On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 15:26, Sharpe, Richard wrote:
Has anyone heard the rumors about Red Hat Splitting the Personal versions to
a new sub company and new product name ?
Looks like there will be three products:
Server software retailing for around $1,200
Workstation retailing for around $300
In a message dated: 03 Oct 2003 15:55:24 EDT
Chris Brenton said:
We've been bouncing around what to do about this at SANS and CIS as Red
Hat has always been the flavor of choice to support. Give the choice
will now be between free with a short life cycle Vs. users have to pay
a lot of money
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:50:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I s'pose I can submit a bug report, but I wanted to see if anyone
else was experiencing this behavior. I'm rather surprised to see
that it hasn't been reported before... You'd think this would be
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:09:45PM -0400, Steven Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 10:56, Derek Martin wrote:
Anyone using vim to edit C code on a Red Hat 9 system? I'm finding
that the C-style auto-indenting has ceased to function, requiring me
to manually indent
On 08 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0400
Paul Iadonisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to do some porting from Red Hat Linux 9 to NetBSD 1.6.1 and
have bumped into something that's hard to do a google for. Basically,
it looks as if the 'error' function that exists in glibc does not exist
On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 20:31, Pete Snider wrote:
On 08 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0400
Paul Iadonisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume the source are non-public and you've tried defining _BSD_SOURCE.
What are some of the errors?
Actually, it's the Red Hat 9 source itself. The current issue
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 09:36 AM, Jason Stephenson wrote:
Cole Tuininga wrote:
A related question though. Can I mount an nfs drive from behind a nat
box?
BTW, I would not recommened using NFS over the open Internet. NFS is a
bit slow and a bit unreliable at times and connections
worth your bandwidth to simply mirror the Red Hat updates
tree. Make the result an NFS export, and write a simple shell script
to update your systems. If you don't want to get complicated, this
script can be as simple as 'rpm -Fvh *.rpm' (in the appropriate
directory, of course).
If you read
of the Windows clients in the college.
On faculty workstations, I would install Red Hat unless the faculty
member expressed a desire for some other distribution. Generally, they
either wanted Red Hat, or they didn't care which distro was on there.
They were generally more concerned with what
In a message dated: 24 Mar 2003 19:41:59 EST
Jeff Macdonald said:
Beginning March 31st, paid subscribers to Red Hat Network will have
access to Red Hat Linux 9 ISOs - a full week before retail store and
Red Hat FTP availability.
I'm a RHN subscriber, that's why I posted my message! :-)
So
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 20:54, Derek D. Martin wrote:
So, don't use up2date. If you have more than one system, it's
certainly worth your bandwidth to simply mirror the Red Hat updates
tree. Make the result an NFS export, and write a simple shell script
to update your systems. If you don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's an assumption being made in this suggestion however. That is
that I can safely nfs export to the systems in question. Unfortunately
they are kind of scattered across the net, and having a system
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 18:59, Derek D. Martin wrote:
If there were still any doubt...
- Forwarded message from Red Hat Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
We've recently made some changes to Red Hat Network based on survey
data that we received from you. We found that two items of extreme
Ordinarily yes, but I heard from a reliable source that this is a
Sun-like marketing move.
In this case I think it is a very professional-like marketing move.
I recently got a blast from Codeweavers (makers of Crossover) which warned
me not to update to the latest glibc libraries from Red Hat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hopefully they will also allow people to link to the older library
if needed.
As I recall, they've always included a bunch of compat-* rpms for
such backward compatibility. I just took a look at 8.0, and I see,
on the low end of the
Linux-using spectrum. People with half-decent IT staffs will either pay the
costs or work out manual update procedures. But what's the mom-and-pop-type
shops to do?
Package management has always amazed me with Red Hat, since I come from a
Debian background (to me, a RH system
it as being that bad.
Package management has always amazed me with Red Hat, since I come from a
Debian background (to me, a RH system isn't complete until you install apt-get
RANT=HIGH
Okay, first, let me say that I love Debian, and I love apt. That
being said:
APT IS NOT A PACKAGE
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:14:24 -0500
Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
You should not think that high-end users don't run a single release
for a long time also. A lot of large companies try to get to a
stable platform, then do not change it other than applying bugs.
Red Hat may
Seriously though, I think it's the right decision for them.
I'm sure they've given it a lot of thought but I don't know; I wouldn't be
surprised to see it eventually modified, either by a straight reversal or a
change in release schedules. If it sticks it will definitely delineate a
-end users don't run a single release
for a long time also. A lot of large companies try to get to a
stable platform, then do not change it other than applying bugs.
Red Hat may change their minds on this one after they get some
feedback.
This is also very true. There is always the desire
In a message dated: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:23:21 EST
Andrew W. Gaunt said:
I seem to recall Sun Microsystems trying to kill SunOS in favor of
Solaris for years. I'm not even sure if it's really dead yet, I know
we have a few servers still running
SunOS as it just doesn't make sense to upgrade
doesn't make sense to upgrade them when we consider
what
they're used for.
You should not think that high-end users don't run a single release
for a long time also. A lot of large companies try to get to a
stable platform, then do not change it other than applying bugs.
Red Hat may change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RANT=HIGH
Okay, first, let me say that I love Debian, and I love apt. That
being said:
APT IS NOT A PACKAGE MANAGEMENT TOOL!!!
It's DEPENDANCY RESOLUTION TOOL. There is a HUGE difference. Saying
you like apt better than rpm is like saying my house is better
We don't have much of a soap-box to stand on by complaining that RH is
stopping their support of old and crufty software. (In some ways, this is good - I
don't have to worry about new versions breaking things that used to work.
And we're not out of luck like we are with proprietary software.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:02:29 -0500
Randy Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been doing some reading on RH's announcement that it'll only
produce
security updates for its versions of Linux for a year and will then
End-of-Life them. I was wondering if anyone had comments on how
This certainly affects us at the BLU as it does other low end users. We
generally run a single release with updates for quite a while, then we
stage a new release on another hardware box.
This is common all over; I can't see this as going over very well in a
corporate environment. Users are
Randy Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO a wiser
approach would be to slow down the number of releases to something
more manageable.
Of course, then you have to deal with angry users with issues like
why doesn't this old stable release support the sexy new MegaCorp XYZ
graphics card? or
I'm a small potato user comparatively. Personal use ... trying to utilize Open
Source to the max! The impact for me is not that big a deal since the price
is right and I'd more than likely upgrade anyway. My menial contribution to
Red Hat's coffers are sent along with MUCH joy joy!
David
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Jason Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use it on my laptop and don't really care. I'm not into pretty GUI
things for the most part, so it doesn't bother me. I don't use my laptop
enough to bother
John Abreau wrote:
The thing that annoyed me most with metacity ...
Just chiming in a bit. I just installed SuSE 8.1 on my laptop. Since I had been using
SuSE 8.0 and KDE3 previously, there was no problem. Everything just installed and came
up fine.
--
Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can always switch your window manager without using the gui to do
so. You make yourself a .xsession file in your $HOME that starts up the
window manager of your choice. Of course, you also lose all the gnome
stuff starting, unless you copy one of the default xsession files and
change it.
don't have
to buy a laptop at all.
The GUI for switching window managers was replaced with one that only lets
you choose between gnome, kde, windowmaker, and twm. Yet another roadblock
to try to keep metacity in place.
I must say, even being the Red Hat advocate that I am, I've seen
nothing
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, at 9:59am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The really aggravating part is that Redhat seems to have made a
significant effort to make it difficult to switch back to sawfish. In the
end, I had to kill off metacity and quickly start sawfish before metacity
respawned, and then save
On 25 Dec 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
However, just to clear up a point, Red Hat switched from Gnome 1.4 to
Gnome 2.0 in Red Hat 8.0 and, to the best of my knowledge, there *is no*
gui for switching window managers in Gnome 2.0. The good news is that I
read one of the Gnome summaries
I don't mean to start a flame, but I am curious if others find Red Hat
8.0 desktop a little too cute. I can understand why it is nice for
people just moving to Linux from Windows, but the default desktop has a
feel to it that seems a little too cute and keeps one at a distance from
the meat
I don't mean to start a flame, but I am curious if others find Red Hat
8.0 desktop a little too cute. I can understand why it is nice for
people just moving to Linux from Windows, but the default desktop has a
feel to it that seems a little too cute and keeps one at a distance from
the meat
, I use blackbox which is about as minimal as a window
manager gets. It just manages windows and has a simple menu syntax for
creating root menus to start your apps. Very CLI-friendly.
Ed Lawson wrote:
I don't mean to start a flame, but I am curious if others find Red Hat
8.0 desktop a little
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 23:37, R. Nighthawk wrote:
Im a super linux newbie and id like some help, i just got redhat 8.0 and i
have an nvidia geforce4 ti 4600, but i cant get out of 800x600 mode, can
someone help please?
As a quickie, have you tried hitting control-alt-+/- ? That's the
default
proper name, such as Debian GNU/Linux, Red Hat
Linux, Mandrake Linux, SuSE Linux, etc.
:-P
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing
Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is for wimps
Linux
Hm, can't really find much to disagree with.
In a message dated: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:49:53 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certain other rabid zealots fired back remarks about how KDE is under the
GPL, so Red Hat can do anything they darn well please. Naturally, they also
had to bring up the throughly dead KDE/Qt licensing issue one more
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:48:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is
In a message dated: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:52:46 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have always, by accident rather then by dint of planning, moved from
N.1 or N.2 to N+1.1 so I have yet to experience a RH N.0 release.
I do this by design. My rule of thumb is *always* avoid an X.0
release of
In a message dated: 05 Oct 2002 22:35:55 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
Here, I'm afraid, I somewhat agree. The new window manager for Gnome
2.0, metacity, is basically crippling for me.
Well, it's good to know that I haven't missed *anything* by sticking
with fvwm over the years :) Someone
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ed Lawson wrote:
=On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:48:15 -0400
=[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
=
= Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
= decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
= underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
=
=
.
I'll refrain from any comments about always on top. :-) :-)
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
that it had zero to do with the problems or lack of problems
with 7.2.
[snip]
Personally, I'd wait until at least 8.1, if not 8.2. .1 is likely to
be out within a couple months.
Well, Red Hat has been pretty darned consistent with releasing every
six months. As a rule, it has been March
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 14:55:11 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It's now impossible to have the Gnome panel(s) be anything but
always-on-top.
Is this only if you're running Gnome? Or does it apply to running the
panel in
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:07:26 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- and an X.3 release is pretty much unheard of, and IMO,
indicative of just how much was wrong with the entire 7.x
series :)
Minor nit: I
was wrong with the entire 7.x
series :)
Minor nit: I know the inside story about why there was a 7.3 and can
only say that it had zero to do with the problems or lack of problems
with 7.2.
Well then, please enlighten us :)
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:50:12 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when
there are backward (or is it forward? Or both maybe? I forgot) binary
compatibility issues. I think the fact that they stuck with the .0, .1,
.2 release
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is for wimps
Linux
Hm, can't really find much to disagree with.
Inconsistent rubbish. Any *real* Debianer knows it's GNU/Linux -- just
like Debian prints on its web site.
And while vi isn't my favorite editor, I'm afraid to nominate joe
On 7 Oct 2002, at 3:50pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minor nit: I know the inside story about why there was a 7.3 and can
only say that it had zero to do with the problems or lack of problems
with 7.2.
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when
there are backward
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, at 9:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or are you referring to the much-overblown Bluecurve issue?
Since I don't follow RH's releases very closely anymore, care to educate
me (and other non-RH fanatics :) on what the Bluecurve issue is?
With Red Hat Linux 8.0, Red Hat
In a message dated: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:57:13 EDT
Ben Boulanger said:
Very fast (520kB/s) mirror for me:
ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/mirror/os/Linux/distr/RedHat/ftp/redhat/linux/8.0/en/iso/i386
Speaking of mirrors, since you mentioned the i386 architecture in
there, does RH not do anything but i386
I don't think RH ever did an ARM-based distro. It was x86 (and friends),
Sparc, and Alpha. Maybe there was a PPC? I don't remember it.
-Mark
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:46:14AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:57:13 EDT
Ben Boulanger said:
Very
Red Hat officially announced the general release of Red Hat Linux 8.0
today. More info:
http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rhl8/
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/features/
Even Red Hat's www.redhat.com site is slow; the software distribution
channels have been blown out of the water
Very fast (520kB/s) mirror for me:
ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/mirror/os/Linux/distr/RedHat/ftp/redhat/linux/8.0/en/iso/i386
Ben
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Red Hat officially announced the general release of Red Hat Linux 8.0
today. More info:
http://www.redhat.com/mktg
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, at 8:25pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to ask dumb questions (and please don't get me wrong - hooray for
RHAT and all that) but I'm feeling sorta left out - what's all the fuss?
Fuss? Someone posted a couple days ago asking what was new in RHL 8.0.
Given that, plus
This is a heads up for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. If the company
you work for or a company you do business with distributes binary only
modules for Red Hat (likely with wrapper code like the Lucent Winmodem
project), the be advised that a version that has be compiled with gcc v2
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
