Bill Nottingham wrote:
- has contradictory guidelines on the same page about yum
- describes kudzu as allowing hardware configuration by unpriveleged users
What they are talking about is that some hardware may not be desired to be
enabled. The thought was that kudzu can do some things that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/10/2008 11:47:33 PM:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Greg Swift wrote:
What is a base (for lack of a bettter term) server? (RHEL is a
server
platform, after all)
Personally I would define it as a system that has the underlying os, a
Trevor Hemsley wrote:
Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
I'd love it if RH could work out some of the little things that people
have complained about - like why does a default install
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
1. I would love to have Anaconda be more verbose about why it failed to
download a kickstart file. And even
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general I'm usually taking about standalones, but VMs are a great
example of where this is useful. Unfortunately VMs tend to be a good place
for using
Geoffrey írta:
This one is my favorite... So, I'd like to see a show of hands of those
folks using isdn...
It's a shame but we do use ISDN :)
--
Laszlo BERES RHCE, RHCX
senior IT engineer, trainer
___
rhelv5-list mailing list
On 7/9/08, Jos Vos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:32:04PM -0400, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
A proper groupware suite.
As this is not even in Fedora, I
Laszlo BERES wrote:
Geoffrey írta:
This one is my favorite... So, I'd like to see a show of hands of
those folks using isdn...
It's a shame but we do use ISDN :)
Yeah, I figured there were still some folks. I feel your pain..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential
Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
- Minimal install. I suppose for a workstation (especially if they are
end-user installed/managed) a batteries included approach makes sense.
But IMHO
Greg,
Your idea and intentions about improving lsb are great, and I'm not
saying there isn't a need for it (there is, and separate
lsb-desktop/server/mobile lists is a good idea), but I don't agree
with the basic premise that lsb is the cause of package bloat in RHEL.
Following the
Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Sorry, but 'sensible security' sounds too much like politico or salesman
speak for everything works out of the box!
When the alternative is wait, you can't talk to the network because
ISDN/bridge tools/etc. aren't installed, absolutely.
The reason things
Bill Nottingham wrote:
When the alternative is wait, you can't talk to the network because
ISDN/bridge tools/etc. aren't installed, absolutely.
Nonsense. You're already on the network, installing the OS. You can
install what you need at that point.
The reason things like that are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/10/2008 10:10:17 AM:
Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Sorry, but 'sensible security' sounds too much like politico or
salesman
speak for everything works out of the box!
When the alternative is wait, you can't talk to the network because
ISDN/bridge
You know, there's a flipness or arrogance in your comments on this
issue that is really disturbing. (The crack/snake oil thing was a
beaut.) Anyone who studies or takes system administration seriously
(again, probably not your average customer) is familiar with secure
configuration
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jay Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:23 -0700, MJang wrote:
[snip]
It was also guessed that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 might not come out
for some time and that it would definitely not be based on Fedora 9...
but probably Fedora 11,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/10/2008 10:10:17 AM:
Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Sorry, but 'sensible security' sounds too much like politico or
salesman
speak for everything works out of the box!
When the alternative is
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ed Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
In the meantime, %packages --nobase in kickstart should solve your
needs - if you're trying to install a large group of servers, you
absolutely should be using kickstart.
I, and likely everyone else on
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of RHEL product management, etc
Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
The reason things like that are installed in the default minimal
install is
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Steve Grubb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This is really not the forum to debate such advice. But the general theory is
to basically decrease the attack surface for bad guys.
Where would be a good place to have this conversation? Should we get a
govt-security
On Thursday 10 July 2008 14:53:14 Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
- removing module files shipped with the kernel to disable features,
which is an impressively hacky and bad way to do it (Maintaining lists
of modules to remove sounds like so much fun.)
There is no other way of ensuring
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:43 -0500, inode0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ed Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
In the meantime, %packages --nobase in kickstart should solve your
needs - if you're trying to install a large group of servers, you
absolutely
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM, MJang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:43 -0500, inode0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ed Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
In the meantime, %packages --nobase in kickstart should solve your
needs - if you're
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Note: the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of RHEL product management, etc
I appreciate your speaking your point of view, and assumed right from
'snake oil' on, that these were not official representations. :-)
That may be the
Does it really benefit us to let this distribution slowly bloat? Yes,
having all the packages available is great, but thats the point of Yum,
RHN, Satellite, etc. Even MS has gotten wise and started trimming the
fat
on its server installs, which were already its leanest installs.
That came
Folks,
I'm wondering when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be released. There
are a couple of bits I've found in this regard.
First, the old mantra was that new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
would be released every 12 to 18 months.
But based on Wikipedia's dates
RHEL 3 = 10/22/2003
RHEL
On 7/9/08, MJang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I'm wondering when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be released. There
are a couple of bits I've found in this regard.
First, the old mantra was that new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
would be released every 12 to 18 months.
But
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 05:31:03PM +0100, solarflow99 wrote:
It was also guessed that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 might not come out
for some time and that it would definitely not be based on Fedora 9...
but probably Fedora 11, 12 or even 13.
haha, obviously whoever put that together had
This kind of question always brings out a wide spectrum of replies. I
absolutely hate upgrades. I'm just now getting around to upping from AS
3 to AS 4. 18 months is too short a time period between upgrades, I'd
rather see 60 months, but that's just my selfish wish.
I'm charged with
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM, MJang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I'm wondering when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be released. There
are a couple of bits I've found in this regard.
First, the old mantra was that new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
would be released every 12 to
On Wednesday 09 July 2008 12:23:21 pm MJang wrote:
Folks,
I'm wondering when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be released. There
are a couple of bits I've found in this regard.
First, the old mantra was that new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
would be released every 12 to 18 months.
on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Folks,
I'm wondering when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be released. There
are a couple of bits I've found in this regard.
First, the old mantra was that new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
would be released every 12 to 18 months.
But based on Wikipedia's dates
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Bacchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This kind of question always brings out a wide spectrum of replies. I
absolutely hate upgrades. I'm just now getting around to upping from AS 3
to AS 4. 18 months is too short a time period between upgrades, I'd rather
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:43 -0700, Collins, Kevin [Beeline] wrote:
Well, obviously those dates are inconsistent since they have RHEL3
coming AFTER RHEL4...
Gosh, I meant
But based on Wikipedia's dates
RHEL 3 = 10/22/2003
RHEL 4 = 2/15/2005
RHEL 5 = 3/14/2007
Thanks,
Mike
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:23 -0700, MJang wrote:
[snip]
It was also guessed that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 might not come out
for some time and that it would definitely not be based on Fedora 9...
but probably Fedora 11, 12 or even 13.
I used to love the old days of schedule speculation.
Well since you asked, how about an integrated backup utility for both daily
and bare metal restores that covers both RAID setups as well as virt guest
stuff?
Bill 'doesn't want much' Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
MJang schrieb:
But based on Wikipedia's dates
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/HistoricalSchedules
iirc,
3 fedoras + n months = 1 enterprise
rhl 7.3, rhl 8.0
RHL 9 = 2003-03-31
RHEL 3 = 10/22/2003
fc1, fc2
FC3 = 2004-11-08
RHEL 4 =
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 12:02 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
[snip]
I need RHEL-1/2 to run under paravirt ;).
Troublemaker! And I bet you want a pony as well!
Actually the biggest thing I would like to see is a RH
supported/trained configuration management program (cfengine, bfcfg2,
Jay Turner wrote:
What do people need/want in RHEL6?
I know that 'it just works' is a measure for some of product maturity,
especially in a desktop OS. But security is a high priority for many
of your server enterprise OS customers, and the 'make-everything-easy'
approach ends up making
Jay Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
It was also guessed that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 might not come out
for some time and that it would definitely not be based on Fedora 9...
but probably Fedora 11, 12 or even 13.
I used to love the old days of schedule speculation. But even more
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
FreeIPA looks very nice, though of course I'd like more audit
functionality. I really would like it as a drop-in
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
I suspect many of us would love to see a minimal, hardened installation
option, or version, or channel or however it might be implemented, but
out-of-the-gate it would substantially meet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/09/2008 01:37:37 PM:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
FreeIPA looks very nice, though of course I'd like more audit
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 at 2:13pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
with ubuntu for my non-rhel servers (because I have some weird issue w/ not
liking centos... strictly an emotional/mental block). I love RH. I also
Erm, why the block? The way I see it, CentOS makes RHEL available to a
much wider
Trevor Hemsley wrote:
Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
I'd love it if RH could work out some of the little things that people
have complained about - like why does a default install
Trevor Hemsley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
I'd love it if RH could work out some of the little things that people
have complained about - like why does a default install insist on
installing things that are completely unnecessary. I have a kickstart
file where I've had to explicitly
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ken Snider wrote:
On 9-Jul-08, at 1:32 PM, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
Many of these are installed for LSB compliance, but things like cups,
On 9-Jul-08, at 4:58 PM, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
This comes up every time there's a new release, but I don't think
that's the
direction RHEL is headed. They want it to be easy to set up a print
server
(for while you'd obviously need CUPS), edit files with nano
(configured to
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 15:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:10:16 -0500
From: inode0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] Speculation on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
rhelv5-list
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:32:04PM -0400, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
A proper groupware suite.
As this is not even in Fedora, I guess this makes not much chance.
The problem with
I thought it might be a good idea to bring this together into a thread
targeted at discussing what we can do towards a path of resolution. Many
of us have the same complaints, and have had them for years. We've watched
our installations go from 300M to 700M for a minimal install. The
primary
Jos Vos schrieb:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:32:04PM -0400, Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
A proper groupware suite.
As this is not even in Fedora, I guess this makes not
Here's one more thing that should be *easy* for folks as aware as RH are to
do [not so easy for fools like me]. You have yum and the install DVD
repository available and that is a great foundation. How about a repo list
of the top 100 - 500 - ? download sites one command addable to the
stock(DVD)
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:33 -0700, Don Buchholz wrote:
Trevor Hemsley wrote:
Jay Turner wrote:
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a side trip with
this thread. What do people need/want in RHEL6?
I'd love it if RH could work out some of the little things that
53 matches
Mail list logo
