In a message dated: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:06:25 EDT
Michael O'Donnell said:
I'm giving the FAI (Fully Automatic Installation)
package a test drive at Paul's suggestion and
wonder if anybody here has tried it. I'm hitting
some speedbumps that (I think) have something to
do with my attempts to use
I'm giving the FAI (Fully Automatic Installation)
package a test drive at Paul's suggestion and
wonder if anybody here has tried it. I'm hitting
some speedbumps that (I think) have something to
do with my attempts to use FAI's DHCP boot method
with the DHCP server from the dhcpd3 package.
In a message dated: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:23:55 EDT
Michael O'Donnell said:
I've so far had problems related to TFTP, DHCP
and SSH. I discovered (after some tortuous debugging)
that the first two were the result of incompatibilities
with the particular servers I was running, so in those
cases I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting it under /usr
doesn't really make sense -- /usr is where static files live, not
user data.
This does seem to be a best practice nowadays.
However, there used to be a time when user directories used to be
placed under /usr. Then things changed, and
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that leaves us with no place to put htdocs. Putting it under /usr
doesn't really make sense -- /usr is where static files live, not user data.
/usr/local/htdocs might make sense, but Red Hat wanted to leave
/usr/local for things not
In a message dated: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:03:26 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Another, similar debate is whether /usr/local should be for site-local or
machine-local files. We've had that here before, too.
I've actually flip-flopped my opinion of this one :) I used to
advocate that /usr/local
On 26 Jul 2002, at 2:53pm, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
However, there used to be a time when user directories used to be
placed under /usr.
Right. From what I understand, the embryonic Unix systems were
single-user machines, with a very few top level directories: /src for
source, /bin for
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Ben == [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Anyone used to any other Unix will
Ben find Linux a bit weird in this respect.
Let's re-write this as:
Anyone used to any one particular OS will find another
particular OS a bit wierd in this respect.
I think
In a message dated: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:08:02 EDT
Rich Payne said:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:20:58 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, at 11:08am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or what /etc/exports is under:
-
I'm giving the FAI (Fully Automatic Installation)
package a test drive at Paul's suggestion and
wonder if anybody here has tried it. I'm hitting
some speedbumps that (I think) have something to
do with my attempts to use FAI's DHCP boot method
with the DHCP server from the dhcpd3 package.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 26 Jul 2002, at 2:53pm, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
However, there used to be a time when user directories used to be
placed under /usr.
Right. From what I understand, the embryonic Unix systems were
single-user machines, with a very few top level directories: /src for
In a message dated: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:25:26 EDT
Derek D. Martin said:
However in Red Hat's defense, one thing to realize is that the number of
software components included with a distribution like Red Hat makes it
impossible to QA everything thoroughly.
Which is also one of the reasons it
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is also one of the reasons it takes Debian 2.5 years to issue a
new release!
Oh, come, come -- it's not really -that- quick, is it? ;-)
Regardless of distribution, you get a lot more bang for your buck
with Linux than you do with any
In a message dated: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:44:59 PDT
Ken Ambrose said:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is also one of the reasons it takes Debian 2.5 years to issue a
new release!
Oh, come, come -- it's not really -that- quick, is it? ;-)
This most recent one was only 2.5
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 13:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the latest Debian release *is* 7 or 8 CDs at this point!
The latest Debian release, Potato r3.0, is 8 CD's. I was going to make
ISO's using Jigdo over the weekend until I relaized this. I didn't have
enough drive space to
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 13:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I beginning to think it's far easier to just install a
base OS (similar to what you get with commercial UNIXes), then do
something like apt-get or rpm-up2date to install new, non-OS stuff.
This is
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:54:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:44:59 PDT
Ken Ambrose said:
Alas, QA has one (or two, depending on how you look at it) strike(s)
against it:
- it's not sexy, which means relatively few do it voluntarily, which
In a message dated: 25 Jul 2002 14:23:47 EDT
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
This is what I have been doing for quite some time. I have one Debian CD
that I use to do a bare minimum install. Then I have an options file on
a floppy that I created using `dpkg --get-selections`. When the
selections are
In a message dated: 25 Jul 2002 14:54:32 EDT
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
I have three different selections floppies. One for
desktop systems, one for laptops, and one for servers. Once the base is
installed and everything gets installed from the selections
floppy/apt-get, I manually install the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Paul Iadonisi hath spake thusly:
Compare Derek's complaints to what I
would consider standard sysadmin practices as espoused by Evi
Nemeth, et al, in the UNIX/Linux System Administrator's Handbook
series. RH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, at 10:55am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that, I was merely stating that it's an
amusing read.
You forget there is a real person on
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, at 5:54pm, Derek D. Martin wrote:
When you say this, it makes me think that you don't get GNU. GNU's *not*
Unix. But it was always intended to work like Unix, by and large.
I have written and rewritten a response to this several times now. In all
cases, the inevitable
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, at 10:25am, Derek D. Martin wrote:
On a few occasions, I've allowed frustration to get the better of me, and
said some things I'd probably prefer I didn't...
Well, Derek, if it makes you feel any better, I think that happens to
everyone now and again (certainly, to me!),
In a message dated: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:09:11 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The early iterations of Red Hat's anaconda install did have some serious
bugs in them.
Let's re-write that as:
The iterations of Red Hat have some serious bugs in them.
It's more efficient and more accurate
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:58:35AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:09:11 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The early iterations of Red Hat's anaconda install did have some serious
bugs in them.
Let's re-write that as:
The iterations of Red
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, at 10:26am, Mark Komarinski wrote:
Distros have their problems, no doubt about it. It's fortunate we can
have this discussion at all as compared to Windows users. It's also
fortunate that we can find our own ways around some of the problems that
also happen to be
In a message dated: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:33:00 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have seen Derek's Red Hat bug reports before. He is often rude,
abusive, and/or insulting, none of which are productive. You might find
that sort of thing funny, but frankly, I think he does himself, Red Hat, and
In a message dated: 24 Jul 2002 10:49:57 EDT
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
Do we really need to re-hash this *AGAIN*???
But the horse is still twitching! It's not quite dead yet! ;)
--
Seeya,
Paul
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively
Do we really need to re-hash this *AGAIN*???
But the horse is still twitching! It's not quite dead yet! ;)
You're such losers - anybody can see that the
vi-versus-emacs flamewar is by FAR superior to
the Linux-distro one...
(Heh. I was just wondering if it's possible
for me to
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 11:06, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
You're such losers - anybody can see that the
vi-versus-emacs flamewar is by FAR superior to
the Linux-distro one...
I'm not a big fan of the 5 editor. And eMacs, well, isn't that Apple's
version of a networked toilet-seat looking
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:19:13AM -0400, Kenneth E. Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 11:06, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
You're such losers - anybody can see that the
vi-versus-emacs flamewar is by FAR superior to
the Linux-distro one...
I'm not a big fan of the 5
On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 10:49 AM, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
OK, before the My distro is better than yours starts again, I can save
everyone the trouble:
A bunch of people like Debian because it's more stable, apt-get is
better than RPM, and it's very hands-on.
A bunch of people
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Most of those gripes are a matter of RH not having experience
sysadmins doing QA for them.
Um, EXCUSE ME, but I'm an experienced sysadmin and *I* do QA for
them. I'm on the beta team. And I know *many* who do testing who are
Michael,
I'm not sure what your software is/or does, so this comment might be
totally off the wall, but have you considered using the web to
'distribute' your application?
If you are building software that accesses a centralized store of
information and it can be done within the relatively
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, at 10:55am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that, I was merely stating that it's an
amusing read.
You forget there is a real person on the other end of it. I have been the
object of that kind of abuse too many times to find it amusing. :-(
Which
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, at 10:59am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The iterations of Linux distros have some major bugs in them.
It's more accurate, and much more general :)
Might as well be completely honest:
The various iterations of most software have some major bugs in them.
Or, to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, at 10:55am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... espoused by Evi Nemeth, et al, in the UNIX/Linux System
Administrator's Handbook series. RH violates these basic practices with
their configurations many times.
Heh. My take on the same thing was that
go to http://www.finley.org (or finley.com.. i forget)... and look for
system imager
That oughta do it...
J.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
I'm looking for an automated software installation
mechanism - I want to be able to deliver software
to my customers in such a way
We've used System Imager here with fairly good success. It's a bit like
Solaris's jumpstart, so your machines need to have the ability to boot off
the network, but it's pretty straightforward other than that.
I've been toying around with partition image as well, which looks a little
better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael O'Donnell) writes:
I'm looking for an automated software installation
mechanism - I want to be able to deliver software
to my customers in such a way that they can install
it on multiple machines as painlessly as possible.
Would yet another Outlook virus solve
You might want to check out the System Installer Suite at
http://sisuite.org/ .
VA also had something like this a while back, but I can't remember the
name. It allowed you to have a Gold system, which was the one you
wanted everything else to look like. Then you had the master server that
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, at 2:08pm, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
I'm looking for an automated software installation mechanism - I want to
be able to deliver software to my customers in such a way that they can
install it on multiple machines as painlessly as possible.
Others have provided many good
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:21:55PM -0400, Ben Boulanger wrote:
We've used System Imager here with fairly good success. It's a bit like
Solaris's jumpstart, so your machines need to have the ability to boot off
the network, but it's pretty straightforward other than that.
You can use
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:35:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, at 2:08pm, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
I'm looking for an automated software installation mechanism - I want to
be able to deliver software to my customers in such a way that they can
install it on
Would yet another Outlook virus solve your problem here?
It'd be painless and automated, right? (-:
Heh. Now *that* is Market Penetration. (as in, bend over )
*
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:08:49 -0400 Michael O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm looking for an automated software installation
mechanism - I want to be able to deliver software
to my customers in such a way that they can install it on multiple machines as
painlessly as possible.
I think
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, at 2:34pm, Mark Komarinski wrote:
Every time I've used kickstart, there has been some serious bug in it.
From messing up the partition table to mismatches between
crypt/shadow/plaintext root password settings.
The early iterations of Red Hat's anaconda install did have
47 matches
Mail list logo
