This is a fantastic idea.
I have no idea how. Google is my friend... I'll see over the weekend.
Gentoo is already set up now, and the first boot is happening as we speak,
so it may be a moot point.
The current Legacy environment des not support Journaling. However, it does
support ACLs in the file system, which EXT3 doesn't. Hence XFS. (or an
ext3 patch).
The current Legacy environment does allow partition resizing on the fly,
hence logical volume support.
Kev.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bogi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant>
> Hi :-)
> Weel you could allways compile your flavor of the kernel, and package the
> first cd along with whatever distro you want to use. Then your
installation
> instruction would look like insert cd, re boot, get coffee, take cd out,
re
> boot, and you are done. Almost all distros (the big once) support this
kind
> of default install (rollout) script that would be written on the new
> {corporATE} boot CD and ....
> Now making an install-kit like that would take you 1h of work including
the
> burning process. Not like everyone on the company would install a
mailserver
> for him/her self, that would make it necessary to make an installation
> instruction as simple as that. Note i did not mention any distro so far.
Also
> if Management wants to use Vintage Os for their operations, you should let
> them do just that. But if they feel [Note: feel :-)] the need to use an
open
> source /free/ os instead, that is by the way far more superior then
vintage
> Os, then a creation of an install-script should not be an obstacle to stop
> them.
> Now to the funny part:
> Does Vintage Os support any jurnalling ? does it support all the other
things
> they say they NEED ?? . If the answare to any of these questions is not
> positive then they should not use that OS because the OS lacks in required
> features. If the answare to all the requirements is positive then they
should
> go for the price and the Total Cost Of Ownership, Avarage Downtime etc...
The
> decision should be based on particular objective criteria.
>
> Sorry for the long msg :-)
> Szemir
>
> On Friday 01 November 2002 11:02, you wrote:
> > Like I mentioned before, SuSE will give you everything you need out of
> > the box, no kernel recompile. And it's very management friendly. It
> > was the first on the big IBM mainframes, and IBM supports both redhat
> > and suse completelly, in fact suse was the first to be supported by
> > ibm. If you haven't taken a look at it yet, check it out. It's used
> > by a lot of big companies, and many european governments. Many
> > companies use it in east europe too, where price is not an issue, since
> > pirating is so rampant...it's use is based 100% on merit.
> >
> > </sales pitch>
> >
> > At least I like it a lot.
> >
> > Le Vendredi, 1 nove 2002, ? 08:19 Canada/Mountain, Kevin Anderson a
> >
> > écrit :
> > > *I* have no technical problem here.
> > >
> > > I have a sales problem.
> > >
> > > I need to sell people on the idea of Linux. Simplifying it is the
main
> > > issue I have. I have plenty of case studies, and cost/benefits and
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > Mostly, my original message was a RANT. I was irritated that the
> > > available
> > > software wasn't meeting my need. RH has a point and drool install,
> > > and 99%
> > > of what I need. I hate their KDE (almost) install. And my need for
> > > ACL
> > > support for Samba leaves me with no choice other than XFS or EXT2's
ACL
> > > patch, either of which is a kernel redo.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to whine and cry like a little baby. That's all. Now
> > > it's
> > > time to set everything up.
> > >
> > > My road will lead to success, I just want it to be a smooth, easy
road.
> > > Apparently that won't happen.
> > >
> > > I'll stop my blubbering, and get back to you this afternoon when it's
> > > built... Alternately, if I hit a snag, I'll come back with that too.
> > >
> > > Kev.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cameron Nikitiuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:38 PM
> > > Subject: RE: (clug-talk) <rant>
> > >
> > >> If there is any sort of leg work or information gathering we can do
> > >> as a
> > >> group for Kevin I think we should all band together (regardless of
> > >> differences) and try to assist him in developing his project. By us
> > >
> > > showing
> > >
> > >> unity and adequate support for our fellow geeks, we develop a more
> > >
> > > friendly
> > >
> > >> environment for L/OSS (Linux/Open Source Software) to flourish in.
> > >>
> > >> Kevin's road to success here makes ALL or our battles in the future
> > >> easier
> > >> to win. I don't know much about Linux or red hat for that matter,
> > >> but I
> > >> WILL PERSONALLY through up the offer for any sort of assistance I
> > >> can. I
> > >> know Kevin and I have had problems in the past, but I am willing to
> > >
> > > overlook
> > >
> > >> those differences for the greater good...the promotion and
> > >> propagation of
> > >> L/OSS.
> > >>
> > >> Kevin...feel free to contact me offline if I can be of any help. I
am
> > >> awesome at researching and have told I have a great gift for
> > >> gab...promotions, selling, marketing, PR wise.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Cameron
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kevin Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >> Sent: October 31, 2002 9:05 PM
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> They need to approve it before it ever begins.
> > >>
> > >> And if I'm going to implement what is an unknown commodity for this
> > >> new
> > >> company (We're being sold, remember, so past success means nothing.
> > >> They
> > >> have zero experience with Linux. I already checked.)
> > >>
> > >> If I make a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants proposal, then I'll look like
> > >> an
> > >> idiot, AND I'll get shot down. Realistically, I also won't be very
> > >> likely
> > >> to get a second try with it either. They're a pure NT shop. We've
> > >
> > > already
> > >
> > >> been told 99% that Exchange WILL BE our mail solution.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, if my presentation is complete, and addresses all
> > >> of
> > >> their concerns and needs, and then I implement it, and complete
> > >> everything
> > >> on schedule, or ahead, then the solution looks good, and so do I.
> > >>
> > >> I'll win where I can, and grow Linux from there. I can wait for a
> > >> pure
> > >> network. Time has always shown that Linux is better, faster, and
less
> > >> expensive. In a few years, when Mail needs to be replaced, I'll
> > >> bring up
> > >> Linuxes successes. If there are no successes, then I have nothing to
> > >
> > > build
> > >
> > >> on. Plus, the company will be that much more dependant on legacy MS
> > >> products.
> > >>
> > >> I will cave to everything management wants so that Linux gets a foot
> > >> in
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > >> door. An arrogant attitude on my part won't get it there. I'm
> > >> arrogant,
> > >> believe me, but telling a manager to "I'll give you what I want to
> > >> give
> > >
> > > you,
> > >
> > >> and you'll shut up and like it" won't get me anywhere.
> > >>
> > >> Kev.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Sébastien Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:52 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ugh, does management need to read your installation documentation? I
> > >> doubt it.
> > >>
> > >> Le Jeudi, 31 octo 2002, ? 20:27 Canada/Mountain, Kevin Anderson a
> > >> écrit
> > >>
> > >>> Ummm. I missed something somewhere. The distros are all pretty
much
> > >>> equal
> > >>> if you want them to be. But that's a technical perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>> My concern is selling this to people who are NOT technical. Debian
> > >>> doesn't
> > >>> have the MIND SHARE that Red Hat does. And like it or not, that's a
> > >>> big
> > >>> part of my battle. It's hard enough to have people accept Linux.
> > >>> They've
> > >>> heard of Red Hat. IBM does Red Hat. Nobody has heard of Gentoo or
> > >>> Debian,
> > >>> at least not at the management level. Which is the level that
> > >>> technical
> > >>> installs are approved or vetoed at.
> > >>>
> > >>> I want my documentation to read "Install red Hat from cd. Select
All
> > >>> packages. You're done"
> > >>>
> > >>> I do not want it to read.
> > >>>
> > >>> "Install <whatever flavor> download patches for X, Y, and Q. Apply
> > >>> them
> > >>> against the kernel. Run menuconfig, and choose this list of 175
> > >>> options to
> > >>> compile into the kernel, and this list of 50 others to compile as
> > >>> modules.
> > >>> Compile the kernel. Compile the modules. Copy bzImage to /boot.
> > >>> Update
> > >>> LILO/GRUB. etc, etc, etc..."
> > >>>
> > >>> One sounds complete. One shounds like a patchwork of pieces that
> > >>> sort
> > >>> of
> > >>> work. *I* know otherwise, but you don't need to climb the food
chain
> > >>> very
> > >>> far from <hands-on IT Admin title of choice> before this is a
> > >>> hopeless
> > >>> sale.
> > >>>
> > >>> Documentation should not exceed 2 pages per application. And if it
> > >>> strays
> > >>> more than 2 commands from "click next", the sale is going to fail.
> > >>>
> > >>> Kev.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: "Cade Cairns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:48 AM
> > >>> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant>
> > >>>
> > >>>> oops.. didnt mean to put that forth in a belittling way. sorry.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Cade Cairns
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Cade Cairns wrote:
> > >>>>> Of course. It's not like Debian is missing features that RedHat
> > >>>>> has..
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm
> > >>>
> > >>>>> quite amused that you think that, though.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>> Cade Cairns
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Kevin Anderson wrote:
> > >>>>>> If I have a document to management that says something like "Then
> > >>>
> > >>> rebuild
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> the kernel, enabling extended attributes, etc"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> They'll ask "wouldn't XP be easier and faster?"
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>> "Could you explain this to use so that we understand what is
> > >>>
> > >>> happening, and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> why?"
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>> "Does this mean that Red Hat 8 is unable to meet our needs?"
> > >>>>>> etc...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I chose Red Hat because management will have heard of it. It's
> > >>>>>> way
> > >>>
> > >>> easier
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> to say "I need $100 to purchase a licensed copy of Red Hat" than
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>
> > >>> get
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> approval to "purchase a dozen pizza vouchers for Canberra's LUG".
> > >>>>>> And
> > >>>
> > >>> with
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> me wanting to avoid the need to recompile the kernel, does Debian
> > >>>
> > >>> REALLY fit
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> this scenario well? If I'm going a non-Red Hat route, it'll be
> > >>>
> > >>> Gentoo. And
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> that seems more likely with every passing minute. The main
> > >>>>>> reason I
> > >>>
> > >>> skipped
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> Gentoo before is that 1.2 doesn't seem to work with Compaq's
> > >>>
> > >>> SmartArray RAID
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> Controllers. I'd assume 1.4 does, but I'd also like to see it
> > >>>
> > >>> released
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> rather than running an RC version.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Kev.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>>> From: "timmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:24 AM
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And I don't want to rebuild the kernel, cause that sort of
> > >>>
> > >>> documentation
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>> just blows.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I don't understand this statement. Which documentation are you
> > >>>
> > >>> referring
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> to? Do you need help with regards on how to compile a kernel from
> > >>>
> > >>> scratch?
>
>
