice entirely via carrots. This works best when we align with the academic year -- a release in the spring, current through the following summer to allow time for upgrades. Ideally, *two* years and a summer, but I understand that's not practical. As it is, what will happen is: whatever Fedora release is current as of June-July-August will get installed on people's systems, and, with goading, upgraded the next summer. If the actual Fedora release happens to be new in June-July, the 13-month plan will be great, but if the latest release was from, say, January, that leaves a big hole in which systems *will* get broken into. But, I find If you need it to really work, use CentOS to be a bad answer for Fedora. CentOS is great, but since it is by necessity in its own world, CentOS users don't feed back into the Fedora ecosystem in the same way, which is a big loss for Fedora. (With the new baby, I missed out on following the extras-for-RHEL discussion -- I need to check into how that's panning out, and how it fits with merging Extras and Core. The availability of Extras is currently a huge draw for Fedora over CentOS.) So, given the realities, we probably will end up shifting our main BU Linux efforts to Fedora, but may also provide a BU Linux Extreme Fedora spin. I'm not sure how best to fit this into our calendar. If we disregard that, we'll end up with insecure systems that just disregard *us*. Extending the lifespan from ~9 to ~13 months is a huge help, but to cover the gaps, we really need more like 18-19. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:17:19AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: How much of this is just speculation at this point, and how close is this to being actual policy? Depends on your feedback (: Don't get me wrong -- this is definitely a positive development. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:41, Jeff Sheltren wrote: I like this idea, and I'd be happy to see official support for an FC release last ~13 months. Of course, this would end all interest I have in Fedora Legacy, which at this point is mostly to allow upgrading (well, re-installing in my case) from FCN to FCN+2. So by having 13~ months you would be able to do FCN to FCN+2 Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying - that's what I want to do, and having ~13 months of support would allow that to happen. How much of this is just speculation at this point, and how close is this to being actual policy? Depends on your feedback (: I'm all for it. -Jeff -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: Extending the lifespan from ~9 to ~13 months is a huge help, but to cover the gaps, we really need more like 18-19. If Fedora decides to officially support releases for ~13 months, perhaps there is enough interest in extending them another 5-6 months to keep Legacy going? If my thinking is correct, that would leave legacy with 2 releases at a time, which *should* be manageable.. ;) -Jeff -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:43:10AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: Well, based on history, it'll be slightly behind-the-newest at release date (RHEL stabilization + a month or so for CentOS) but generally current enough, but then by this spring we'll see a batch of computers with hardware that doesn't work. Isn't this where the quarterly updates with new hardware support come in? Is RHEL5 going to go wholesale to new kernel versions with the quarterly updates, or is it actually going to backport all updated drivers to the older release? -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:45:16PM -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote: If Fedora decides to officially support releases for ~13 months, perhaps there is enough interest in extending them another 5-6 months to keep Legacy going? If my thinking is correct, that would leave Perhaps, yeah. legacy with 2 releases at a time, which *should* be manageable.. ;) Another possibility would be to pick either even- or odd-numbered fedora releases, and have Legacy only extend *one* of those. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:49:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: about to. I think there really needs to be significant interest in it, more than just Matt Miller, although he is a very interesting case. The majority Yeah, because frankly, I have a _lot_ more interest than time. It's, like, a 10:1 ratio. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:48, Matthew Miller wrote: Is RHEL5 going to go wholesale to new kernel versions with the quarterly updates, or is it actually going to backport all updated drivers to the older release? From what I gather out in the community (not looking at any internal documentation), that the new drivers would be backported. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpTwRAPlMMOH.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing, it must not be forgotten that before it failed it worked exceedingly well. Or at least moderately well. Let's not over-sell. :) I really think we did do incredibly well to start. We were often faster than others, and often had less bugs than others (e.g. Progeny, spelling?). We've only had two major problems with releases (one where a kernel install failed to update lilo correctly but worked with grub, and one where sendmail didn't work correctly on some older RHL upgrades). We did have to dump RHL 8 quickly, and later RHL 7.2, but we stayed strong for a couple of years on RHL 7.3 and RHL 9. And did a pretty darn good job on FC1 also IMHO. Now we don't have much demand for RHL any more, and we've failed pretty bad to get any timely updates out for FC 2 through FC 4, but that isn't the initial period I was talking about. That is the current situation, which I admit hasn't gone well... Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC goes to a 13 month support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore. IMHO, people can upgrade once a year when presented with a known/documented release cycle, and known documented alternatives. One month of annual overlap is still a bit short. _IF_ you want to use Fedora Core, you need to be willing to upgrade once a year. And the 13 month window gives you just this amount of time to upgrade. If you can't upgrade once a year, then you most certainly should not be using Fedora Core. My problem has always been I work in University settings where updates only happen during breaks (Spring break, Summer break, or Winter break). On the current Fedora Core schedule, a release can come at any time, and leave me unprotected (if not for FL) until the next University break comes along. With 13 months, I can easily stay with a release until the next break period when I can upgrade. I really don't see a problem with the 13 month support period, given Fedora Core's mission of being cutting edge. You can't be cutting edge, free/community-based, and support a release more than a year or so... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:58:02AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: Is RHEL5 going to go wholesale to new kernel versions with the quarterly updates, or is it actually going to backport all updated drivers to the older release? From what I gather out in the community (not looking at any internal documentation), that the new drivers would be backported. We'll have to see how this works out. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:15:51AM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: My problem has always been I work in University settings where updates only happen during breaks (Spring break, Summer break, or Winter break). On the Same here -- except I'm not sure I can rely on people to update during the spring and especially winter breaks, or that the 13th month hits the summer break in a convenient way. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:15:51AM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: My problem has always been I work in University settings where updates only happen during breaks (Spring break, Summer break, or Winter break). On the Same here -- except I'm not sure I can rely on people to update during the spring and especially winter breaks, or that the 13th month hits the summer break in a convenient way. I don't have to rely on people to update during the spring and especially winter breaks since I'm the only one who does the upgrades, and I can usually depend on myself. ;) Of course, this doesn't scale well... Fortunately I only have 80 machines to worry about, so it is no big deal. If I had to do this in such a short time period with say 200+ machines, then we'd have a problem... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:32, Gene Heskett wrote: Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them. Firewire doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie camera. I missed what this is about, but if it is about the CentOS/RHEL kernel, then simply install the unsupported kernel to get the firewire support. Works for me at least (with firewire removable disk drives). -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to That's the first problem... You either need to be able to force them to do the right thing, or punish them for failure. If you can't do one or the other of those then you're screwed, to put it bluntly. encourage good practice entirely via carrots. sticks work also. You get hacked, we unplug you from the network until you comply. Gets their attention real fast when they are removed from the network. Works better than carrots actually, in the long run. This works best when we align with the academic year -- a release in the spring, current through the following summer to allow time for upgrades. Ideally, *two* years and a summer, but I understand that's not practical. 13 months for two versions gives you a lot of time IMHO... As it is, what will happen is: whatever Fedora release is current as of June-July-August will get installed on people's systems, and, with goading, upgraded the next summer. Upgraded in the summer, whether the summer of the same or next year, and the problem is solved for 99% of the cases... Only way that fails is if you install early in the year (from January to April) and the next release is done right after school (fall) starts that year... In which case, that will hopefully be a small number of machines which you can knock off during winter or spring break, leaving the majority until the summer. The draw back of the above of course is you need to track all the machines, their versions, and installation dates, and keep that data updated. Basically you need a good DB of the machine information... If the actual Fedora release happens to be new in June-July, the 13-month plan will be great, but if the latest release was from, say, January, that leaves a big hole in which systems *will* get broken into. If you install in January, then just upgrade in the summer if a new release is out by then. See above for the rest of the details. I suppose there could be a small hole, which is why most release cycles are 1.5 years instead of 1.08 years... But your call for 2.5 years seems way too long for a project that wants to be cutting edge (and which you point out your users want because it is cutting edge. If they want cutting edge, they need to upgrade once a year, or else they are not cutting edge anymore). panning out, and how it fits with merging Extras and Core. The availability of Extras is currently a huge draw for Fedora over CentOS.) CentOS has Extras/Plus also for a lot of packages... And there are lots of other packagers making extras like repositories out there... For the desktop user this should be more than sufficient. It may of course violate server or production users who have QA issues with that type of thing. In fact, one advantage of RHEL over FC/CentOS/anything-completely-opensource is it actually comes with non-opensource software that is commonly desired, and which is kept updated for security problems... Extending the lifespan from ~9 to ~13 months is a huge help, but to cover the gaps, we really need more like 18-19. I really disagree. The project is to be cutting edge, your users want cutting edge, the only way to do that is to upgrade yearly. Otherwise, both the project and your users are not cutting edge. If you can't manage the upgrades in a year, then you need to hire more staff locally (or better automate your upgrades). Now, I really do feel for you and your situation. But I don't think you can impose your bad situation on the Fedora Project, when you claim your users really do want the same thing as Fedora Project, which means you really do need to upgrade yearly, and not every 2.5 years. Fedora Legacy is doing your users a disservice IMHO by not allowing them to be cutting edge as they want to be. In your case, I would think the only way to meet your needs would be with Fedora Legacy, as Fedora Core just can't do 2.5 years of support and meet its mission. But I'm not sure there are enough people in such a unique situation, and who are so fixated on Fedora Core over other distributions, to sustain something like Fedora Legacy. Of course, I could be completely wrong... :) -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to That's the first problem... You either need to be able to force them to do the right thing, or punish them for failure. If you can't do one or the other of those then you're screwed, to put it bluntly. Well, we're screwed, then. :) sticks work also. You get hacked, we unplug you from the network until you comply. Gets their attention real fast when they are removed from the network. Works better than carrots actually, in the long run. Oh, we do that if it comes to that. However, the goal is to avoid that in the first place. [...] 1.08 years... But your call for 2.5 years seems way too long for a project that wants to be cutting edge (and which you point out your users want because it is cutting edge. If they want cutting edge, they need to upgrade once a year, or else they are not cutting edge anymore). Well, as I said, 2.5 years would be ideal, but I recognize it to be not really obtainable. I really would like, however, to see 1.5, or better, 1.6. panning out, and how it fits with merging Extras and Core. The availability of Extras is currently a huge draw for Fedora over CentOS.) CentOS has Extras/Plus also for a lot of packages... And there are lots of Nothing like Fedora Extras, though. And third-party repos can be helpful but coordinating them is work, and each requires a layer of maintenance of its own. [...] I really disagree. The project is to be cutting edge, your users want cutting edge, the only way to do that is to upgrade yearly. Otherwise, Oh yes. In short, users want cake and they want to shoot themseves in the foot with it. both the project and your users are not cutting edge. If you can't manage the upgrades in a year, then you need to hire more staff locally Yes, it'd be great to be able to convince everyone I support to hire more staff. That ain't going to happen. (or better automate your upgrades). There's significant engineer resistance to working towards making Fedora yum-upgradable between releases. So that's really a non-starter. Now, I really do feel for you and your situation. But I don't think you can impose your bad situation on the Fedora Project, when you claim your Clearly I'm in no position to impose anything. However, it'd certainly be helpful to us if Legacy could contine to extend the lifespan beyond the new proposed 13 months. And I mention it in case I'm not alone. [*] * In fact, I'm pretty certain I'm not, and that there are thousands of users running FC1, FC2, and FC3 and just waiting to become botnet members if they're not already. The difference is that my users have me to care about them. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 15:34, Matthew Miller wrote: Clearly I'm in no position to impose anything. However, it'd certainly be helpful to us if Legacy could contine to extend the lifespan beyond the new proposed 13 months. And I mention it in case I'm not alone. [*] * In fact, I'm pretty certain I'm not, and that there are thousands of users running FC1, FC2, and FC3 and just waiting to become botnet members if they're not already. The difference is that my users have me to care about them. But is there enough you to go around to do the updates? That's the real question here. We can't stop people from being dumb and not upgrading their release when it goes dead. If we gave them 2 years, they'd take it and still not upgrade and then what? I think the Fedora project is really trying to reach a reasonable amount of time that it can throw its entire support behind. The Legacy folks of past and present are totally awesome, and we could really use their knowledge and eagerness to help in perhaps more productive fashions. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpoEvlfvQBcX.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * In fact, I'm pretty certain I'm not, and that there are thousands of users running FC1, FC2, and FC3 and just waiting to become botnet members if they're not already. The difference is that my users have me to care about them. Well, I agree there are _at least_ thousands of users running FC1-3 waiting to be botnet members. And most of them neither know about Fedora Legacy nor have someone like you to care about them, so extending support via FL won't help the majority of them... Sad, but no doubt true... That doesn't mean FL shouldn't exist. Even if we can only stop a small percentage from being hacked, that is still a very worthy goal which will have positive effects on the internet/world. However, if you can find a sufficient number of those who do know (or will learn) about FL, or who have people like you who will care for them, and can get them to support FL is some way, then there would be no problem keeping FL alive to do so. But there has to be a certain level of support, and I really don't see that happening myself. Again, I could be wrong... The reason there was so much RHL 7/9 and FC 1 support was Red Hat really dropped us with almost no advanced notice. We were aleady on the Red Hat gravy train and the rug was yanked out from under us, and we had little choice. I don't consider people installing Fedora Core 3/4/5/6 to be in that same boat: they should know what they are getting into, and should have a plan that meets their needs for the future. As such, there are not so many people dependent on FC 3/4/5/6 and hence less people willing to do the hard work for it. Basically, FL was a _need_ for some of us at the start, but it isn't a need for most people now. There are easy alternatives now that didn't exist back when RHL was dropped and FC was started. Anyway, I'm going to try to stop participating in this thread after this message. I think I've said more than I should have already... I'd be more than happy to see FL survive. I'd even be willing to help out some. But it is no longer something I need, just something that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:43:43PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: But is there enough you to go around to do the updates? That's the real Speaking for me personally, no. :) question here. We can't stop people from being dumb and not upgrading their release when it goes dead. If we gave them 2 years, they'd take it and still not upgrade and then what? I think the Fedora project is really trying to Oh, that's for sure -- I routinely see incredibly ancient RHL machines still in production. However, there's a curve, and the shorter the lifespan the more people will be caught in it. At the current 9 months, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually includes the majority of users. At 13 months, not so bad -- but still a huge amount. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux -- http://linux.bu.edu/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:03, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:32, Gene Heskett wrote: Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them. Firewire doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie camera. And when CentOS5 comes out? I've no idea when, or if firewire is back among the living. It took till the last new kernel for FC5 before it worked well enough to be usable. Where does that place centos5 then? -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:33, Gene Heskett wrote: I've no idea when, or if firewire is back among the living. It took till the last new kernel for FC5 before it worked well enough to be usable. Where does that place centos5 then? RHEL5 kernel is largely based on the FC6 kernel. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpnxigCXcKbA.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:36, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:33, Gene Heskett wrote: I've no idea when, or if firewire is back among the living. It took till the last new kernel for FC5 before it worked well enough to be usable. Where does that place centos5 then? RHEL5 kernel is largely based on the FC6 kernel. Which isn't at all stable. Old kino, before a 1394 re-write was started about 18 months ago now, was bulletproof and worked just fine on this exact same hardware. It was very stable when controlling my camera. Now, the two versions compatible with the later libraries etc are both so unstable, doing segfault exits so quickly that the only chance I have of using it is with the last FC5 kernel, running on my lappy. Either 8.0, 0.9.2 or 0.9.3 take a segfault exit, stage right, on about the second mouse click, or even the first on this machine with the latest non-xen kernel(s). I don't think this is kino's fault, particularly since Dan is unable to duplicate it on whatever system(s) he is using. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Matthew Miller wrote: I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to encourage good practice entirely via carrots. This works best when we align with the academic year -- a release in the spring, current through the following summer to allow time for upgrades. Ideally, *two* years and a summer, but I understand that's not practical. As it is, what will happen is: whatever Fedora release is current as of June-July-August will get installed on people's systems, and, with goading, upgraded the next summer. If the actual Fedora release happens to be new in June-July, the 13-month plan will be great, but if the latest release was from, say, January, that leaves a big hole in which systems *will* get broken into. Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run 'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd run Windows on those systems you'd have to run Windows Update once in a while. Now, I know Linux is less likely to get hacked very fast, but like I said: every system needs an admin. If systems don't have a proper admin, *then* they'll get hacked. This is not a Fedora- specific issue. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow soon. http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659 -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgprADgmsPrxN.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]: See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow soon. First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing, it must not be forgotten that before it failed it worked exceedingly well. Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC goes to a 13 month support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore. IMHO, people can upgrade once a year when presented with a known/documented release cycle, and known documented alternatives. Now, I don't know that FC will change, or if FL is needed any more even if FC doesn't change. But I do know that FL saved my life by being there when I needed it, and while I don't really need it any more I'm forever grateful to it for being there when I did need it. -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
