Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?
On 08/07/2021 09:09, Mark Rousell wrote: > I'm not affiliated with Navy Linux but it seems to me there's nothing > inconsistent there. They say it was set up as a community project on > January 4, 2021 and a foundation (a common component of community > projects) was formed on June 14, 2021. > > That's all perfectly straight and consistent. Rocky, for example, > followed the same process didn't it: The community was formed and then a > foundation followed soon afterwards. P.S. Despite my comment above, I do agree that the disappearing of their reference to "Unixlabs" on their website is not confidence-inspiring. And not making it clear which/who this Unixlabs is, is even more frustrating. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?
On 07/07/2021 17:52, Jon Pruente wrote: > That furthers what I wrote earlier. That says: > > Date of formation: June 14, 2021 > > Yet the about page ( https://navylinux.org/about/ ) was changed to say: >> Navy Linux and The Navy Linux Project is an on-going community project > founded by Navy Foundation on January 4, 2021. > > They don't have a straight story, and they've been changing it > inconsistently. That's not how you build trust. I'm not affiliated with Navy Linux but it seems to me there's nothing inconsistent there. They say it was set up as a community project on January 4, 2021 and a foundation (a common component of community projects) was formed on June 14, 2021. That's all perfectly straight and consistent. Rocky, for example, followed the same process didn't it: The community was formed and then a foundation followed soon afterwards. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using RedHat binary packages?
On 03/07/2019 15:58, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > RHEL binary packages are only available to paid customers who are explicitly > prohibited to redistribute them. For the sake of completeness, not everyone with legitimate access to RHEL binaries is necessarily a *paid* customer. Red Hat provides a free dev licence so anyone can legitimately access RHEL binaries (and source RPMs of course) for free, although the use to which one may put the binaries is limited by the licence. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Video from the CentOS Dojo at CERN now available
On 22/11/2018 21:44, Rainer Duffner wrote: > >> Am 22.11.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Frank : >> >> Is it only me or are the talks not public on YouTube. When I open the >> link, it says "Private Video" for every entry in the playlist. > > Nope. > > Probably need an account. > Which I don’t have. Do you mean Youtube account or some other sort? I've got a YT account but the videos are still all private. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Grettings!
On 19/11/2018 12:27, Glenio Cortes Himmen wrote: > Whats is CDE? > > This word was written in "Red Hat is Planning To Deprecate KDE on RHEL > By 2024". As Gianluca Cecchi said, "CDE" = Common Desktop Environment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment. RHEL does not use CDE. RHEL uses "KDE". KDE = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE -- 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?
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] 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
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 14:49, 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
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
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?
On 17/10/2018 20:03, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Mark Rousell wrote: >> launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice > Try doing without launchd on macOS. > > If you think that’s irrelevant, count the number of MacBooks at the next > FreeBSD conference you attend. That's Mac. It's not Linux. And that's the point. Mac does not have Linux's very particular culture and history. Apple and oranges, and all that. Sure, launchd is an init system but it's not on Linux. If launchd was on Linux and it had systemd's cultural issues and, in many people's views, technical issues then the opposition to it would be identical to the opposition to systemd. When people go to Mac they accept what it is (mostly). That's a fundamentally different culture to Linux (or BSD for that matter). > For an init system to gain sufficient momentum, it must be the default, with > no easy way to avoid it. That's an argument for authoritarianism, which seems to me to be anathema to the overriding culture of Linux. Can you see why many people might dislike the personalities involved with systemd, yet, when such an argument is used in favour of systemd? :-) >> I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition >> to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be >> opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there >> are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of >> systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. > While there certainly are objective problems with systemd’s design and > implementation, it is basic human psychology that many people will not move > to a newer system despite piles of advantages. Quite true but the fact that some people do dislike change (a) does not make the substantive and objective problems, in many people's views, with systemd any less real or important and (b) does not mean that the speaker did not massively over-simplify the opposition to systemd , i.e. he effectively claimed that it was all to do with fear of change when, as you agree, there in fact are substantive, real and objective issues which are widely recognised. > The major BSDs are fundamentally conservative at the project management > level, so I believe this tendency is stronger in the BSD user population than > elsewhere in the IT world. It’s a form of self-selection bias: the BSDs are > run conservatively, so they attract a user base that is also technologically > conservative, from which come the next generation of core developers, who > therefore continue to run the project conservatively. Consequently, the > major BSDs are even more conservative than the Enterprise Linuxes. An interesting observation. It seems to me that there are aspects of the Linux culture that are at least as conservative as the BSDs in this context (are perhaps shared with BSD). One of these aspects is the "do one job and do it well" expectation of componentisation. In many people's views, systemd wilfully and unnecessarily tramples all over this cultural/technical requirement. If this is the case in many people's views, then it makes a lot of sense that hey are unhappy with it. >> many people objecting to systemd >> would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management. > I’d love to see that quantified. None of these comments (neither mine nor those of the speaker of the presentation) are easy to quantify. I can only say that I base my comments mainly on the contents of technical mail lists and blogs and similar and I have very frequently observed that (a) a common question is how users can change init system to something other than either systemd or SysVinit (depending on whether they are starting with a Linux that is normally with or without systemd), and (b) there does seem to be a very common thread that the time had come that something needed to be done to update SysVinit but that systemd definitely should not be it (and that the solution, whatever it was, should not have been introduced in the way that systemd was). > Alternatives to the BSD rc init system are readily available, yet I think if > you were to survey actual use, you’d find that over 99% of BSD boxes use the > stock init system. That's a different metric. People may well stick with the stock init system but that doesn't mean that they like it or really want it. > Change has to be forced from the center out on this kind of thing. Again, an appeal to authoritarianism. Excuse me if I don't wish to join you on that. Authoritarianism, in all its forms, is dangerous and, in my view, a form of vandalism. Also one might ask: What centre? This is the world of Linux. Many people don't recognise any centre, and quite sensibly so. Indeed, they use Linux explicitly to avoid the centrism of the likes of Linux
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?
On 17/10/2018 10:11, Anthony K wrote: > It's starting to look as though the BSD camp may embrace systemd > sooner rather than later: > > https://youtu.be/6AeWu1fZ7bY?t=1537 - I like this bit the most in that > video! > > But do watch the entire presentation - good stuff. I've listened to the video and no, it doesn't say any such thing. The video does not say that BSD is going to use systemd. What the speaker in the video certainly does point out is that service and system management is a good thing overall and that there are better ways of doing this than SysVinit. However, most people have not disputed this. A lot of people, including very many of those who greatly dislike systemd, accept that SysVinit could and should be replaced or improved upon. It's just that they do not think, for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons, that systemd is the right software to do this. Even on Devuan, for example, many people prefer to use init software other than SysVinit. The speaker says, amongst others thing, "what I find amusing occasionally is that a lot of people who bitch about systemd, don't bitch about launchd but I find that funny because systemd is launchd in concept" but he should not be surprised. The people who complain about systemd are doing so because (a) launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice (in their view), and/or (b) because they disagree with systemd's specific architectural choices and/or their view of its quality. I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. He further seems to ignore the fact that many people objecting to systemd would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management. The speaker goes on to give his reasons as to why bringing service and system management to BSD is a good thing. As I point out above, many people could well agree with this, even many people who dislike the specific implementation of systemd on Linux. To be clear, objections to systemd on Linux largely seem to me to be about the specific implementation and perceived quality (and, dare I say it, personalities), rather than either fear or change or objection to modern system/service management. The speaker explicitly points out: "What can we [BSD] get from systemd? I'm not saying that we should adopt it [...] I don't think that trying to directly adopt system is going to work for us". He then goes on to point out why implementing a BSD kernel-based systems/service management component that is inspired by some of systemd's advantages (or, to put it another way, the advantages that any modern system/service management facility could and should offer) would be a good thing. As I say, many people, including many systemd-doubters or haters, would not object to this. He is not, however, saying that systemd will be used on BSD. He's just saying that the principles of system/service management are good ones and that software other than systemd could implement them. And that's exactly what a lot of systemd's critics say, too. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?
On 16/10/2018 19:21, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > I'm not sure that that necessarily follows. Among RH-ecosystem > distributions, and specifically RHEL derivatives, there's a barrier to > the usefulness of smaller projects given that a large chunk of the > users need binary-compatible commercial equivalents, or at least > vaguely commercially supported ecosystems. We're long past the days > where WBEL and other hobbyist projects can probably gain traction. > Those RHEL alternatives that do exist either have a long history > (CentOS, even before the RH deal), or are supported by large entities: > the government (SL, before it became more or less congruent with > CentOS), a multi billion dollar company (OEL), or a trillion dollar > company (AWS). SuSE Enterprise might be the best counter example here. > > Also, while EL6 did move from original init to upstart, that's > somewhat beside the point. Almost none of the advanced features from > upstart were used, and - crucially - the startup sequence was still > handled with grokkable, imperative scripts. The jump from EL6->EL7 was > night and day compared to EL5->EL6. Not that I disagree with the thrust of what you are saying but it seems to me that SUSE is not so much a counter example. The SUSE subsidiary of Micro Focus is, in and of itself, a multi-billion dollar company. It was valued at $2.535 billion when its sale to EQT Partners was agreed earlier this year. It seems to me that what you say in your first paragraph above applies not just to RH-ecosystem Linuxes but probably to all corporate-focussed ones in both the RH and SUSE ecosystems. It's mainly the Debian world where it seems to me that there is still room for smaller entrants (including at least one healthy non-systemd one). -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On 03/10/2018 14:31, Larry Martell wrote: > > It only went smoothly because there were people like me fixing the issues ;-) In that case perhaps I should take some of the credit for writing code that never had a Y2K problem in the first place. ;-) > I worked on Wall St at the time, and I got a reputation for being able > to find and fix Y2K issues. Really all that I did was grep the code > bases for 2 digit years, and code that blindly added 1900 to them. > There were a ton of those cases. It was not atypical for me to find > 500-1000 or more such cases at each site. The fixes were easy but the > testing took a while. I did this for banks, hedge funds, brokerages, > bond traders, etc. > > At one place where I had fixed probably 700 cases, after Y2K came and > went without an incident the CEO said "You made such a big deal about > this, and then nothing happened." I think this shows that it was partly an industry-related issue. At the ISP I mentioned, the vast majority of the systems were Y2K-compliant and had ended up that way through the normal process of upgrades and patches over many years. (Well, apart from the single, major semi-proprietary system we knew about anyway). However, your employer (and your employer's industry) was very different: It clearly ran numerous disparate code bases, many developed in house, many of which were non-compliant and whose compliance was unknown until you found and fixed them. I was definitely in the wrong industry! -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On 03/10/2018 02:46, Mark Rousell wrote: > I don't think I've ever said this but [...] Oops, sorry. This was off-topic here. I actually thought this was a different mail list where it would have been on-topic. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On 02/10/2018 18:46, Larry Martell wrote: > I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. I don't think I've ever said this but I am very envious of all these people who had loads of work due to Y2K or were paid obscene amounts of money to tend systems over new year's eve/day. I was working for an ISP at the time and got none of this. Nothing happened. I don't even recall any special precautions being taken (apart from below). No over time, no obscene amounts of money. Admittedly there was a Y2K audit earlier in the year and so I presume that the consultants who did it got paid some obscene amounts of money. As I recall, they found very little except for one major system that we knew would need updating anyway. And I presume that the contractor who came in to fix the major system was rather well paid too. But no money for me. Wrong job, wrong time, wrong place, I guess. Perhaps I should be pleased the actual 99/00 changeover went so smoothly afterall. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] email Server for CentOS 7
On 29/09/2018 21:51, Bee.Lists wrote: > Hi folks. > > I’m looking for an email server. I have a C7 box already with nginx, > PostgreSQL, Sinatra and Ruby. So I don’t want to install PHP, Apache, MySQL, > etc. > > Are there any ways/tutorials to set up a mail server under those > restrictions? It would serve multiple domains. Have a look at this tutorial: 'How to set up a mail server on a GNU / Linux system' < http://flurdy.com/docs/postfix/ > It focuses on Ubuntu but much should apply to CentOS too. (By the way, does anyone know of a CentOS-centric tutorial covering the same subject?). As others have said, running a mail server is not easy today (major issues are (a) preventing spam distribution and, increasingly, (b) deliverability to major email providers even if you have done nothing wrong) but this is a technical mailing list for people who have deliberately chosen to run CentOS. We all have to start somewhere and this is as good a place as anywhere. But be aware that running a mail server is a big commitment to time and maintenance. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Which is better? Microsoft Exchange 2016 or Linux-based SMTP Servers?
On 19/07/2018 15:57, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > As far as google anything goes, not everybody volunteers one's > information into paws of google (and quite likely one or more of 3 > letter agencies collecting information that way). I know (call it > educated guess) that about 70% of messages I send are ending up in > google databases whether I want it or not. Someone said quite some > time ago: you don't need to recruit spies anymore, just roll out > "free" services, and information will trickle to you. I am old enough > to know what collection of information on everybody leads to (Hitler > Germany, Stalin Russia, ...), but I also know that the worst lesson of > history is: people do not learn lessons of history. So, I do the best > I can do: roll out services people I work for may need, and avoid by > any means advertising google whatever myself, I just keep neutral when > that surfaces in discussions with my people. > Well said. I feel that too many people today have forgotten (or, more likely, never learned) these lessons from history. People give away their personal and supposedly private information too easily and, I feel certain, will come to regret it (some already have come to regret it). -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
