On 11/01/11 10:37 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to
>> > install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on*that* one host you can then
>> > install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to
>> > updates through RHN with
On 02/11/11 05:34, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
David Miller wrote
---
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are wi
On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>>> David Miller wrote
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
>>> CentOS as long
>>> as t
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:47 AM, fred smith wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:30:57AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
>>> Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:30:57AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> > Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
> >> Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some
> >> (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian ra
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
>> Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some
>> (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL
>> clones, which might eventually hurt the entire
>Any tips/tricks concerning it?
While I am used to using esx, I am forced to use vb on my wkst at my
new gig and can tell you there are age old bugs that have never been
resolved with respect to snap shot children not being cleaned up properly
and the xml config while having a nice programatic int
I have an older quad-core AMD processor that supports hardware
virtualization on a motherboard that does not support it in the bios.
Eventually I'll swap the mobo out on this box for one that will support
hardware virtualization and use qemu-kvm. I prefer kvm because of
SELinux and sVirt that prot
>
>
Do you have the
>
>
> allow_httpd_mod_auth_pam
>
> boolean turned on?
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6wVZgACgkQrlYvE4MpobOg8gCgzbPmuUBJJ20iBhAQnCoTvZVU
> NfUAoLz5TplWxxf
On 11/01/11 3:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical
> system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are
> only for the host system with the*ability* to host an unlimited number of
> guests and I st
- Original Message -
> From: "Johnny Hughes"
> To: centos@centos.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 2:12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] redhat vs centos
>
> On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen
> > wrote:
> >> Tony Mountifield wro
On 11/01/2011 06:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>>> David Miller wrote
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
>>> CentOS as long
>>>
On 11/01/2011 09:36 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> David Miller wrote
>> ---
>>
>> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
>> CentOS as long
>> as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really ca
>
> Do you have the
>
>
> allow_httpd_mod_auth_pam
>
> boolean turned on?
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6wVZgACgkQrlYvE4MpobOg8gCgzbPmuUBJJ20iBhAQnCoTvZVU
> NfUAoLz5TplWxxf
On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
>> Tony Mountifield wrote:
>>> In article
>>> ,
>>> Brian Mathis wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were
trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
> Tony Mountifield wrote:
>> In article
>> ,
>> Brian Mathis wrote:
>>>
>>> When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were
>>> trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were
>>> providing support to RHEL c
On 01/11/11 18:27, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> David Miller wrote
> ---
>
> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
> CentOS as long
> as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting
> "support" from
>the vendor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/2011 04:16 PM, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> I'm setting up a dedicated database server, and since this will be
> a central service to my various web servers I wanted it to be as
> secure as possible...so I am leaving SELinux enabled. However I'm
I'm setting up a dedicated database server, and since this will be a
central service to my various web servers I wanted it to be as secure as
possible...so I am leaving SELinux enabled. However I'm having trouble
getting Apache to use mod_auth_pam. I also now can't get setroubleshootd
working to
2011/11/1 David Hrbáč :
> Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
>> Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some
>> (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL
>> clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
>
> Well, there ar
on 11/1/2011 10:30 AM Grant McChesney spake the following:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, John Hinton wrote:
>
>> For those of you that still are running CentOS 4... I have one system
>> that is still going... there is a problem with the newest release of
>> Dovecot under mbox. Certain spam i
On 11/01/11 12:09 PM, fred smith wrote:
> Also, one wonders, since most of it is GPL (or gpl-compatible), how can
> they place acceptable use policies on it? (some of the non-gpl parts, sure,
> but...)
the AUP is on the services that RH provides.
--
john r pierceN 37
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:57:29PM -0400, Rob Kampen wrote:
> Tony Mountifield wrote:
> >In article
> >,
> >Brian Mathis wrote:
> >
> >>When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were
> >>trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were
> >>providing suppo
On 11/01/2011 02:27 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> David Miller wrote
> ---
>
> You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
> CentOS as long
> as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting
> "support" from
> the v
David Miller wrote
---
You can go with the self support option. Seeing you are willing to go with
CentOS as long
as there are timely updates. That tells me you dont really care about getting
"support" from
the vendor. You can pick up workstation self support for $50 and
Thanks to everybody for their suggestions, and for the pointer to getent, which
was a gap in my sysadmin toolchest.
I figured out the problem. The problem was that nslcd wasn't starting properly
because the nslcd user didn't exist. We're using the same base passwd file for
both centos5 and ce
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article ,
Brian Mathis wrote:
When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were
trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were
providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never
said they were concerned wit
On 11/01/11 9:47 AM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL/Centos.
Oracle Enterprise Linux
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
___
CentOS mailing
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, John Hinton wrote:
> For those of you that still are running CentOS 4... I have one system
> that is still going... there is a problem with the newest release of
> Dovecot under mbox. Certain spam is causing this error when users try to
> log on.
>
> file lib.c:
- Original Message -
> From: "Bob Hoffman"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:46:57 PM
> Subject: [CentOS] redhat vs centos
>
> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about
> redhat
> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
> I re
Vreme: 11/01/2011 05:27 PM, Akemi Yagi piše:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
>>> On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
making a move to th
Dne 1.11.2011 17:27, Akemi Yagi napsal(a):
> Real "problem" with recent release troubles with CentOS is that some
> (or many?) are migrating to Ubuntu/Debian rather than to other RHEL
> clones, which might eventually hurt the entire Red Hat community.
Well, there are no other RHEL clones except SL
On 11/01/2011 12:27 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
>>> On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
making a move to throw
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
>> On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>>> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
>>> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
>>
>> Having spoken to
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ..
Vreme: 11/01/2011 04:50 PM, Digimer piše:
> On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
>> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
>
> Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly
> believe t
On 11/01/2011 01:46 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
Having spoken to folks at Red Hat in an unofficial capacity, I strongly
believe that CentOS is appreciated by Red Hat. Changes Red
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Mitch Patenaude wrote:
> I'm having trouble setting up ldap based authenication.
>
> I have a virtual (KVM) CentOS 5.4 box set up to authenticate to a
> 389 (fedora) directory server, and that works fine.
>
> However, I set up a virtual box running CentOS 6, and I can't get i
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> No clone distros, including CentOS and Scientific Linux, are perfect.
> If someone asks which of the two has a better binary compatibility, I
> would answer, "they are equally good".
One of the 'selling points' as a big reason to use open sou
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is,
>>> Scientific Linux is coveri
On 01.11.2011 11:46, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi Patrick,
>
> On 10/31/2011 11:29 AM, Patrick Hurrelmann wrote:
>> thanks for quickly handling this. But aren't the updated xorg-x11-server
>> packages now missing in total? Or are they not yet ready for
>> cr?
>
> They are missing from the CR repo n
In article ,
Brian Mathis wrote:
>
> When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were
> trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were
> providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never
> said they were concerned with the free clones a
Vreme: 11/01/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Peltonen piše:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is,
>>> Scientific Linux is covering tha
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> 2011/11/1 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn :
>> On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>> 2011/11/1 Bob Hoffman:
I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
making a move to throw off centos compilations.
>>>
2011/11/1 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn :
> On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> 2011/11/1 Bob Hoffman:
>>> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
>>> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
>>> I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer w
On 11/01/2011 06:53 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> 2011/11/1 Bob Hoffman:
>> I have been reading the threads on here with great ernest about redhat
>> making a move to throw off centos compilations.
>> I read some stories about microsoft wanting to work closer with centos
>> http://www.theregister.co.
hi Patrick,
On 10/31/2011 11:29 AM, Patrick Hurrelmann wrote:
> thanks for quickly handling this. But aren't the updated xorg-x11-server
> packages now missing in total? Or are they not yet ready for
> cr?
They are missing from the CR repo now, I've got the srpm and debug info
stuff going out at
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
>> Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
>
> In which concrete use
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> One difference I ran into with samba authentication is in cent 5
> /etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac is the file to change but in cent 6 its
> /etc/pam.d/password-auth-ac. I found that changes I made only to
> system-auth-ac in 5 had to be made to both system-
> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
> Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
In which concrete use cases is 100% binary compatibility important?
_
50 matches
Mail list logo
