:-)
http://acl.bestbits.at/
On Friday 01 November 2002 16:21, you wrote:
> 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?
