date:20181030

I am eagerly waiting to download CentOS 7.6 as well. I am still seeing CentOS 
7.5 on CentOS download mirrors in my region, Singapore.

From: CentOS  on behalf of Kenneth Porter 

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:02 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

I'm guessing CentOS 7.6 will arrive around the Christmas break. I expect
we'll all be upgrading our servers while our companies are shut down for
the break! :D
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Testing

Please ignore.


===BEGIN SIGNATURE===

Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming's Academic Qualifications as at 30 Oct 2017

[1] https://tdtemcerts.wordpress.com/

[2] http://tdtemcerts.blogspot.sg/

[3] 
https://www.scribd.com/user/270125049/Teo-En-Ming

===END SIGNATURE===
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?

2018-10-30 Thread Japheth Cleaver


On 10/30/2018 9:12 PM, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote:

Why do you say so?

On 10/31/18 12:44 AM, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote:

Good morning from Singapore,

This is of paramount importance. Would Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), CentOS, 
and Fedora remain open source/free software after IBM buys Red Hat for $34 
Billion?

yes, because closing the code is the same as burning $34 Billion.


Think of it this way: A company specializing in 10 year support for an 
operating environment is being bought by a company specializing in 25-30 
year support for an operating environment. Enterprise Linux -- and thus 
any derivative, like CentOS -- is not going away any time soon.


Fedora's value is far more in the technology aggregation (IMO) than 
support. IBM isn't  and 
thus I don't think the project is any danger, but Fedora would be 
workably forkable if it really came down to it.


-jc

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?

Why do you say so?

From: CentOS  on behalf of Itamar Reis Peixoto 

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:04 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free 
Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?

On 10/31/18 12:44 AM, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote:
> Good morning from Singapore,
>
> This is of paramount importance. Would Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), 
> CentOS, and Fedora remain open source/free software after IBM buys Red Hat 
> for $34 Billion?

yes, because closing the code is the same as burning $34 Billion.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?

2018-10-30 Thread Itamar Reis Peixoto



On 10/31/18 12:44 AM, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote:
> Good morning from Singapore,
>
> This is of paramount importance. Would Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), 
> CentOS, and Fedora remain open source/free software after IBM buys Red Hat 
> for $34 Billion? 

yes, because closing the code is the same as burning $34 Billion.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?

Good morning from Singapore,

This is of paramount importance. Would Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), CentOS, 
and Fedora remain open source/free software after IBM buys Red Hat for $34 
Billion? 
 
===BEGIN SIGNATURE=== 
Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming's Academic Qualifications as at 30 Oct 2017 
[1] https://tdtemcerts.wordpress.com/ 
[2] http://tdtemcerts.blogspot.sg/ 
[3] https://www.scribd.com/user/270125049/Teo-En-Ming 
===END SIGNATURE=== 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread Yan Li


On 10/30/18 3:26 PM, Phil Perry wrote:

On 30/10/18 21:14, Yan Li wrote:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/ 



They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor 
in the release notes.


gnome 3.28 was in the beta:

$ cat rhel7.6beta-packagelist.txt | grep gnome | grep '3\.28'
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-libs-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-libs-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm


Oh, great. I didn't pick them up. Sorry, my bad.

--
Yan Li
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread Phil Perry


On 30/10/18 21:14, Yan Li wrote:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/ 



They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor in 
the release notes. 



gnome 3.28 was in the beta:

$ cat rhel7.6beta-packagelist.txt | grep gnome | grep '3\.28'
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-libs-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-bluetooth-libs-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-boxes-3.28.5-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-calculator-3.28.1-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-classic-session-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-clocks-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-color-manager-3.28.0-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-color-manager-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-contacts-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-desktop3-3.28.2-2.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-desktop3-3.28.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-desktop3-devel-3.28.2-2.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-desktop3-devel-3.28.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-disk-utility-3.28.3-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-font-viewer-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-getting-started-docs-3.28.2-1.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-initial-setup-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-keyring-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-keyring-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-keyring-pam-3.28.2-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-keyring-pam-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-3.28.0-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-devel-3.28.0-1.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-devel-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-packagekit-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-packagekit-common-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-packagekit-installer-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-packagekit-updater-3.28.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-session-3.28.1-5.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-session-xsession-3.28.1-5.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-settings-daemon-3.28.1-2.el7.i686.rpm
gnome-settings-daemon-3.28.1-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-shell-3.28.3-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-shell-browser-plugin-3.28.3-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-alternate-tab-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-apps-menu-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-common-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-launch-new-instance-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-places-menu-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-top-icons-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-user-theme-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-window-list-3.28.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-software-3.28.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-system-monitor-3.28.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-terminal-3.28.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-terminal-nautilus-3.28.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-themes-standard-3.28-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
gnome-tweak-tool-3.28.1-2.el7.noarch.rpm
gnome-user-docs-3.28.2-1.el7.noarch.rpm



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread vychytraly

What a nice surprise, thank you very much :)

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:45 PM Yan Li  wrote:

> On 10/30/18 2:35 PM, vychytraly wrote:
> > Are you sure about this? They only mention "The FreeType font engine has
> > been rebased to version 2.8, which is required by GNOME 3.28" but was
> GNOME
> > itself also updated?
>
> Yes: https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3140
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM Yan Li 
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/
> >>
> >> They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor in
> >> the release notes. Can't wait to see it on my desktop. Too bad we still
> >> have to wait for 3.29, which has more fixes for the huge memory leak of
> >> gnome-shell.
>
>
> --
> Yan Li
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread Yan Li


On 10/30/18 2:35 PM, vychytraly wrote:

Are you sure about this? They only mention "The FreeType font engine has
been rebased to version 2.8, which is required by GNOME 3.28" but was GNOME
itself also updated?


Yes: https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3140



On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM Yan Li  wrote:



https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/

They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor in
the release notes. Can't wait to see it on my desktop. Too bad we still
have to wait for 3.29, which has more fixes for the huge memory leak of
gnome-shell.



--
Yan Li
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread vychytraly

Are you sure about this? They only mention "The FreeType font engine has
been rebased to version 2.8, which is required by GNOME 3.28" but was GNOME
itself also updated?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM Yan Li  wrote:

>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/
>
> They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor in
> the release notes. Can't wait to see it on my desktop. Too bad we still
> have to wait for 3.29, which has more fixes for the huge memory leak of
> gnome-shell.
>
> --
> Yan Li
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released

2018-10-30 Thread Yan Li


https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/

They silently rebased GNOME to 3.28, which wasn't in the 7.6 beta nor in 
the release notes. Can't wait to see it on my desktop. Too bad we still 
have to wait for 3.29, which has more fixes for the huge memory leak of 
gnome-shell.


--
Yan Li
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Rainer Duffner



> Am 30.10.2018 um 20:37 schrieb mark :
> 
>> 
> Unless I'm misremembering, these are midway between small server and
> mainframe. I just did a search, and only found used systems, never new,
> and they were all "refurbed", starting at $1500, and going up to $22k...
> and still refurbed.
> 
> I think my guess of new, > $100k is about right.
> 
>mark
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



Found something:

https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/02/15/ins-outs-ibms-power9-zz-systems/


That’s the entry-level, I presume?


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Richard Zimmerman

Please contact me off list

Many thanks,

Richard


Richard Zimmerman
River Bend Hose Specialty, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: CentOS  On Behalf Of John Plemons
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:44 PM
To: CentOS mailing list ; mark 
Subject: Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

If any one is interested, I have a brand new AS400 sitting upstairs in my 
computer room, it was a bought as surplus item, never used. I just hung onto 
it. It can be yours cheap, not wanting an arm and a leg for it, I would be open 
to a nice offer if anyone has an interest.

john plemons


On 10/30/2018 3:37 PM, mark wrote:
> Mark Rousell wrote:
>> On 30/10/2018 17:14, Simon Matter wrote:
> 
>> Yup. When I looked at IBM Power machines before (maybe about a year 
>> ago, not sure), there was actually a pricing tool on the website. You 
>> could go through various options for machines (GPUs, CPUs, storage, 
>> memory, etc.) and get a price. Annoyingly I didn't record detailed 
>> pricing info but, as I recall, the prices were painful but not 
>> totally out of comparison with high end x86-64 servers from HPE and 
>> the like. I wish I'd kept the quotes now.
>>
>>> IBM has the chance to change this now.
>>>
>> It would be nice if they would. But I think it be a very big step for 
>> them to willingly reduce prices unless and until other vendors can 
>> undercut them in a large enough scale. But it seems that a lot of 
>> people in larger businesses still like the security of "IBM" (even if 
>> they choose to run Linux on the boxes).
>>
> Unless I'm misremembering, these are midway between small server and 
> mainframe. I just did a search, and only found used systems, never 
> new, and they were all "refurbed", starting at $1500, and going up to $22k...
> and still refurbed.
>
> I think my guess of new, > $100k is about right.
>
>  mark
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists
> .centos.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcentosdata=01%7C01%7C%7C749a85
> 82882d42e8d10608d63ea0133f%7Cb3c3a8cee92c4e649d5171c264cb08d6%7C0
> sdata=tbuiNRDP%2FgjzIszWCOs7bOpzk4lzk1PTKIPK9UxQTd8%3Dreserved=0
>
>

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.centos.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcentosdata=01%7C01%7C%7C749a8582882d42e8d10608d63ea0133f%7Cb3c3a8cee92c4e649d5171c264cb08d6%7C0sdata=tbuiNRDP%2FgjzIszWCOs7bOpzk4lzk1PTKIPK9UxQTd8%3Dreserved=0
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread John Plemons

If any one is interested, I have a brand new AS400 sitting upstairs in 
my computer room, it was a bought as surplus item, never used. I just 
hung onto it. It can be yours cheap, not wanting an arm and a leg for 
it, I would be open to a nice offer if anyone has an interest.


john plemons


On 10/30/2018 3:37 PM, mark wrote:

Mark Rousell wrote:

On 30/10/2018 17:14, Simon Matter wrote:



Yup. When I looked at IBM Power machines before (maybe about a year ago,
not sure), there was actually a pricing tool on the website. You could go
through various options for machines (GPUs, CPUs, storage, memory, etc.)
and get a price. Annoyingly I didn't record detailed pricing info but, as
I recall, the prices were painful but not totally out of
comparison with high end x86-64 servers from HPE and the like. I wish I'd
kept the quotes now.


IBM has the chance to change this now.


It would be nice if they would. But I think it be a very big step for
them to willingly reduce prices unless and until other vendors can undercut
them in a large enough scale. But it seems that a lot of people in larger
businesses still like the security of "IBM" (even if they choose to run
Linux on the boxes).


Unless I'm misremembering, these are midway between small server and
mainframe. I just did a search, and only found used systems, never new,
and they were all "refurbed", starting at $1500, and going up to $22k...
and still refurbed.

I think my guess of new, > $100k is about right.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 17:14, Simon Matter wrote:

> Yup. When I looked at IBM Power machines before (maybe about a year ago,
> not sure), there was actually a pricing tool on the website. You could go
> through various options for machines (GPUs, CPUs, storage, memory, etc.)
> and get a price. Annoyingly I didn't record detailed pricing info but, as
> I recall, the prices were painful but not totally out of
> comparison with high end x86-64 servers from HPE and the like. I wish I'd
> kept the quotes now.
>
>> IBM has the chance to change this now.
>>
>
> It would be nice if they would. But I think it be a very big step for
> them to willingly reduce prices unless and until other vendors can undercut
> them in a large enough scale. But it seems that a lot of people in larger
> businesses still like the security of "IBM" (even if they choose to run
> Linux on the boxes).
>
Unless I'm misremembering, these are midway between small server and
mainframe. I just did a search, and only found used systems, never new,
and they were all "refurbed", starting at $1500, and going up to $22k...
and still refurbed.

I think my guess of new, > $100k is about right.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

On 30/10/2018 17:14, Simon Matter wrote:
> Are you sure, has this changed? In the past time when I had to do with
> iSeries, they even had their own rack size, no chance to put them into a
> standard server rack.

Ah, I must admit that I didn't look at rack sizes.

> I agree the Power System L922 looks promising, but I'm afraid the "Please
> contact us for pricing" still means the prices are eye watering. The
> problem is that there is almost no competition in the POWER server market
> which results in higher prices.

Yup. When I looked at IBM Power machines before (maybe about a year ago,
not sure), there was actually a pricing tool on the website. You could
go through various options for machines (GPUs, CPUs, storage, memory,
etc.) and get a price. Annoyingly I didn't record detailed pricing info
but, as I recall, the prices were painful but not totally out of
comparison with high end x86-64 servers from HPE and the like. I wish
I'd kept the quotes now.

> IBM has the chance to change this now.

It would be nice if they would. But I think it be a very big step for
them to willingly reduce prices unless and until other vendors can
undercut them in a large enough scale. But it seems that a lot of people
in larger businesses still like the security of "IBM" (even if they
choose to run Linux on the boxes).

-- 
Mark Rousell

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Valeri Galtsev





On 10/30/18 12:47 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:

On 30/10/2018 16:40, mark wrote:

Linux was IBM's silver
bullet on a free platter. I mean, *how* many operatings systems do you
want to support...?


Yup, it must cost them a pretty penny to maintain all those proprietary
operating systems (especially when you include their mainframe ones). I
suspect that Linux


I would add "and FreeBSD" here. Mentioning only one of BSD descendants, 
the one with largest userbase.


Valeri


will eventually replace i and AIX -- eventually. But
I bet there are some significant clients who are still willing to pay
money to keep them going.





--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

On 30/10/2018 16:40, mark wrote:
> Linux was IBM's silver
> bullet on a free platter. I mean, *how* many operatings systems do you
> want to support...?

Yup, it must cost them a pretty penny to maintain all those proprietary
operating systems (especially when you include their mainframe ones). I
suspect that Linux will eventually replace i and AIX -- eventually. But
I bet there are some significant clients who are still willing to pay
money to keep them going.

-- 
Mark Rousell

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

> On 30/10/2018 14:40, Simon Matter wrote:
>>> On 30/10/2018 06:46, Simon Matter wrote:
> On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
>> To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM
>> POWER
>> and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the
>> hardware
>> market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS
>> alive)!
> Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
> supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
 What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD
 based
 servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads
 and
 we
 didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.
>>> As a matter of interest, did you look at IBM's own Power Systems (IBM
>>> System i, AS/400, System p, as was)? They promote some of these models
>>> as having very powerful processing capabilities but I wonder how they
>>> compare in practice with Epyc or Xeon systems.
>> I always had the impression that those IBM systems were priced in a
>> different range from what we were interested in. And I know that I
>> didn't
>> find any price listed online when looking for POWER servers from IBM
>> last
>> time - and I know what that means :-)
>
> Yup, I thought they'd be eye-wateringly expensive.
>
> Nevertheless, they are just rackmount servers, much like the kinds of

Are you sure, has this changed? In the past time when I had to do with
iSeries, they even had their own rack size, no chance to put them into a
standard server rack.

> x86-64 servers you can buy from Dell, Lenovo, HPE, Tyan, Gigabyte, etc.
> Better CPUs and buses but otherwise quite similar.
>
>> If they came back now with something like their deprecated X86 servers
>> (Netfinity, System x) but on POWER, that could be interesting.
>
> Haven't the IBM x86 servers gone to Lenovo now?
>
> As far as I can see, IBM Power Systems *are* in effect what you are
> looking for, i.e. a Power-based server to run Linux (or AIX or IBM i  if
> you prefer) -- well, that's how IBM would see it I think. They already
> support Linux on Power Systems. But I don't think they are going to
> undercut themselves, sadly.

I agree the Power System L922 looks promising, but I'm afraid the "Please
contact us for pricing" still means the prices are eye watering. The
problem is that there is almost no competition in the POWER server market
which results in higher prices. IBM has the chance to change this now.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 14:49, mark wrote:
>
>
>> I wouldn't expect a system 1, if that's the current name
>>
>
> AS/400 -> eServer iSeries -> System i -> Power Systems
> RS/6000 -> eServer pSeries -> System p -> Power Systems
>
>
> So the current 'Power Systems' range combines what was AS/400 with what
> was RS/6000. They all use Power CPUs now and run Linux, IBM i, or AIX.
>
> "IBM i" is, of course the operating system previously known as OS/400
> and then i5/OS.
>
> Simple, eh. ;-)
>
Thanks. 

Just goes to reiterate what I said the other day: Linux was IBM's silver
bullet on a free platter. I mean, *how* many operatings systems do you
want to support...?

  mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] PostgreSQL port accessible even though it should be blocked by firewall

Frank Thommen wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 08:43 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-29, Frank Thommen  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> PostgreSQL is running in a docker container:
>>>
>>>
>>> $ docker ps
>>> CONTAINER IDIMAGE COMMAND
>>> CREATED STATUS  PORTSNAMES
>>>  6f11fc41d2f0postgres  "docker-entrypoint..."
>>> 4
>>> days ago  Up 4 days   0.0.0.0:5432->5432/tcp
>>> postgres $
>>>
>>>
>>> The various docker interfaces and virtual bridges are not assigned to
>>>  any specific zone.
>>>
>>> Why is port 5432/tcp open?
>>>
>>
>> It may be Docker manipulating the iptables rules.  If you don't want it
>>  open at all, remove the port argument from the docker run command line
>>  (or moral equivalent) and recreate the container (make sure you have
>> saved your data first, either with a volume mount or by dumping first).
>
> Unfortunately I can't control how users start their containers and I
> cannot force them not to forward ports.  But I will see if I can prevent
> Docker from manipulating iptables as described in the very helpful link
> below.
>

There is a security level, but it would break some user's docker packages.

The more I learn about docker, the more I actively dislike it as a massive
security hole.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

On 30/10/2018 14:49, mark wrote:

> I wouldn't expect a system 1, if that's the current name

AS/400 -> eServer iSeries -> System i -> Power Systems
RS/6000 -> eServer pSeries -> System p -> Power Systems

So the current 'Power Systems' range combines what was AS/400 with what
was RS/6000. They all use Power CPUs now and run Linux, IBM i, or AIX.

"IBM i" is, of course the operating system previously known as OS/400
and then i5/OS.

Simple, eh. ;-)



-- 
Mark Rousell
 
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

On 30/10/2018 14:40, Simon Matter wrote:
>> On 30/10/2018 06:46, Simon Matter wrote:
 On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
> To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM
> POWER
> and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the
> hardware
> market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS alive)!
 Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
 supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
>>> What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD based
>>> servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and
>>> we
>>> didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.
>> As a matter of interest, did you look at IBM's own Power Systems (IBM
>> System i, AS/400, System p, as was)? They promote some of these models
>> as having very powerful processing capabilities but I wonder how they
>> compare in practice with Epyc or Xeon systems.
> I always had the impression that those IBM systems were priced in a
> different range from what we were interested in. And I know that I didn't
> find any price listed online when looking for POWER servers from IBM last
> time - and I know what that means :-)

Yup, I thought they'd be eye-wateringly expensive.

Nevertheless, they are just rackmount servers, much like the kinds of
x86-64 servers you can buy from Dell, Lenovo, HPE, Tyan, Gigabyte, etc.
Better CPUs and buses but otherwise quite similar.

> If they came back now with something like their deprecated X86 servers
> (Netfinity, System x) but on POWER, that could be interesting.

Haven't the IBM x86 servers gone to Lenovo now?

As far as I can see, IBM Power Systems *are* in effect what you are
looking for, i.e. a Power-based server to run Linux (or AIX or IBM i  if
you prefer) -- well, that's how IBM would see it I think. They already
support Linux on Power Systems. But I don't think they are going to
undercut themselves, sadly.

-- 
Mark Rousell
 
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread rainer


Am 2018-10-30 15:53, schrieb Simon Matter:

Still I wasn't sure how to compare the real life speed of POWER9 
compared

to something like the AMD EPYC 7601.


It probably depends on the workload.


And then, will everything work smooth
on POWER the same way it does on the AMD?


AFAIK, there were a lot of microcode-updates from AMD to fix bugs in the 
first batches of Threadripper and Epyc.


It was not smooth sailing from the very beginning.


POWER seems still not a first
preference arch for CentOS, so how would it impact us? Is it smart to 
add
another CPU arch if we still have to run some X86 code, like in our 
case

SAP MaxDB (which is also available for AIX on POWER but not Linux on
POWER)?

In the end we decided for AMD EPYC but kept the POWER thing in mind. 
Now

that IBM announces the purchase of RedHat it just reminded me that this
could become interesting again in the future. Let's see how it goes.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] PostgreSQL port accessible even though it should be blocked by firewall

2018-10-30 Thread Frank Thommen


On 10/29/2018 08:43 PM, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2018-10-29, Frank Thommen  wrote:


PostgreSQL is running in a docker container:

$ docker ps
CONTAINER IDIMAGE COMMAND
CREATED STATUS  PORTSNAMES
6f11fc41d2f0postgres  "docker-entrypoint..."   4
days ago  Up 4 days   0.0.0.0:5432->5432/tcp   postgres
$

The various docker interfaces and virtual bridges are not assigned to
any specific zone.

Why is port 5432/tcp open?


It may be Docker manipulating the iptables rules.  If you don't want it
open at all, remove the port argument from the docker run command line
(or moral equivalent) and recreate the container (make sure you have
saved your data first, either with a volume mount or by dumping first).


Unfortunately I can't control how users start their containers and I 
cannot force them not to forward ports.  But I will see if I can prevent 
Docker from manipulating iptables as described in the very helpful link 
below.




If you need something more complex, here's some docs on how Docker
interacts with iptables, and how you can insert rules into its chains:

https://docs.docker.com/network/iptables/

--keith


frank


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] PostgreSQL port accessible even though it should be blocked by firewall

2018-10-30 Thread Frank Thommen




On 10/29/2018 08:18 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:

Am 29.10.2018 um 20:03 schrieb Frank Thommen:

PostgreSQL is running in a docker container:

$ docker ps
CONTAINER ID    IMAGE COMMAND 
CREATED STATUS  PORTS    NAMES
6f11fc41d2f0    postgres  "docker-entrypoint..."   
4 days ago  Up 4 days   0.0.0.0:5432->5432/tcp   postgres

$


The various docker interfaces and virtual bridges are not assigned to 
any specific zone.



Why is port 5432/tcp open?


You will see it if you check the netfilter rules with:

iptables -L -n -v --line -t filter
iptables -L -n -v --line -t nat


In fact these rules forward port 5432 to docker:

$ iptables -L -n -v --line -t filter  | grep 5432
10 0 ACCEPT tcp  --  !docker0 docker0  0.0.0.0/0 
   172.17.0.2   tcp dpt:5432

$ iptables -L -n -v --line -t nat  | grep 5432
10   0 0 MASQUERADE  tcp  --  *  *   172.17.0.2 
 172.17.0.2   tcp dpt:5432
20 0 DNAT   tcp  --  !docker0 *   0.0.0.0/0 
  0.0.0.0/0tcp dpt:5432 to:172.17.0.2:5432

$

I am still puzzled that it is possible to circumvent firewalld so 
easily.  Basically it means, that firewalld is not to be trusted as soon 
as containers with port forwarding are running on a system.


frank




frank


Alexander
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

> On 2018-10-30 02:46, Simon Matter wrote:
>>> On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
 To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM
 POWER
 and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the
 hardware
 market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS
 alive)!
>>>
>>> Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
>>> supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
>>
>> What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD
>> based
>> servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and
>> we
>> didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.
>>
>> Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems
>> anymore.
>> IBM could change this now.
>
> IBM's Power8 and Power9 servers run 8 threads per core, so a 24 core
> Power 8 server runs 192 threads, as long as the operating system can
> handle it, you should be fine.
>
> And if you're looking for major operations running on Power, look no
> farther than Google...they're a huge part of the Power consortium and
> run a huge farm of Power systems on Tyan boards.

Well, Google is in a different situation. They can even request their own
modified motherboards and customize so they get exactly what they want. We
can not do that in the SME market.

What was looking very interesting was this Raptor server:
https://secure.raptorcs.com/content/TL2SV1/intro.html

However, the bigger POWER9 CPUs were not available at the time we were
looking at it - this has changed now.

Still I wasn't sure how to compare the real life speed of POWER9 compared
to something like the AMD EPYC 7601. And then, will everything work smooth
on POWER the same way it does on the AMD? POWER seems still not a first
preference arch for CentOS, so how would it impact us? Is it smart to add
another CPU arch if we still have to run some X86 code, like in our case
SAP MaxDB (which is also available for AIX on POWER but not Linux on
POWER)?

In the end we decided for AMD EPYC but kept the POWER thing in mind. Now
that IBM announces the purchase of RedHat it just reminded me that this
could become interesting again in the future. Let's see how it goes.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

Simon Matter wrote:
>> On 30/10/2018 06:46, Simon Matter wrote:
>>
 On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

> To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM
>  POWER
> and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the
> hardware market again (and of course don't forget to keep
> Fedora/CentOS alive)!
>
 Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The
 fastest supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
>>> What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD
>>> based servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with
>>> 64Cores/128Threads and
>>> we didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.
>>
>> As a matter of interest, did you look at IBM's own Power Systems (IBM
>> System i, AS/400, System p, as was)? They promote some of these models
>> as having very powerful processing capabilities but I wonder how they
>> compare in practice with Epyc or Xeon systems.
>
> I always had the impression that those IBM systems were priced in a
> different range from what we were interested in. And I know that I didn't
> find any price listed online when looking for POWER servers from IBM last
>  time - and I know what that means :-)
>
> If they came back now with something like their deprecated X86 servers
> (Netfinity, System x) but on POWER, that could be interesting.
>
Um, yep. The AS/400/system 1/whatever is not a small system. It's what
used to be called a mid-frame, not a micro. It's money.

Back around '94, I worked at a small software house that had it's own
DOS/VSR/SP mini-mainrame: Looked like a *very* large tower case... and
cost $192k. I wouldn't expect a system 1, if that's the current name, to
be under $100k or $200k, minimum.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

> On 30/10/2018 06:46, Simon Matter wrote:
>>> On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
 To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM
 POWER
 and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the
 hardware
 market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS alive)!
>>> Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
>>> supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
>> What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD based
>> servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and
>> we
>> didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.
>
> As a matter of interest, did you look at IBM's own Power Systems (IBM
> System i, AS/400, System p, as was)? They promote some of these models
> as having very powerful processing capabilities but I wonder how they
> compare in practice with Epyc or Xeon systems.

I always had the impression that those IBM systems were priced in a
different range from what we were interested in. And I know that I didn't
find any price listed online when looking for POWER servers from IBM last
time - and I know what that means :-)

If they came back now with something like their deprecated X86 servers
(Netfinity, System x) but on POWER, that could be interesting.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Address Codes

2018-10-30 Thread me


On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Chris Olson via CentOS wrote:


One of our summer interns has stayed on during the school
year to work some weekends on special assignments. This past
weekend, her assignment was to draft, and try out, procedures
for scanning all incoming regular mail including the envelopes.
This is a new effort for us because previous mail handling was
done by another organization.

Most of our incoming mail is from other businesses that create
printed address labels.? Many of these labels also have a type
of bar code below the address.? Is there a Linux utility or
standard application that will read and translate these codes.


Google for "Intelligent Mail Barcode" Here is one link:
https://postalpro.usps.com/mailing/intelligent-mail-barcode but there are
many others. IIRC the postal service even publishes the specs so you can
build your own software.

Handling bulk mail is way more complex than most people realize.
Decoding the Intelligent Mail Barcode is trivial but it might not 
be as useful as you think. It is mostly meant the USPS to route
mail and to provide information to the sender about how much of 
their mail got delivered and what got returned.


For example, if you track your bulk mail that you send, and a piece gets
returned you can simply scan the bar code and compare against your db to
know what got returned without even opening the envelope.

HTH,

--
Tom m...@tdiehl.org
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Mike Burger


On 2018-10-30 02:46, Simon Matter wrote:

On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM 
POWER
and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the 
hardware
market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS 
alive)!


Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.


What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD 
based
servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and 
we

didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems 
anymore.

IBM could change this now.


IBM's Power8 and Power9 servers run 8 threads per core, so a 24 core 
Power 8 server runs 192 threads, as long as the operating system can 
handle it, you should be fine.


And if you're looking for major operations running on Power, look no 
farther than Google...they're a huge part of the Power consortium and 
run a huge farm of Power systems on Tyan boards.

--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org

"It's always suicide-mission this, save-the-planet that. No one ever 
just stops by to say 'hi' anymore." --Colonel Jack O'Neill, SG1

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Address Codes

2018-10-30 Thread Chris Olson via CentOS

One of our summer interns has stayed on during the school
year to work some weekends on special assignments. This past
weekend, her assignment was to draft, and try out, procedures
for scanning all incoming regular mail including the envelopes.
This is a new effort for us because previous mail handling was
done by another organization.

Most of our incoming mail is from other businesses that create
printed address labels.  Many of these labels also have a type
of bar code below the address.  Is there a Linux utility or
standard application that will read and translate these codes.

Thanks.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

On 30/10/2018 06:46, Simon Matter wrote:
>> On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
>>> To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM POWER
>>> and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the hardware
>>> market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS alive)!
>> Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
>> supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
> What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD based
> servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and we
> didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

As a matter of interest, did you look at IBM's own Power Systems (IBM
System i, AS/400, System p, as was)? They promote some of these models
as having very powerful processing capabilities but I wonder how they
compare in practice with Epyc or Xeon systems.

-- 
Mark Rousell
 
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7

2018-10-30 Thread centos-announce-request

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. CEBA-2018:3013  CentOS 6 tzdata BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
   2. CEBA-2018:3013  CentOS 7 tzdata BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
   3. CESA-2018:C001 CentOS 7 xorg-x11-server Security  Update
  (Johnny Hughes)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:38:44 +
From: Johnny Hughes 
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2018:3013  CentOS 6 tzdata BugFix
Update
Message-ID: <20181029183844.ga10...@n04.lon1.karan.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2018:3013 

Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:3013

The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently 
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) 

i386:
0e3a88856581aea77fe93130ea5a87c8db4645ef9e8a542dba9ea503293379e0  
tzdata-2018f-1.el6.noarch.rpm
f798c34e5a2e851ae952333ed2230c575199aa04159836012f65b89dfe3fb907  
tzdata-java-2018f-1.el6.noarch.rpm

x86_64:
0e3a88856581aea77fe93130ea5a87c8db4645ef9e8a542dba9ea503293379e0  
tzdata-2018f-1.el6.noarch.rpm
f798c34e5a2e851ae952333ed2230c575199aa04159836012f65b89dfe3fb907  
tzdata-java-2018f-1.el6.noarch.rpm

Source:
c6aac1e140d20ead4a4418c4357569cd6bace1a980a6f1bd0a3b1cf506f3da92  
tzdata-2018f-1.el6.src.rpm



-- 
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS



--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:41:11 +
From: Johnny Hughes 
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2018:3013  CentOS 7 tzdata BugFix
Update
Message-ID: <20181029194111.ga15...@n04.lon1.karan.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2018:3013 

Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:3013

The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently 
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) 

x86_64:
59e12ef8382b5e1e893053e6b6b8ae9408df040bfe114a5a01e83dbfd53f6287  
tzdata-2018f-2.el7.noarch.rpm
789b5f573116c54397536cc178fb76eec58bc6b06cc811c0c3372f0505bfd251  
tzdata-java-2018f-2.el7.noarch.rpm

Source:
4c179f9fa6c98c75a94ab9f4fec7435abab6fa6484494f25059412a71669ccea  
tzdata-2018f-2.el7.src.rpm



-- 
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS



--

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:52:34 -0500
From: Johnny Hughes 
To: CentOS-Announce 
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2018:C001 CentOS 7 xorg-x11-server
SecurityUpdate
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2018:C001 Important

x86_64:
d7040381e9d05074c9220073c20eabe185ca6f133b0e8238f6afb250b28b566f  
xorg-x11-server-common-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

ca56b7e4b160e55125ec6b1fa57c24cd2083edefa0ffd78c49bb4111ae053006  
xorg-x11-server-devel-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.i686.rpm

8c4ca5dc5588839730be5f34995f6f3b1f36c1bc335759fa936f4ddf79fd9dc7  
xorg-x11-server-devel-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

e9d9591569a2c4d6782e266952965b7f507583913b2dce149a3fac2fd9f636ff  
xorg-x11-server-source-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.noarch.rpm

e2283801ce3fc087cda74e5d752a9def156d7f8fe598fd383ad1002b9e797bbe  
xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

f61c07c9d7b907fc7175f680ad9f63a04d4b5b94ea5b064e92f9e1b98bb12d68  
xorg-x11-server-Xephyr-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

3f8c7bd64a2ad51308c23873a72d7443dde96783e0cd6345a7c3294ad97f029d  
xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

b3ebf91cfe4a50a6264dc2688205d577d8591288a91407153904a9bd4e2b287f  
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

f43e9ed375c13ac8a09c488db632e8c4a3ca447ec5c9f4664ee2c0b98296a65f  
xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

2a52feefdd3bc0e1e2cf54cc73531576159e4476cf456fce35afd055a3072248  
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.19.5-5.1.el7_5.0.1.x86_64.rpm

NOTE:  This update is in response to CVE-2018-14655 
(https://www.securepatterns.com/2018/10/cve-2018-14665-xorg-x-server.html), 
there currently is no corresponding update for RHEL 7.5.

Thanks to Pablo Garcia for suggesting and testing this update in the CentOS-QA 
IRC Channel.



-- 
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS


-- next part --
A

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread rainer


Am 2018-10-30 10:03, schrieb Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.:




_To me it looks pathetic that a lively profitable entity with an
entirely different corporate psychology is consumed by big
conglomerates. What for? _



Even more profit.
Also, borrowing money is still very cheap these days (AFAIK, Amazon has 
financed most of their expansion - this is only possible because of 
continuously low interest rates) and companies want to take advantage of 
that, while low interest rates lasts.



_By the way I am 60 and been following Linux/Linus since Kernel 0.99.
Some time before RedHat appeared strong on the scene."_
_ _
_Andreas - 10.2018 _

It might not be a "PROBABLE" scenario...but its is a POSSIBLE one!
What would that entail? Just because Red Hat is a strong contributor
to the code nowif "Big Daddy" says to pull the plugwho's to
refuse them?...they OWN Red Hat now!



Yes, possible.

As of currently, RedHat isn't really replaceable.

IBM might sack half of the RHAT devs but that doesn't mean they could 
continue to write their code at some other place.
That other place would have to pay them, too, and it's unlikely to be 
for the same thing as before.


You can clearly see that in the OpenSolaris forks: a lot of people were 
let go, but none of the forks really took off.

The people went elsewhere.

IBM knows all this. There's likely going to be MSFT-licensing squeeze 
going to happen in the (somewhat distant) future.

And a push to cloud (and OpenShift).

From what I hear, almost all software-vendors are increasing licensing 
costs next year. Not only MSFT. Everybody that thinks they can get away 
with raising prices is doing so right now.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.

On 10/30/18 3:27 AM, rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote:

Am 2018-10-30 08:06, schrieb Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.:

Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

My biggest worry? Is I've placed so much time and effort "getting to
know" Fedora and its intricacies, idiosyncrasies, its ins and
outs...dealt with ridicule on this very same list when I first
started, have "cut my teeth" on learning VERY hard lessons about
certain syntax in the Terminal and what NOT to type...only to have
that all "taken" away from me at the whim of IBM. It just seems
unfair. I'm hoping like H3LL that the developers @ Fedora are
seriously thinking about forking "Just In Case"!? I mean they could
still use the .RPM extensions, and possibly even still pull their code
from RHEL, but at least they would be autonomous and wouldn't have to
rely on IBM's good will in order to keep on churning out whatto
me...is the best Linux distro on the planet! As I write thisI'm
eyeballing the spare ThinkPad T-410 that I've neglected since I have
Fedora running on a Dell XPS, and I'm thinking its time to get "back
to my roots" and to find a distro I can put on that device and run
without concernI've heard some decent things about this "Pop-OS"
which comes with System76's hardware. Maybe I'll give that a
spin..then like I had said before...there's always Debian plain
vanilla...with maybe MATE or Cinnamon?.or else its going to have
to be where I buckle down and finally learn all there is to know about
LFS and Arch Linux and then move on to one of those...(God!.at
47!?its like how can I POSSIBLY start over again!?...) and THIS is
the kind of turmoil that ensues when a corporation buys a fully
functioning open course company!

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of influence and sheer
man-power RedHat brings to Linux - and IBM, too.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2017/10/2017-linux-kernel-report-highlights-developers-roles-accelerating-pace-change/

There's a reason RHEL is an enterprise-distribution - and Debian
et.al. aren't (and never will, outside their niches).

RedHat writes ton of code that is needed for Linux to be truly
"Enterprise" and that exists nowhere else.
The above statistics is only the kernel - but Enterprise Linux is so
much more than a kernel.
That code isn't going to write itself, nor is somebody else going to
pick up unless someone will pay the bill.
Maybe somebody can fork all the code and maintain it for a while - but
to stay relevant, there must be further development, a roadmap ...

Sure, there's Google and a couple of other companies - but they really
only write for themselves and as much as people try cargo-culting
them, most companies aren't Google and their use-case hardly matches
anyone else's.

I still remember when SAP announced that their engineers had ported
their ERP to Linux - a sparetime-project at the beginning - and they
were making it a tier 1 platform.

That was over 20 years ago.

Linux has come a long way.

True. It has, but still as another poster stated?

"/_But it is also entirely possible that CEntOS 8 will be the last one
to come out. Before a corporate agenda will "merge" it with their
general philosophy. _//_

_//__//_
_//_To me it looks pathetic that a lively profitable entity with an
entirely different corporate psychology is consumed by big
conglomerates. What for? _//_

_//__//_
_//_By the way I am 60 and been following Linux/Linus since Kernel 0.99.
Some time before RedHat appeared strong on the scene."_//_

_//__//_
_//_Andreas - 10.2018 _/

It might not be a "PROBABLE" scenario...but its is a POSSIBLE one! What
would that entail? Just because Red Hat is a strong contributor to the
code nowif "Big Daddy" says to pull the plugwho's to refuse
them?...they OWN Red Hat now! And this was my concern, at least as its
own entity, RHEL had the luxury of whom to do business with and whom to
reject / turn down. Now? They will be "goaded"? into playing with
whomever the headmaster SAYS they're to play with! I dunnomaybe I'm
thinking about it too much but it just doesn't bode well when a company
gets bought out with nary a resistance. I guess only time will tell.

EGO Ii

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Andreas Kasenides


On 30/10/2018 09:25, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:


On 10/30/18 3:20 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:

On 30/10/18 20:06, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:


On 10/30/18 2:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM 
POWER
and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the 
hardware
market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS 
alive)!

Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time. The fastest
supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD 
based
servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads 
and we

didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems 
anymore.

IBM could change this now.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

My biggest worry? Is I've placed so much time and effort "getting to 
know" Fedora and its intricacies, idiosyncrasies, its ins and 
outs...dealt with ridicule on this very same list when I first 
started, have "cut my teeth" on learning VERY hard lessons about 
certain syntax in the Terminal and what NOT to type...only to 
have that all "taken" away from me at the whim of IBM. It just seems 
unfair. I'm hoping like H3LL that the developers @ Fedora are 
seriously thinking about forking "Just In Case"!? I mean they could 
still use the .RPM extensions, and possibly even still pull their 
code from RHEL, but at least they would be autonomous and wouldn't 
have to rely on IBM's good will in order to keep on churning out 
whatto me...is the best Linux distro on the planet! As I write 
thisI'm eyeballing the spare ThinkPad T-410 that I've neglected 
since I have Fedora running on a Dell XPS, and I'm thinking its time 
to get "back to my roots" and to find a distro I can put on that 
device and run without concernI've heard some decent things 
about this "Pop-OS" which comes with System76's hardware. Maybe I'll 
give that a spin..then like I had said before...there's always 
Debian plain vanilla...with maybe MATE or Cinnamon?.or else its 
going to have to be where I buckle down and finally learn all there 
is to know about LFS and Arch Linux and then move on to one of 
those...(God!.at 47!?its like how can I POSSIBLY start over 
again!?...) and THIS is the kind of turmoil that ensues when a 
corporation buys a fully functioning open course company!


wow, I am just 62 and looking forward to the next round of CentOS - 
version 8 coming up? - must be due soon 

Love learning new stuff, it never gets old (pun intended).
sorry for the noise, but couldn't resist, must be the age 




Hahahaah!.good one! Now THAT made me smile!.thanks for the 
laugh! Gotta remember to not always be the Doom & Gloom bearer! :o)! 
Guess I'll just keep on truckin' with F29...and hope all goes well.




EGO II





But it is also entirely possible that CentOS 8 will be the last one to 
come out. Before a corporate agenda will "merge" it with their general 
philosophy.


To me it looks pathetic that a lively profitable entity with an entirely 
different corporate psychology is consumed by big conglomerates. What for?


By the way I am 60 and been following Linux/Linus since Kernel 0.99. 
Some time before RedHat appeared strong on the scene.


Andreas



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] [Marketing Mail] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Cups freeze when remote server is unavailable

2018-10-30 Thread Lange, Markus

Hi Patrick,

you can install your lab printers using the lp* / cups* commands in
your ks file or using scripts, see centos / redhat / arch / cups docu
for more informations on that (arch wiki got some examples).
For the home printers you can use what ever method available, for ease
the web interface / GUI configuration tool should be a good choice.

Markus

On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 19:58 +0100, Patrick Bégou wrote:
> Hi Lange,
> 
> thanks for these links. Following John reply I goes back and deeper
> in
> looking for documentation. Using the web interface is not an option
> as I
> have many laptops to set up and they are all automatically
> (re)installable from a PXE boot + kickstart in case of trouble. So
> all
> must be setup automatically (using command lines in the kickstart
> file)
> and user must be allowed to add their own home printer.
> 
> I understand some things this afternoon, discover cups-browsed that
> was
> not available in 1.4 version (CentOS6), understand why it was not
> working (the laboratory cups version was 1.4 on a debian server and
> CentOS7 has 1.6.x now) discover also that ppd files are deprecated in
> newer cups version (> 2.x ?)
> 
> Time is to go deeper in all these documentations and build a scenario
> to
> set up cups in these automatic installations process. I agree, it was
> not a bug, just misunderstanding new cups software behaviour.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> Le 29/10/2018 à 17:15, Lange, Markus a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > 
> > John tries to tell you:
> > Revert your configuration changes to the config file and use the
> > local
> > web interface / lp* / GUI Print Server Configuration tool to setup
> > all
> > printers at work and / or at home using these tools.
> > 
> > This method needs a local cups instance that works if your OS is
> > running (if a printer is not reachable for printing cups can still
> > keep
> > the job in it's queue until the printer is reachable).
> > You can find an linux.com article on Printer Setups in [1] (mainly
> > selected for its screenshots of cups web interface and not for its
> > actuality) which should give you all information's to get it work.
> > 
> > At least for desktop setups cups should be running by default, see
> > "systemctl status cups" to check if it's running.
> > 
> > For a more in-depth view on cups I can recommend reading the
> > archwiki
> > [2].
> > 
> > best regards
> > Markus
> > 
> > [1] https://www.linux.com/learn/linux-101-printing
> > [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CUPS
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 15:35 +0100, Patrick Bégou wrote:
> > > Hi John
> > > 
> > > thanks for your quick reply. If it is not a bug, as I was reading
> > > on
> > > the
> > > web, it is some misunderstanding from me.
> > > Running cups 1.4.2 (CentOS6) I was using the "BrowsePoll"
> > > directive
> > > in
> > > cupsd.conf. So the printers were automatically known from the
> > > central
> > > server of the lab. And home printers were working fine with this
> > > setup too.
> > > In CentOS7, with cups 1.6.3, this directive does not exist any
> > > more
> > > and
> > > reading the doc I had understood that it was replaced by the
> > > client.conf
> > > file. Reading your answer suggest it is not true.
> > > 
> > > So could you tell me or suggest reading on the right manner to
> > > reproduce
> > > my previous centos6 setup ?
> > > 
> > > Sorry for this newbie question, I'm not very familiar with cups
> > > setup.
> > > 
> > > Patrick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Le 29/10/2018 à 14:45, John Hodrien a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Patrick Bégou wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Any idea ?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see that this is a bug.
> > > > 
> > > > In client.conf you're telling it which server to use,
> > > > exclusively. 
> > > > You're not
> > > > adding remote printers, you're telling it which CUPS server to
> > > > talk
> > > > to
> > > > everytime you use CUPS clients commands.  You don't even need
> > > > to
> > > > run a
> > > > local
> > > > CUPS server if you configure it like this.
> > > > 
> > > > If you want a machine to work at both ends, I'd suggest you
> > > > don't
> > > > do
> > > > this, and
> > > > instead run a local CUPS server, and add remote printers to
> > > > that
> > > > local
> > > > server.
> > > > 
> > > > jh
> > > > ___
> > > > CentOS mailing list
> > > > CentOS@centos.org
> > > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > CentOS mailing list
> > > CentOS@centos.org
> > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> > 
> > ___
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@centos.org
> > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list

[CentOS] Fw: Re: [SPDK] VM boot failed sometimes if using vhost-user-blk with spdk

2018-10-30 Thread wuzhouhui

Forwarded to centos mailing list

-Original Messages-
From: wuzhouhui 
Sent Time: 2018-10-30 14:06:00 (Tuesday)
To: "storage performance development kit" 
Cc: centos@centos.org, qemu-disc...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [SPDK] VM boot failed sometimes if using vhost-user-blk with spdk

I enable debug of systemd-udevd by changing guest's /etc/udev/udev.conf to this:
  udev_log="debug"
and regenerate initramfs. Then, we can get more message about this issue. I
select some useful messages from /run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt:
  systemd-udevd[199] probe /dev/vdb raid offset=8
  systemd-udevd[199] no db file to read /run/udev/data/+virtio:virtio1: No such 
  systemd-udevd[199] handling device node '/dev/vdb', devnum=b253:16, mode=0660,
  systemd-udevd[199] set permissions /dev/vdb, 060660, uid=0, gid=6
  systemd-udevd[199] creating symlink '/dev/block/253:16' to '../vdb'
  systemd-udevd[199] creating link '/dev/disk' to '/dev/vdb'
  systemd-udevd[199] creating symlink '/dev/disk' to 'vdb'
We can see that the symlink /dev/disk was created by system-udevd, and cause 
boot failed.
I also noticed that `blkid /dev/vdb' print nothing, but `blkid /dev/vda*' is 
normal.
The /dev/vdb is correspond to the malloc bdev that spdk created.

Is this a bug for system-udevd?

(Add centos@centos.org and qemu-disc...@nongun.org in CC list)

> -Original Messages-
> From: wuzhouhui 
> Sent Time: 2018-10-30 11:31:15 (Tuesday)
> To: qemu-disc...@nongnu.org, s...@lists.01.org
> Cc: 
> Subject: [CASS SPAM][SPDK] VM boot failed sometimes if using vhost-user-blk 
> with spdk
> 
> I'm using following command line to start VM (The /var/tmp/vhost.0 connected 
> to a 
> malloc bdev (16 MB ) created by SPDK):
>   /home/wuzhouhui/qemu-2.12.1/x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 \
>   -name guest=wzh,debug-threads=on \
>   -machine pc-i440fx-2.12,accel=kvm,usb=off \
>   -cpu host \
>   -m 4096 \
>   -object 
> memory-backend-file,id=mem0,size=4096M,mem-path=/dev/hugepages,share=on \
>   -numa node,memdev=mem0 \
>   -realtime mlock=off \
>   -smp 2,sockets=2,cores=1,threads=1 \
>   -uuid a84e96e6-2c53-408d-986b-c709bc6a0e51 \
>   -no-user-config \
>   -nodefaults \
>   -rtc base=utc,driftfix=slew \
>   -global kvm-pit.lost_tick_policy=delay \
>   -no-shutdown \
>   -boot strict=on \
>   -device piix3-usb-uhci,id=usb,bus=pci.0,addr=0x1.0x2 \
>   -device ahci,id=sata0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4 \
>   -drive 
> file=/home/wuzhouhui/wzh.qcow2,format=qcow2,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,cache=none
>  \
>   -device 
> virtio-blk-pci,scsi=off,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=0
>  \ 
>   -device usb-tablet,id=input0,bus=usb.0,port=1 \
>   -k en-us \
>   -device cirrus-vga,id=video0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x2 \
>   -device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x6 -msg 
> timestamp=on \
>   -vnc :9 \
>   -chardev socket,id=char0,path=/var/tmp/vhost.0 \
>   -device vhost-user-blk-pci,id=blk0,chardev=char0,num-queues=4 \
> 
> But most of the time, VM boot failed with following message in vnc screen:
>   Warning: /dev/disk/by-uuid/e0dcaf0c-bc23-4df6-b2cd-d40aa1bbb0b5 does not 
> exist
> 
>   Generating "/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt"
> 
>   Entering emergency mode. Exit the shell to continue.
>   Type "journalctl" to view system logs.
>   You might want to save "/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt" to a USB stick or 
> /boot
>   after mounting them and attach it to a bug report.
> 
> There is some message from /run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt:
>   ...
>   system-udevd[196]: symlink '../../vdb' 
> '/dev/disk/by-id/virtio-Malloc.tmp-b253:16' failed: Not a directory
>   ...
> 
> I checked /dev/disk, it should be a directory, but it is a symlink now:
>   :/# ls -l /dev/disk
>   lrwxrwxrwx 1 root 0 3 Oct 30 03:08 /dev/disk -> vdb
> 
> If I just remove:
>   -chardev socket,id=char0,path=/var/tmp/vhost.0 \
>   -device vhost-user-blk-pci,id=blk0,chardev=char0,num-queues=4 \
> The VM will boot normally.
> 
> Does anyone have encountered similar issue like this?
> 
> Host OS:  CentOS 7.3, with kernel 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
> Guest OS: CentOS 7.5
> Qemu: 2.12.1
> SPDK: f0cb7b871e in master
> ___
> SPDK mailing list
> s...@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
___
SPDK mailing list
s...@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread rainer

Am 2018-10-30 08:06, schrieb Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.:

Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of influence and sheer
man-power RedHat brings to Linux - and IBM, too.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2017/10/2017-linux-kernel-report-highlights-developers-roles-accelerating-pace-change/

There's a reason RHEL is an enterprise-distribution - and Debian et.al.
aren't (and never will, outside their niches).

Sure, there's Google and a couple of other companies - but they really
only write for themselves and as much as people try cargo-culting them,
most companies aren't Google and their use-case hardly matches anyone
else's.

I still remember when SAP announced that their engineers had ported
their ERP to Linux - a sparetime-project at the beginning - and they
were making it a tier 1 platform.

That was over 20 years ago.

Linux has come a long way.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Some warnings from SCL's MariaDB

2018-10-30 Thread Carlos Lopez

Hi all,
 
 I am seeing a lot of warnings with mariadb's server from yesterday:

InnoDB: page_cleaner: 1000ms intended loop took 10945ms. The settings might not 
be optimal.

 According to mysql and mariadb docs, this problem is related to number of page 
cleaner threads. And it can only set innodb_page_cleaners as high as 
innodb_buffer_pool_instances. But on the basis of which options should I adjust 
these two parameters?

Regards,
C. L. Martinez
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.




On 10/30/18 3:20 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:

On 30/10/18 20:06, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:


On 10/30/18 2:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM 
POWER
and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the 
hardware
market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS 
alive)!

Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time. The fastest
supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.
What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD 
based
servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads 
and we

didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems 
anymore.

IBM could change this now.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

My biggest worry? Is I've placed so much time and effort "getting to 
know" Fedora and its intricacies, idiosyncrasies, its ins and 
outs...dealt with ridicule on this very same list when I first 
started, have "cut my teeth" on learning VERY hard lessons about 
certain syntax in the Terminal and what NOT to type...only to 
have that all "taken" away from me at the whim of IBM. It just seems 
unfair. I'm hoping like H3LL that the developers @ Fedora are 
seriously thinking about forking "Just In Case"!? I mean they could 
still use the .RPM extensions, and possibly even still pull their 
code from RHEL, but at least they would be autonomous and wouldn't 
have to rely on IBM's good will in order to keep on churning out 
whatto me...is the best Linux distro on the planet! As I write 
thisI'm eyeballing the spare ThinkPad T-410 that I've neglected 
since I have Fedora running on a Dell XPS, and I'm thinking its time 
to get "back to my roots" and to find a distro I can put on that 
device and run without concernI've heard some decent things about 
this "Pop-OS" which comes with System76's hardware. Maybe I'll give 
that a spin..then like I had said before...there's always Debian 
plain vanilla...with maybe MATE or Cinnamon?.or else its going to 
have to be where I buckle down and finally learn all there is to know 
about LFS and Arch Linux and then move on to one of 
those...(God!.at 47!?its like how can I POSSIBLY start over 
again!?...) and THIS is the kind of turmoil that ensues when a 
corporation buys a fully functioning open course company!


wow, I am just 62 and looking forward to the next round of CentOS - 
version 8 coming up? - must be due soon 

Love learning new stuff, it never gets old (pun intended).
sorry for the noise, but couldn't resist, must be the age 




Hahahaah!.good one! Now THAT made me smile!.thanks for the 
laugh! Gotta remember to not always be the Doom & Gloom bearer! :o)! 
Guess I'll just keep on truckin' with F29...and hope all goes well.




EGO II










EGO II

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Rob Kampen


On 30/10/18 20:06, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:


On 10/30/18 2:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM 
POWER
and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the 
hardware

market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS alive)!

Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.

What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD based
servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads 
and we

didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems 
anymore.

IBM could change this now.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

My biggest worry? Is I've placed so much time and effort "getting to 
know" Fedora and its intricacies, idiosyncrasies, its ins and 
outs...dealt with ridicule on this very same list when I first 
started, have "cut my teeth" on learning VERY hard lessons about 
certain syntax in the Terminal and what NOT to type...only to have 
that all "taken" away from me at the whim of IBM. It just seems 
unfair. I'm hoping like H3LL that the developers @ Fedora are 
seriously thinking about forking "Just In Case"!? I mean they could 
still use the .RPM extensions, and possibly even still pull their code 
from RHEL, but at least they would be autonomous and wouldn't have to 
rely on IBM's good will in order to keep on churning out whatto 
me...is the best Linux distro on the planet! As I write thisI'm 
eyeballing the spare ThinkPad T-410 that I've neglected since I have 
Fedora running on a Dell XPS, and I'm thinking its time to get "back 
to my roots" and to find a distro I can put on that device and run 
without concernI've heard some decent things about this "Pop-OS" 
which comes with System76's hardware. Maybe I'll give that a 
spin..then like I had said before...there's always Debian plain 
vanilla...with maybe MATE or Cinnamon?.or else its going to have 
to be where I buckle down and finally learn all there is to know about 
LFS and Arch Linux and then move on to one of those...(God!.at 
47!?its like how can I POSSIBLY start over again!?...) and THIS is 
the kind of turmoil that ensues when a corporation buys a fully 
functioning open course company!


wow, I am just 62 and looking forward to the next round of CentOS  - 
version 8 coming up? - must be due soon 

Love learning new stuff, it never gets old (pun intended).
sorry for the noise, but couldn't resist, must be the age 



EGO II

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat

2018-10-30 Thread Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.




On 10/30/18 2:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

On 10/29/18 1:55 AM, Simon Matter wrote:

To me it seems like, if they are smart, they will try to push IBM POWER
and RedHat Linux together to establish real competition in the hardware
market again (and of course don't forget to keep Fedora/CentOS alive)!

Er, RHEL has been running on Power for a very long time.  The fastest
supercomputer in the world is Power9 + RHEL.

What I meant is that POWER could become a competitor for Intel/AMD based
servers. We're now running AMD EPYC servers with 64Cores/128Threads and we
didn't find any POWER system which could compete in this area.

Also, looking at TOP500 list there are not so many POWER systems anymore.
IBM could change this now.

Regards,
Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



Yeah.I guess that's one way to look at it.

My biggest worry? Is I've placed so much time and effort "getting to 
know" Fedora and its intricacies, idiosyncrasies, its ins and 
outs...dealt with ridicule on this very same list when I first started, 
have "cut my teeth" on learning VERY hard lessons about certain syntax 
in the Terminal and what NOT to type...only to have that all "taken" 
away from me at the whim of IBM. It just seems unfair. I'm hoping like 
H3LL that the developers @ Fedora are seriously thinking about forking 
"Just In Case"!? I mean they could still use the .RPM extensions, and 
possibly even still pull their code from RHEL, but at least they would 
be autonomous and wouldn't have to rely on IBM's good will in order to 
keep on churning out whatto me...is the best Linux distro on the 
planet! As I write thisI'm eyeballing the spare ThinkPad T-410 that 
I've neglected since I have Fedora running on a Dell XPS, and I'm 
thinking its time to get "back to my roots" and to find a distro I can 
put on that device and run without concernI've heard some decent 
things about this "Pop-OS" which comes with System76's hardware. Maybe 
I'll give that a spin..then like I had said before...there's always 
Debian plain vanilla...with maybe MATE or Cinnamon?.or else its 
going to have to be where I buckle down and finally learn all there is 
to know about LFS and Arch Linux and then move on to one of 
those...(God!.at 47!?its like how can I POSSIBLY start over 
again!?...) and THIS is the kind of turmoil that ensues when a 
corporation buys a fully functioning open course company!




EGO II

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat