Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes
On 10/31/2018 02:53 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > What does it mean, exactly? > > Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared > for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines > issues as the first thing? It means two things: 1. I want to make sure that GNOME has clear permission to use the graphic logo without the wordmark. Who will prepare the logo? I do not know, we could use a volunteer. When are you OK to use it? As soon as the Board finishes and issues a letter, which is now in the draft stage. 2. I want to clarify any ambiguity/confusion with the trademark guidelines and the artwork/logo guidelines. If there is anything needing changes, hopefully that will make it so that no further special permission is needed for similar uses. While I do think the permission is already granted by the trademark guidelines, there may be some ambiguity because there is no corresponding logo without the wordmark and usage guidelines on the wiki ArtWork page. Best regards, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes
Karsten, On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:06 PM Karsten Wade wrote: > > Hi all, > > There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the > CentOS Board. It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME > Project's use with GNOME Boxes. This is *really* good news! > > I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take > more time. What does it mean, exactly? Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines issues as the first thing? Thanks a lot for helping us here! > > Best regards, > > - Karsten > > On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > People, > > > > On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > >> On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: > >>> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is > >>> the > >>> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of > >>> the > >>> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)? > >> > >> Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a > >> specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been > >> requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the > >> ArtWork > >> page. > >> > >>> BTW, that is the logo only; > >> > >> There are two aspects here: > >> > >> 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without > >> the wordmark? > >> > >> 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to > >> make > >> it explicit what can and cannot be done. > >> > >> For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there > >> may > >> be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand- > >> alone > >> in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice. > >> > >> As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of > >> just > >> the logo, point 5 here: > >> > >> https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses > >> > >> But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork > >> page. > >> > >> What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of > >> permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and > >> ii) > >> fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark > >> guidelines and the logo usage guidelines. > > > > Any news here? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -- > Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid > Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen > https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io > gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig > Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes
Hi all, There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the CentOS Board. It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME Project's use with GNOME Boxes. I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take more time. Best regards, - Karsten On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > People, > > On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >> On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: >>> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is >>> the >>> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of >>> the >>> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)? >> >> Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a >> specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been >> requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the >> ArtWork >> page. >> >>> BTW, that is the logo only; >> >> There are two aspects here: >> >> 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without >> the wordmark? >> >> 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to >> make >> it explicit what can and cannot be done. >> >> For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there >> may >> be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand- >> alone >> in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice. >> >> As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of >> just >> the logo, point 5 here: >> >> https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses >> >> But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork >> page. >> >> What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of >> permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and >> ii) >> fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark >> guidelines and the logo usage guidelines. > > Any news here? > > Best Regards, > -- Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] PostgreSQL port accessible even though it should be blocked by firewall
On 10/30/18 8:31 AM, Frank Thommen wrote: 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. It's hard to see this as a security or trust problem. The root user can modify the firewall, which is provided by the kernel. firewalld is just a front-end. Adding rules to the kernel's firewall is not "circumventing" the management front-end. You do have to bear in mind that the firewall-cmd output reflects the *configuration* and not the *state*. When docker adds rules, it modifies the state, but not the configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] netinstall problem -- corrupt alsa-utils-1.1.0-10.el6.i686.rpm?
Hello. In short: I cannot help concluding that there is something wrong with at least some centos mirrors. -- First, as I did not get any answer to the email below (about 3 weeks ago), I ask one question: is this list not the proper place to ask these types of questions (if so, please let me know of a better place) or perhaps was my email not properly formulated? -- Nevertheless, I made some progress. Before going into that, I try to summarize my problem: I tried to install CentOS with several installation media with the netinstall iso; The computers boot fine on the installation media; I choose the language (us) and the keyboard type (fr-latin1); then, at the "Installation method", I choose "URL" and enter http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/i386/ I choose "Basic Storage Devices", "Paris" as the "nearest city in [my] time zone", the root password, "Use All Space", then click "Write changes to disk", and choose "Desktop". I then see a pop up saying "Installation Starting" with "Starting installation process", and, about a few seconds afterward (no chance to see any progress bar), an "Error" pop up that says: The file alsa-utils-1.1.0-10.el6.i686.rpm cannot be opened. This is due to a missing file, a corrupt package or corrupt media. Please verify your installation source. -- Now the new stuff. Last Thursday (Oct. 25), there was apparently a problem for this URL (at least from my location): http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/i386/, so the installation process failed right away (I checked that I could not access it from a browser either). After a bit of googling, and out of despair, I tried using http://mirrors.sonic.net/centos/6/os/i386 instead of http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/i386/ for the URL selected during the installation process. The whole installation completed without any problem The next day (Fri. Oct. 26), http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/i386/ was back to life, but with it the installation failed as usual (alsa rpm issue). I tried again with http://mirrors.sonic.net/centos/6/os/i386, and... this time it also failed (same alsa issue). Then I tried ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.centos.org/6/os/i386 and it worked just fine all along (installation successful). Today (Wed. Oct. 31), I try again with the 3 URL just above, in the same order, with the same results. So from my experience, as described above and in my initial email (Oct. 9), it seems to me that the most likely is that there is nothing wrong with my installation media (various centos netinstall iso files, written on 2 USB sticks and 1 DVD, with unetbootin or livecd-iso-to-disk, on different computers, which all fail in the same way), but that is something wrong with some centos mirrors. Best regards, AC alain.coch...@unistra.fr writes on Tue 9 Oct 2018 14:22: > > Hello. > > I try to install from the netinstall iso file. Everything works as I > expect up to the screen where I have to choose between "Desktop", > "Minimal Desktop", "Minimal", etc. > > If I choose either "Desktop" or "Minimal Desktop", I have a pop up > saying "Installation Starting" with "Starting installation process", > and, about a few seconds afterward, an "Error" pop up that says: > > The file alsa-utils-1.1.0-10.el6.i686.rpm cannot be opened. This is > due to a missing file, a corrupt package or corrupt media. Please > verify your installation source. > > If I choose "Minimal", this is the same except that instead of the > alsa*.rpm, it is iputils-20071127-24.el6.i386.rpm. > > I have successfully used this installation procedure in the past, > literally tens times (last time in January). Since it says "verify > your installation source", I have now tried again with > > CentOS-6.10-i386-netinstall.iso > CentOS-6.9-i386-netinstall.iso > > on two different USB sticks, written with unetbootin and > livecd-iso-to-disk on two different computers. I also have a DVD with > some former CentOS version (perhaps 6.4). > > I have tried the installation on 3 different computers (on one of > which the procedure worked in the past). Every time it is the same. > > NB: during the installation process, the URL I enter is > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/i386/ > > Any "chance" there is a problem on the CentOS side? > > Otherwise, what could I be doing wrong now? > > Thank you very much. > > Regards, > Alain Cochard -- EOST (École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre) IPG (Institut de Physique du Globe) | alain.coch...@unistra.fr 5 rue René Descartes [bureau 106] | Phone: +33 (0)3 68 85 50 44 F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France| Fax: +33 (0)3 68 85 01 25 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org
Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion?
On 10/30/18 9:44 PM, 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? Remember that the sources to Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS are under a mixture of free (GPL sense) and open source licenses. The copyrights for almost all of these components are owned by the hundreds of thousands of people and organizations who contributed to them, not a single company. While none of us can predict the future, we do know that IBM has been a good partner in many parts of the open source world. They have made and continue to make key contributions to Linux and Fedora, and to open source in general, as cofounding members of the Open Innovation Network, an important entity that protects open source from patent trolls. -- Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc. ___ 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?
On 31/10/2018 13:55, Leroy Tennison wrote: > My real fear is that a certain un-named company is going to feel pressured to > buy Canonical. I originally thought that this unnamed company (if we're thinking of the same one) would be an ideal buyer for Red Hat (or, more correctly, that RH would be ideal for them) but IBM got there first. That leaves either SUSE or Canonical. Until recently I thought SUSE might be next best after Red Hat but I'm beginning to think that Canonical would be their best bet. Canonical would probably be a bargain buy at the moment. I'll probably draw anger for saying this but I actually think they get open source now, and Canonical (or SUSE) would be safe with them. They'd destroy the value of the purchase if they mucked it up or tried to integrate it. Time will tell, I guess. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] IBM buying RedHat
On 30/10/2018 19:57, Rainer Duffner wrote: > Found something: > > https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/02/15/ins-outs-ibms-power9-zz-systems/ > > > That’s the entry-level, I presume? Thanks for that. Those were the kinds of prices I was vaguely remembering. Not totally out of whack compared to high end name-brand x86-64 servers (i.e. higher prices but not unimaginably so for the extra power -- pun intended). -- Mark Rousell ___ 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?
Leroy Tennison wrote: > If I heard/remember correctly, AT's UNIX was proprietary but they > released it to academic institutions under NDA and were lax in > enforcement. We all know what happened. In this case it's obviously open Well, also that AT was forbidden by law from competition in that market, so they really weren't sure what to *do* with UNIX. > source, we know what will happen if someone tries something. My main > concern is future development, will it remain open source. My real fear > is that a certain un-named company is going to feel pressured to buy > Canonical. Does that unnamed company already own Solaris? > > My surprise is that no one is commenting on the price IMB is offering, a > 60-70% premium, that in and of itself seems risky. I would think it highly unlikely that they would completely rewrite Linux, to be able to get around the licensing. I expect the same proprietary extensions that upstream does, but not much more. And, as I said, I can see them pushing their customers, hard, to migrate, not to another IBM o/s, but to Linux. A huge part of IBM, now, is service and support. mark ___ 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?
If I heard/remember correctly, AT's UNIX was proprietary but they released it to academic institutions under NDA and were lax in enforcement. We all know what happened. In this case it's obviously open source, we know what will happen if someone tries something. My main concern is future development, will it remain open source. My real fear is that a certain un-named company is going to feel pressured to buy Canonical. My surprise is that no one is commenting on the price IMB is offering, a 60-70% premium, that in and of itself seems risky. Leroy Tennison Network Information/Cyber Security Specialist E: le...@datavoiceint.com 2220 Bush Dr McKinney, Texas 75070 www.datavoiceint.com TThis message has been sent on behalf of a company that is part of the Harris Operating Group of Constellation Software Inc. These companies are listed here . If you prefer not to be contacted by Harris Operating Group please notify us . This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. From: CentOS on behalf of Japheth Cleaver Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 11:15 PM To: CentOS mailing list; Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CentOS] Would RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora Remain Open Source/Free Software After IBM Buys Red Hat for $34 Billion? 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 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] kiwi-ltsp - slave printer setup
On a Suse server
I'm trying to setup an USB slave printer to a work station
here below are my configuration files.
When I boot a station, i can see on the lower right the identification
of the station as
localhost(192.168.0.101) +time stamp
The printer is configured in cups as ipp://192.168.0.101:9100
my problem is when I send a print out the print stays on cups and stall.
the print system doesn't find the station
On a terminal I can Identify the printer with 'lsusb'
On an Ubuntu system with the same configuration as below I can send a
print and the printer receive it (it's working)
On the Ubuntu station on the lower right, the station is identified as
ws101(192.168.0.101) + the time stamp
Where do I am wrong on the Suse server
-
*dhcpd.conf*
option domain-name "Donais.ca";
option domain-name-servers 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4;
option routers 192.168.0.1;
option broadcast-address192.168.0.255;
default-lease-time 14400;
ddns-update-style interim;
use-host-decl-nameson;
subnet 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
option tftp-server-name "192.168.0.1";
option bootfile-name "/pxelinux.0";
default-lease-time 14400;
max-lease-time 172800;
range dynamic-bootp 192.168.0.2 192.168.0.253;
next-server 192.168.0.1;
host ws101 {
hardware ethernet F0:4D:A2:ED:35:D0;
fixed-address 192.168.0.101;
option host-name "ws101";
}
host ws114 {
hardware ethernet 84:2B:2B:89:6C:E0;
fixed-address 192.168.0.114;
}
}
*/etc/hosts*
#
# hosts This file describes a number of hostname-to-address
# mappings for the TCP/IP subsystem. It is mostly
# used at boot time, when no name servers are running.
# On small systems, this file can be used instead of a
# "named" name server.
# Syntax:
#
# IP-Address Full-Qualified-Hostname Short-Hostname
#
127.0.0.1 localhost
# special IPv6 addresses
::1 localhost ipv6-localhost ipv6-loopback
fe00::0 ipv6-localnet
ff00::0 ipv6-mcastprefix
ff02::1 ipv6-allnodes
ff02::2 ipv6-allrouters
ff02::3 ipv6-allhosts
192.168.0.1 suse.localhost suse
192.168.0.101ws101
192.168.0.102ws102
192.168.0.103ws103
192.168.0.104ws104
192.168.0.105ws105
192.168.0.114ws114.donais.ca ws114
-
*/srv/root-i386.17.12.19-20.25/etc/lts.conf*
# This is the default lts.conf file for ltsp 5.
# For more information about valid options please see:
# man lts.conf
[default]
LDM_SERVER = 192.168.0.1
DNS_SERVER = 8.8.8.8
SOUND = True
LOCALDEV = True
SERVER = 192.168.0.1
SCREEN_07 = ldm
LOCAL_APPS = true
LTSP_FATCLIENT = false
LDM_PASSWORD_HASH = true
ENCRYPT_SWAP = false
XRANDR_DISABLE = True
X_MODE_0 = 1024.x768
X_MODE_1 = 1280x1024
X_MODE_2 = 1440x900
#
[ws101]
MODULE_01= usb-uhci
MODULE_02= printer
PRINTER_0_TYPE = U
PRINTER_0-_DEVICE = /dev/usb/lp0
#PRINTER_0_PORT = 9100
-
Michel Donais
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released
On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 14:14 -0700, 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. > I wouldn't wait for 3.29 - that's a dev release. 3.30, a stable release, is already out. P. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 7.6 released
On 31/10/2018 06:47, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > 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. It'll take some time for CentOS to rebuild all the packages, probably 4-6 weeks. You'll have to be a bit more patient :) Anand ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
