Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
My comment was sincere but was directed at Chris Pimberton, who I thought was really funny. I have nothing against Always Learning other than the fact that he hijacked this thread from the original question that I asked... On Oct 11, 2014 7:27 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" wrote: > > On Sat, October 11, 2014 9:08 am, Igal Sapir wrote: > > On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p > > Have you ever heard someone saying "paranoia is on my sysadmin's job > description"? If you don't have an attitude described by that word you > better don't run severs. Not that I would say they will end up > compromised, but the chance of compromise is way higher if you don't > exercise "paranoia" when setting up your server. I bet any sysadmin manual > or book has security chapter which stresses it in similar wording. A few I > learned from did. So, in my book Mr. Always Learning is more suitable as > sysadmin than a person of an attitude you expressed. No offense, just > think it over, thinking it over may help you one day. > > Just my $0.02 > > Valer > > > On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote: > >> > Whats your mailing address, I will send you some > >> > more tinfoil. > >> > > >> > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check > >> for > >> >>> embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... > >> that > >> >>> tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding > >> >>> place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for > >> >>> several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever > >> >>> overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info > >> >>> from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably > >> have > >> >>> access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the > >> >>> government > >> >>> that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form > >> >>> only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd > >> never > >> >>> be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the > >> same > >> >>> thing :) > >> >> > >> >> I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the > >> >> reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an > >> inquisitive > >> >> Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My > >> >> multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on > >> pull-out > >> >> caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. > >> >> > >> >> When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi > >> access > >> >> which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. > >> >> > >> >> If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one > >> should > >> >> worry about but another item that is so common it is always > >> >> 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) > >> >> > >> > >> If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely > >> will be on my short list, much preferred candidate. > >> > >> Valeri > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > > ___ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:03 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should > >> worry about but another item that is so common it is always > >> 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) > If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely > will be on my short list, much preferred candidate. Thank you. I am flattered. I have never been west of Europe. Good security is discretely "poking one's nose in", wondering about things and questioning how security might be improved - complacency and 'lack of knowledge' aren't really the best attributes and tin foil doesn't really help :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Learning until I die or experience dementia. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Sat, October 11, 2014 9:08 am, Igal Sapir wrote: > On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p Have you ever heard someone saying "paranoia is on my sysadmin's job description"? If you don't have an attitude described by that word you better don't run severs. Not that I would say they will end up compromised, but the chance of compromise is way higher if you don't exercise "paranoia" when setting up your server. I bet any sysadmin manual or book has security chapter which stresses it in similar wording. A few I learned from did. So, in my book Mr. Always Learning is more suitable as sysadmin than a person of an attitude you expressed. No offense, just think it over, thinking it over may help you one day. Just my $0.02 Valer > On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote: >> > Whats your mailing address, I will send you some >> > more tinfoil. >> > >> > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: >> >> >> >>> Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check >> for >> >>> embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... >> that >> >>> tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding >> >>> place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for >> >>> several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever >> >>> overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info >> >>> from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably >> have >> >>> access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the >> >>> government >> >>> that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form >> >>> only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd >> never >> >>> be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the >> same >> >>> thing :) >> >> >> >> I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the >> >> reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an >> inquisitive >> >> Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My >> >> multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on >> pull-out >> >> caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. >> >> >> >> When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi >> access >> >> which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. >> >> >> >> If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one >> should >> >> worry about but another item that is so common it is always >> >> 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) >> >> >> >> If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely >> will be on my short list, much preferred candidate. >> >> Valeri >> >> >> 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 >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:00:44AM -0500, William Woods wrote: > Either is your paranoia…… Enough already. Can you please take this off-list? John -- "Since every individual is accountable ultimately to the self, the formation of that self demands our utmost care and attention." -- A Bene Gesserit teaching spoken by Miles Teg in "Chapterhouse: Dune" by Frank Herbert pgpTjJiLFJ0gH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" wrote: > > On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote: > > Whats your mailing address, I will send you some > > more tinfoil. > > > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: > >> > >>> Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for > >>> embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that > >>> tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding > >>> place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for > >>> several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever > >>> overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info > >>> from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have > >>> access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the > >>> government > >>> that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form > >>> only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never > >>> be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same > >>> thing :) > >> > >> I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the > >> reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive > >> Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My > >> multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out > >> caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. > >> > >> When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access > >> which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. > >> > >> If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should > >> worry about but another item that is so common it is always > >> 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) > >> > > If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely > will be on my short list, much preferred candidate. > > Valeri > > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote: > Whats your mailing address, I will send you some > more tinfoil. > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: >> >>> Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for >>> embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that >>> tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding >>> place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for >>> several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever >>> overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info >>> from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have >>> access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the >>> government >>> that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form >>> only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never >>> be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same >>> thing :) >> >> I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the >> reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive >> Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My >> multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out >> caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. >> >> When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access >> which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. >> >> If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should >> worry about but another item that is so common it is always >> 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) >> If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate. Valeri 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Either is your paranoia…… On Oct 11, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 19:20 -0500, William Woods wrote: > >> Whats your mailing address, I will send you some >> more tinfoil. > > I do hope you will be able to understand that your lack of knowledge and > your free offers of 'tin foil' are not really Centos matters. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 19:20 -0500, William Woods wrote: > Whats your mailing address, I will send you some > more tinfoil. I do hope you will be able to understand that your lack of knowledge and your free offers of 'tin foil' are not really Centos matters. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil. On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: > >> Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for >> embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that >> tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding >> place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for >> several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever >> overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info >> from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have >> access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government >> that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form >> only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never >> be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same >> thing :) > > I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the > reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive > Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My > multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out > caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. > > When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access > which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. > > If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should > worry about but another item that is so common it is always > 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote: > Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for > embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that > tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding > place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for > several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever > overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info > from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have > access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government > that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form > only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never > be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same > thing :) I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out caddies. I read all the generated daily reports. When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN. If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 13:07 -0500, William Woods wrote: > I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list > would > use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended. I thought the entire Centos project was "Open Source". If that is correct, what attraction would a very successful, and universally loved and appreciated, Open Source project have for a 'closed source addict' ? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/10/2014 2:31 PM, Chris Pemberton wrote: > To Paul and William, > > Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for > embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that > tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding > place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for > several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever > overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info > from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have > access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the > government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary > form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd > never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the > same thing :) > > All kidding aside; do either of you audit the source code of your OS > personally... or blindly trust all RH employees "have your back"? > > When it comes to "security", don't we all just, eventually, bury our > heads in whichever sand makes us feel safe? > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I should have asked about 70 messages ago... but can you guys change the subject line if you are to talk about these unrelated issues? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
To Paul and William, Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :) All kidding aside; do either of you audit the source code of your OS personally... or blindly trust all RH employees "have your back"? When it comes to "security", don't we all just, eventually, bury our heads in whichever sand makes us feel safe? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:30 pm, William Woods wrote: > Then we are pretty much in agreement here, regarding the claims made > by the other member of the list, I do think if you are going to make a > claim and state it as if it is fact, you should back it up > Well, I know what claim you mean (which was not mine...) As far as google is concerned, I have my own reservations, which I'm not going to talk about. To change the subject completely: one day I thought about this. In the past one needed to recruit spies. These days if I were a head on one of these intelligence agencies I would do it much cheaper and more efficient. I would invest (just make a grant) big time in great nice IT startup company. And keep adding $$ in. Have them roll out free services, applications, everything. And information will trickle to me at much lower cost, I only would need to build huge storage center, and apply enormous computing power to process this information. I'm sure at least IBM has similar thoughts about free applications/services (at least that's what I've heard). For what it's worth, those are just abstract thoughts, any coincidence that my thoughts might cause in your mind are pure coincidense, purely on your side, and have nothing do with any real subject, person, etc... Putting my pointy hat back on... Valeri > > >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Valeri Galtsev >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote: >>> Not at all, and please donât tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is >>> that >>> people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to >>> imply in any way that >>> open source is better is a misnomer. >>> >>> I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I donât >>> belong >>> to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source >>> zealot. >>> >>> I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing >>> list would >>> use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended. >> >> No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty >> much >> the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for >> tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is >> great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for >> the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my >> answer. >> >> Valeri >> >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev >>> wrote: >>> > On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: > So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. > > all I need to say isâ¦BASH , OpenSSLâ¦.. Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble... I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source". Valeri > I am sure there are more. > > But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing > to > back up what you claim is that asking to much ? > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev > > wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: >>> Really, you have some URLâs to back up the paranoia ? >> >> Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS >> Windows >> is >> and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and >> there >> is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) >> >> I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open >> source". >> There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they >> are >> based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last >> time >> I >>
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/10/2014 11:44 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > Keep in mind CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL so any resources for RHEL are > applicable to CentOS. > > I'm not sure if any EL7 books have been written yet (as it's fairly new and > the Red Hat certifications have only just started being updated). > > In the meanwhile one of the best resources is access.redhat.com ... read > the documentation there. it's very difficult to find up-to-date books on the subject, but yes, the docs on https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/ are so far really good. it's all just very confusing for someone without Linux experience. all the docs/tutorials/examples out there are for previous versions so they are all out of date now that RHEL/CentOS 7 uses systemd. also, the relationship between the OS, Gnome, and KDE is confusing. I installed CentOS 7 with GUI so I have Gnome 3.8.4 which I expected, but how come I have KDE stuff there as well? and... I still haven't figured out how to add shortcuts to the desktop and/or task bar which should really be a context menu option so I'm not sure why Gnome is so un-intuitive in that case. Igal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 8 October 2014 17:18, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: > On 10/8/2014 9:13 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > Someone had mentioned on this list the following RedHat Enterprise 7 (and > > as you know CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise with replaced > > art work): > > > > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/part-Basic_System_Configuration.html > so if I buy RHEL 7 books everything should work as in the book? part of > the problem for me is that there aren't many books about CentOS, and the > ones I found are a few years old > > Getting back to topic and responding to the OP... Keep in mind CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL so any resources for RHEL are applicable to CentOS. I'm not sure if any EL7 books have been written yet (as it's fairly new and the Red Hat certifications have only just started being updated). In the meanwhile one of the best resources is access.redhat.com ... read the documentation there. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Then we are pretty much in agreement here, regarding the claims made by the other member of the list, I do think if you are going to make a claim and state it as if it is fact, you should back it up > On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote: >> Not at all, and please don’t tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that >> people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to >> imply in any way that >> open source is better is a misnomer. >> >> I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I don’t >> belong >> to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot. >> >> I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing >> list would >> use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended. > > No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much > the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for > tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is > great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for > the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my > answer. > > Valeri > >> >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL….. >>> >>> Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer >>> security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the >>> vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source >>> M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example >>> UNIX. >>> Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD >>> project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and >>> as >>> sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just >>> will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor >>> and >>> simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had >>> majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't >>> vulnerable) >>> had less trouble... >>> >>> I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not >>> consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck >>> my >>> brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I >>> prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't >>> mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that >>> it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever >>> person >>> who said "security only can be in open source". >>> >>> Valeri >>> I am sure there are more. But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ? On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: >> Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? > > Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows > is > and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and > there > is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) > > I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open > source". > There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they > are > based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last > time > I > cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux > kernel, > there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free > to > imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... > > Valeri > >> >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >> "enumerate >> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >> future. > > I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of > the > novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps > only > purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >>> >>> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA >>> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >>> authorities. > > >
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote: > Not at all, and please dont tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that > people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to > imply in any way that > open source is better is a misnomer. > > I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I dont > belong > to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot. > > I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing > list would > use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended. No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my answer. Valeri > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: >>> So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. >>> >>> all I need to say is BASH , OpenSSL .. >>> >> >> Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer >> security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the >> vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source >> M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example >> UNIX. >> Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD >> project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and >> as >> sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just >> will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor >> and >> simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had >> majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't >> vulnerable) >> had less trouble... >> >> I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not >> consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck >> my >> brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I >> prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't >> mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that >> it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever >> person >> who said "security only can be in open source". >> >> Valeri >> >>> I am sure there are more. >>> >>> But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to >>> back up what you claim is that asking to much ? >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev >>> >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: > Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ? Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... Valeri > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on > "enumerate > bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a > future. I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>> >>> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >> >> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA >> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >> authorities. >> 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/l
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Not at all, and please don’t tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to imply in any way that open source is better is a misnomer. I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I don’t belong to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot. I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended. On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: >> So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. >> >> all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL….. >> > > Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer > security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the > vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source > M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. > Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD > project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as > sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just > will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and > simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had > majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) > had less trouble... > > I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not > consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my > brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I > prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't > mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that > it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person > who said "security only can be in open source". > > Valeri > >> I am sure there are more. >> >> But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to >> back up what you claim is that asking to much ? >> >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? >>> >>> Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is >>> and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and >>> there >>> is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) >>> >>> I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open >>> source". >>> There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are >>> based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time >>> I >>> cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux >>> kernel, >>> there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to >>> imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... >>> >>> Valeri >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > >> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. >>> >>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the >>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only >>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>> >> >> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. > > Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA > authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA > authorities. > >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: > So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. > > all I need to say is BASH , OpenSSL .. > Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble... I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source". Valeri > I am sure there are more. > > But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to > back up what you claim is that asking to much ? > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: >>> Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ? >> >> Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is >> and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and >> there >> is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) >> >> I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open >> source". >> There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are >> based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time >> I >> cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux >> kernel, >> there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to >> imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... >> >> Valeri >> >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >>> "enumerate >>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >>> future. >> >> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the >> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only >> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >> > > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities. >> >> >> >> 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 >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
And you can make all the claims you want, without being willing to back them up. On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:52 -0500, William Woods wrote: > >> I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice >> distraction though. >> >> I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are >> unwilling (or unable) to back up >> what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er. > > Call me what you wish. That is definitely not going to change the truth > and reality. Have a nice evening. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:52 -0500, William Woods wrote: > I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice > distraction though. > > I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are > unwilling (or unable) to back up > what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er. Call me what you wish. That is definitely not going to change the truth and reality. Have a nice evening. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
I see, so you can’t back up your claim….ok. On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:33 -0500, William Woods wrote: > >> So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. > > You obviously didn't. Perhaps one day you may discover what others know > today. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:33 -0500, William Woods wrote: > So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. You obviously didn't. Perhaps one day you may discover what others know today. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Oh as a side note, that suggests nothing other than back up what you claim. On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote: > >> Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? > > That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with > some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when > the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the > USA government, started. > > You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. > There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to > give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying > operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related > agencies. > > Have a pleasant weekend. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:21 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: > > Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? > > Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is > and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there > is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) > > I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". > There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are > based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I > cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, > there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to > imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... The default setting for Android is to give Google all your passwords including Wifi ones. In Europe Google sent motor vehicles, in the guise of photographing every premise in every street, whilst secretly sniffing everyone's WiFi equipment. I long for the day when Centos can replace Google on Android tablets. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice distraction though. I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are unwilling (or unable) to back up what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er. On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote: > >> Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? > > That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with > some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when > the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the > USA government, started. > > You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. > There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to > give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying > operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related > agencies. > > Have a pleasant weekend. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote: > Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the USA government, started. You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related agencies. Have a pleasant weekend. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it. all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL….. I am sure there are more. But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ? On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: >> Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? > > Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is > and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there > is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) > > I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". > There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are > based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I > cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, > there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to > imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... > > Valeri > >> >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >> "enumerate >> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >> future. > > I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the > novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only > purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >>> >>> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA >>> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >>> authorities. >>> > > > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: > Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ? Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... Valeri > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on > "enumerate > bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a > future. I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>> >>> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >> >> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA >> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >> authorities. >> 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > >> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. >>> >>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the >>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only >>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>> >> >> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. > > Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA > authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA > authorities. > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: > > On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate > >> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. > > > > I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the > > novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only > > purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. > > > > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities. Remember M$'s "3 knocks" and you are in Windoze software ? The greater the difference between (Windoze, Lindoze etc.) and Linux the better. I am sure M$ could have designed a much more secure operating system: But it didn't. Hence the success of superior non-Windoze operating systems. Keeping Linux pure from the Windoze influence is essential even if it means upsetting systemd fans :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
Looks like I need my tin foil hat….. On Oct 10, 2014, at 11:19 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > > On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate >>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. >> >> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the >> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only >> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >> > > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. > > > -- > *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** > James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca > Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca > 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 > Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 > Canada L8E 3C3 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate >> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. > > I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the > novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only > purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
actually, I think that the anti-virus that comes with Windows is only available for desktop OSs like Windows 7, and not available for the Server OSs like 2008 R2. On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Thu, October 9, 2014 7:41 pm, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 8:18 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know >>> quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run >>> it >>> without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... >> Windows has included a decent A/V system, variously called Microsoft >> Security Essentials, and Microsoft Defender for the last several major >> releases. > Please roll the time back and change it from "IS" to "was for over decade > which changed just a year or two ago". > >> any other fables? >> > Not yet, but I'm inventive. > > BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate > bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. > Good approach would be: enumerate good and ban everything else. Which we > usually do when configuring firewalls. Selinux (even though I have > different opinion about its usefulness) uses this not flawed approach > (consider this my next fable). > > Valeri > > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Igal Sapir Railo Core Developer http://getRailo.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 7:41 pm, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/9/2014 8:18 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know >> quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run >> it >> without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... > > Windows has included a decent A/V system, variously called Microsoft > Security Essentials, and Microsoft Defender for the last several major > releases. Please roll the time back and change it from "IS" to "was for over decade which changed just a year or two ago". > > any other fables? > Not yet, but I'm inventive. BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future. Good approach would be: enumerate good and ban everything else. Which we usually do when configuring firewalls. Selinux (even though I have different opinion about its usefulness) uses this not flawed approach (consider this my next fable). Valeri 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/9/2014 8:18 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run it without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... Windows has included a decent A/V system, variously called Microsoft Security Essentials, and Microsoft Defender for the last several major releases. any other fables? -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Thu, October 9, 2014 10:08 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: > > On 10/9/2014 12:22 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > >> On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >>> Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a > >>> consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. > >> > >> Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > as for my humble opinion: > > > > I've looked into systemd in the past 24 hours and I find it as a > > refreshing update to Linux, and I welcome the fact that Linux is > > becoming a little more Windows-like. > > > > whatever your opinion about Windows may be -- you can't argue its huge > > worldwide success and impact. > > There you have it! > > M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know > quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run it > without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... > > IMHO this is changing. I recall that before "Code Red" (anyone remember that?) there was no antivirus worth talking about and no concern about security as such. The Shellshock exploit probably does two things. Firstly it raises awareness of many admins as regards security of Linux systems and it encourages hackers because they realise that there is now (and actually always has been) a target in Linux systems. It may be Linux's "Code Red". There are definitely more exploits out there. Not all Linux admins are security aware, just as many are not backup aware. Many think that Linux systems are secure by default. Many will "get around to security" some time. Cheers, Cliff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 4:27 pm, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:24:32AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> On Thu, October 9, 2014 9:37 am, James B. Byrne wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:50, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> >> >> No, at the moment I run services in FreeBSD jails. Even a single host >> sometimes lives in several jails (say: web server, shell login, mail,... >> go to different jails). But don't confuse me for an expert here... > > Jails are great. Although we had this great setup that worked up to 9.2 > with jails on nullfs (that is, a bunch of jails sharing a template) that > from 9.3 (maybe) and 10.0 (definitely) require an rc.local script to mount > devfs. Valeri, if your FreeBSD systems are on 9.2 or below, check out my > page at http://srobb.net/nullfsjail.html Thanks for the reference. I follow FreeBSD Handbook, sorry I only looked through your link without careful reading... but it looks pretty close to what I do by following Handbook. But thanks anyway. I guess, we need to move this discussion away from this list before we are banned (and rightfully so as this is irrelevant to CentOS Linux...). Valeri > >>From what I've heard (I'm at a primarily FreeBSD shop, though we are a >> 2nd > level CentOS mirror) bhyve is a bit behind. DISCLAIMER!!! I haven't > investigated it. I don't believe it's yet capable of running Windows. > > Jails are more like OpenVZ and Vserver, a more sophisticated chroot. > > > -- > Scott Robbins > PGP keyID EB3467D6 > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:24:32AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Thu, October 9, 2014 9:37 am, James B. Byrne wrote: > > > > On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:50, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> > > No, at the moment I run services in FreeBSD jails. Even a single host > sometimes lives in several jails (say: web server, shell login, mail,... > go to different jails). But don't confuse me for an expert here... Jails are great. Although we had this great setup that worked up to 9.2 with jails on nullfs (that is, a bunch of jails sharing a template) that from 9.3 (maybe) and 10.0 (definitely) require an rc.local script to mount devfs. Valeri, if your FreeBSD systems are on 9.2 or below, check out my page at http://srobb.net/nullfsjail.html >From what I've heard (I'm at a primarily FreeBSD shop, though we are a 2nd level CentOS mirror) bhyve is a bit behind. DISCLAIMER!!! I haven't investigated it. I don't believe it's yet capable of running Windows. Jails are more like OpenVZ and Vserver, a more sophisticated chroot. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 2:22 am, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a >> consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. > > Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) I guess the decision then was the bloody one ... ;-) 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/9/2014 8:18 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Thu, October 9, 2014 10:08 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 12:22 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: >>> On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. >>> Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) >>> ___ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS@centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> as for my humble opinion: >> >> I've looked into systemd in the past 24 hours and I find it as a >> refreshing update to Linux, and I welcome the fact that Linux is >> becoming a little more Windows-like. >> >> whatever your opinion about Windows may be -- you can't argue its huge >> worldwide success and impact. > There you have it! > > M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know > quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run it > without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... > > Valeri that's exactly why my next statement read: > as long as you don't compromise security and/or performance ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 9:37 am, James B. Byrne wrote: > > On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:50, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> >> I would say, CentOS 6 is the best of Linuxes suitable for server (IMHO). >> However, I for one decided to move my servers away from Linux (as from >> "Unix-like" Linux gradually becomes "Windows-like" during last 5 years >> or >> so). Since some time ago I do not upgrade Linux systems on servers I >> maintain. Instead, when the time comes, I just migrate server from Linux >> to FreeBSD, which is much more suitable platform for server than Linux. >> Version 7 of RedHat Enterprise or CentOS is much worse than version 6 to >> build server on. Again, this is just my humble opinion. If I absolutely >> have to build server on today's latest Linux, I will choose Debian, >> which >> at least doesn't have systemd yet. But it will have it in next >> release... >> >> Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a >> consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. >> >> Valeri >> > > Do you run bhyve virtualisation on any of your migrated FreeBSD hosts? > No, at the moment I run services in FreeBSD jails. Even a single host sometimes lives in several jails (say: web server, shell login, mail,... go to different jails). But don't confuse me for an expert here... Valeri 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Thu, October 9, 2014 10:08 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: > On 10/9/2014 12:22 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: >> On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a >>> consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. >> >> Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > as for my humble opinion: > > I've looked into systemd in the past 24 hours and I find it as a > refreshing update to Linux, and I welcome the fact that Linux is > becoming a little more Windows-like. > > whatever your opinion about Windows may be -- you can't argue its huge > worldwide success and impact. There you have it! M$ Windows is the only OS (and I knew quite a few of the past and know quite a few of present) whose creators tell you you can not safely run it without 3rd part software (anti-virus)... Valeri > > as long as you don't compromise security and/or performance, making > Linux more like Windows is a good thing IMO. > 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/9/2014 12:22 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a >> consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. > > Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos as for my humble opinion: I've looked into systemd in the past 24 hours and I find it as a refreshing update to Linux, and I welcome the fact that Linux is becoming a little more Windows-like. whatever your opinion about Windows may be -- you can't argue its huge worldwide success and impact. as long as you don't compromise security and/or performance, making Linux more like Windows is a good thing IMO. -- Igal Sapir Railo Core Developer http://getRailo.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:50, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > > I would say, CentOS 6 is the best of Linuxes suitable for server (IMHO). > However, I for one decided to move my servers away from Linux (as from > "Unix-like" Linux gradually becomes "Windows-like" during last 5 years or > so). Since some time ago I do not upgrade Linux systems on servers I > maintain. Instead, when the time comes, I just migrate server from Linux > to FreeBSD, which is much more suitable platform for server than Linux. > Version 7 of RedHat Enterprise or CentOS is much worse than version 6 to > build server on. Again, this is just my humble opinion. If I absolutely > have to build server on today's latest Linux, I will choose Debian, which > at least doesn't have systemd yet. But it will have it in next release... > > Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a > consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. > > Valeri > Do you run bhyve virtualisation on any of your migrated FreeBSD hosts? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/08/2014 07:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. Just your humble opinion, but how do you insist and repeat it :-) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/8/2014 3:16 PM, Dave Stevens wrote: Quoting Bowie Bailey : On 10/8/2014 12:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: I would say, CentOS 6 is the best of Linuxes suitable for server (IMHO). However, I for one decided to move my servers away from Linux (as from "Unix-like" Linux gradually becomes "Windows-like" during last 5 years or so). Since some time ago I do not upgrade Linux systems on servers I maintain. Instead, when the time comes, I just migrate server from Linux to FreeBSD, which is much more suitable platform for server than Linux. Version 7 of RedHat Enterprise or CentOS is much worse than version 6 to build server on. Again, this is just my humble opinion. If I absolutely have to build server on today's latest Linux, I will choose Debian, which at least doesn't have systemd yet. But it will have it in next release... What changes have you seen that affect using CentOS as a server? Sure, the GUI has changed over the years to be more like Windows, but most of my servers don't even have a GUI installed. I have servers running CentOS 4, 5, 6, and 7. The only differences I can think of between 4 and 7 that affect server administration are selinux and systemd. Selinux can be easily disabled if you don't want to deal with it. I don't like systemd at the moment, but that's at least partially due to only having worked with it for a couple of weeks so far. The more I use it, the more I get used to it. So far, it seems easy enough to use once you figure out the new commands and file locations. And the RAID setup is MUCH easier and more rational, really nice to use. Interesting. I built my CentOS 7 server with a raid 1 mirror. I found the raid setup in the installer to be confusing and very non-intuitive. I don't remember having any problems with it in previous versions. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/8/2014 12:50 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Wed, October 8, 2014 11:18 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: On 10/8/2014 9:13 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Someone had mentioned on this list the following RedHat Enterprise 7 (and as you know CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise with replaced art work): https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/part-Basic_System_Configuration.html so if I buy RHEL 7 books everything should work as in the book? part of the problem for me is that there aren't many books about CentOS, and the ones I found are a few years old This covers CentOS 7 system administration sufficiently well for me (but I work with Linux and Unix for over 1.5 decades...). So, if you decided to walk away from Windows, after you master Linux (or maybe simultaneously with starting it), take a look at Unix successors such as FreeBSD (most suitable for servers IMHO, some may recommend OpenBSD for servers, my preference is FreeBSD), NetBSD (most rich with what is ported to build and run on it), PC-BSD - based on FreeBSD, yet made easiest to install workstation whith GUI interface (X11) support. I understand, but this is primarily for servers for emails, web, etc., and it is my understanding that CentOS is one of the better distributions for that kind of stuff. I would say, CentOS 6 is the best of Linuxes suitable for server (IMHO). However, I for one decided to move my servers away from Linux (as from "Unix-like" Linux gradually becomes "Windows-like" during last 5 years or so). Since some time ago I do not upgrade Linux systems on servers I maintain. Instead, when the time comes, I just migrate server from Linux to FreeBSD, which is much more suitable platform for server than Linux. Version 7 of RedHat Enterprise or CentOS is much worse than version 6 to build server on. Again, this is just my humble opinion. If I absolutely have to build server on today's latest Linux, I will choose Debian, which at least doesn't have systemd yet. But it will have it in next release... What changes have you seen that affect using CentOS as a server? Sure, the GUI has changed over the years to be more like Windows, but most of my servers don't even have a GUI installed. I have servers running CentOS 4, 5, 6, and 7. The only differences I can think of between 4 and 7 that affect server administration are selinux and systemd. Selinux can be easily disabled if you don't want to deal with it. I don't like systemd at the moment, but that's at least partially due to only having worked with it for a couple of weeks so far. The more I use it, the more I get used to it. So far, it seems easy enough to use once you figure out the new commands and file locations. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Wed, October 8, 2014 11:18 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: > On 10/8/2014 9:13 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Someone had mentioned on this list the following RedHat Enterprise 7 >> (and >> as you know CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise with replaced >> art work): >> >> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/part-Basic_System_Configuration.html > so if I buy RHEL 7 books everything should work as in the book? part of > the problem for me is that there aren't many books about CentOS, and the > ones I found are a few years old >> This covers CentOS 7 system administration sufficiently well for me (but >> I >> work with Linux and Unix for over 1.5 decades...). >> >> So, if you decided to walk away from Windows, after you master Linux (or >> maybe simultaneously with starting it), take a look at Unix successors >> such as FreeBSD (most suitable for servers IMHO, some may recommend >> OpenBSD for servers, my preference is FreeBSD), NetBSD (most rich with >> what is ported to build and run on it), PC-BSD - based on FreeBSD, yet >> made easiest to install workstation whith GUI interface (X11) support. > I understand, but this is primarily for servers for emails, web, etc., > and it is my understanding that CentOS is one of the better > distributions for that kind of stuff. I would say, CentOS 6 is the best of Linuxes suitable for server (IMHO). However, I for one decided to move my servers away from Linux (as from "Unix-like" Linux gradually becomes "Windows-like" during last 5 years or so). Since some time ago I do not upgrade Linux systems on servers I maintain. Instead, when the time comes, I just migrate server from Linux to FreeBSD, which is much more suitable platform for server than Linux. Version 7 of RedHat Enterprise or CentOS is much worse than version 6 to build server on. Again, this is just my humble opinion. If I absolutely have to build server on today's latest Linux, I will choose Debian, which at least doesn't have systemd yet. But it will have it in next release... Again, this is just $0.02 worth of my own opinion, definitely not a consensus (and likely not even a majority opinion) on this list. Valeri > >> Just my $0.02 >> >> Valeri > Thank you for your 2 :) > >> >> 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 >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > Igal Sapir > Railo Core Developer > http://getRailo.org/ > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On 10/8/2014 9:13 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > Someone had mentioned on this list the following RedHat Enterprise 7 (and > as you know CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise with replaced > art work): > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/part-Basic_System_Configuration.html so if I buy RHEL 7 books everything should work as in the book? part of the problem for me is that there aren't many books about CentOS, and the ones I found are a few years old > This covers CentOS 7 system administration sufficiently well for me (but I > work with Linux and Unix for over 1.5 decades...). > > So, if you decided to walk away from Windows, after you master Linux (or > maybe simultaneously with starting it), take a look at Unix successors > such as FreeBSD (most suitable for servers IMHO, some may recommend > OpenBSD for servers, my preference is FreeBSD), NetBSD (most rich with > what is ported to build and run on it), PC-BSD - based on FreeBSD, yet > made easiest to install workstation whith GUI interface (X11) support. I understand, but this is primarily for servers for emails, web, etc., and it is my understanding that CentOS is one of the better distributions for that kind of stuff. > Just my $0.02 > > Valeri Thank you for your 2 :) > > 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 > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Igal Sapir Railo Core Developer http://getRailo.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
On Wed, October 8, 2014 10:51 am, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote: > hi all, > > after many years of working almost exclusively with Windows servers I am > trying to switch to CentOS. > > I have a couple of books which were written for CentOS 5, but many > (basic) things do not apply to CentOS 7 anymore, which is very confusing. > > Internet resources suffer from the same problem. > > for example, one of the books shows a Services configuration tool, which > should be accessible from System > Administration > Server > Services, > but I don't even have a System top menu anymore. the closest thing I > have is Applications > System Tools but there is no Services applet there. > > also, I am trying to set some shortcuts to the Desktop, and preferably > pin them to the Taskbar if such an option exists, but in vain. > > using Gnome 3.8.4 BTW. > > any ideas? advice? TIA! > Someone had mentioned on this list the following RedHat Enterprise 7 (and as you know CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise with replaced art work): https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/part-Basic_System_Configuration.html This covers CentOS 7 system administration sufficiently well for me (but I work with Linux and Unix for over 1.5 decades...). The documentation you have found for older systems is imminently different. The following is _MY_ opinion which should not be confused for consensus on this list. The truth is that with release 7 RedHat made a big step away from being "Unix-like" system towards "M$ Windows-like". Which is regretful, as this is not the first step, yet the most prominent one. So, if you decided to walk away from Windows, after you master Linux (or maybe simultaneously with starting it), take a look at Unix successors such as FreeBSD (most suitable for servers IMHO, some may recommend OpenBSD for servers, my preference is FreeBSD), NetBSD (most rich with what is ported to build and run on it), PC-BSD - based on FreeBSD, yet made easiest to install workstation whith GUI interface (X11) support. Just my $0.02 Valeri 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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 7 docs, tutorials, etc...
hi all, after many years of working almost exclusively with Windows servers I am trying to switch to CentOS. I have a couple of books which were written for CentOS 5, but many (basic) things do not apply to CentOS 7 anymore, which is very confusing. Internet resources suffer from the same problem. for example, one of the books shows a Services configuration tool, which should be accessible from System > Administration > Server > Services, but I don't even have a System top menu anymore. the closest thing I have is Applications > System Tools but there is no Services applet there. also, I am trying to set some shortcuts to the Desktop, and preferably pin them to the Taskbar if such an option exists, but in vain. using Gnome 3.8.4 BTW. any ideas? advice? TIA! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
