On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 17:01 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
For the love of Pete! If you use RHEL or CentOS, you'll have a stable,
reliable operating system with bug and security fixes for upward of 10
years! For free (in the case of CentOS)!
Not all updates are currently being supplied for
Just to note: Fedora has been upstream for RHEL for many years. New
features are tested in Fedora for a long time before they hit RHEL. For
example, systemd was first introduced in Fedora 15 (we are currently at
21). Ample time has been given to discuss, critique, provide feedback and
to help
On 01/13/2015 04:03 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Being in the real world rather than in the hectic and unstable 'change
every 6 months Fedora environment', just what are the RHEL/Centos 8
options at this moment? Real users of RHEL/SL/Centos want
1. stability
2. reliability
3. security revisions
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking.
Danger: Were starting to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
Is one to infer from that remark that the E in RHEL has no meaning
whatsoever? And that it should be ignored? Or perhaps redefined to
whatever is convenient for the moment and the POV of the definer? In
which case
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:40:55AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
As it happens a most useful, to me at least, piece of information was
revealed in the course of this thread. That was the existence of a
server based
For those who want to track what is going on in Fedora, http://
fedoramagazine.org/ highlights of discussions on the multitudinous
mailing lists, forums, meetings, etc.
For those interested in Fedora Server, its goals, and the people working on
it, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server seems a
On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:15 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 14:27 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
I only dragged Merriam-Webster into this to show that third party arbitration
doesn’t help settle the argument. That should tell you that we’re not
dealing with a single universal sense of the word “enterprise”. If we can’t
agree
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:38:03PM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux
kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that
level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite
a task. Less that writing one's own
On 01/11/2015 06:22 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Disruption = BAD Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD
Generalizations are always bad.
Some changes work best as a disruption; some changes work best as a
gradual thing. It really depends upon the change.
I experienced one of the nicer things
On Mon, January 12, 2015 8:20 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:38:03PM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux
kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to
that
level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking’.
Danger: We’re starting to get into dictionary flame territory. “But the
On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 11:20 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Oh, boy, I like this! Do we finally converge on not rebooting machines
often?!
A re-BOOT a day, is the Windoze way :-)
Lindoze ... coming to screen near you.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:17:00AM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
This is what I was referring to:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/it-seems-that-in-future-linux-kernel-itself-will-force-the-use-of-systemd-4175483653/
What? Did you only read the title of that page? This is
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it
_does_
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:00 am, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu
wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
Well (re)starting services in a reliable way?
Ensuring that services are up and running?
About which sysinit are you talking btw?
The
On 01/11/2015 01:04 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:
On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
That sounds like you have collected and counted votes pro and
against systemd.
How could it sound like I collected votes? I don't care about votes
when it comes to technical superiority.
As far as
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the
design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the
design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ?
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the
design goals of systemd and any of
On 01/11/2015 03:09 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev
I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote:
What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide?
Well (re)starting services in a reliable way?
Ensuring that services are up and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
That sounds like you have collected and counted votes pro and
against systemd.
How could it sound like I collected votes? I don't care about votes
when it comes to technical superiority.
As far as
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the
points like they don't exist.
Anyone who already has 'enterprise' software already running on a
distribution without systemd (e.g. any earlier
On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your
thought half a step farther ;-)
Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work
to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian users are
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I
look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way
back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins
were
On Sun, January 11, 2015 5:16 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your
thought half a step farther ;-)
Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work
On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if
I
look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if
I
look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way
back, - that was when all
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 17:00 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:
I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply
absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument
other than ad hominem and change = bad.
Disruption = BAD
Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +, Always Learning wrote:
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing
systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing
Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange design goal (or 'objective' in
On 01/11/2015 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith
For those who don't know, as of version 21, Fedora has split into 3
streams: workstation, server, and cloud. This addresses many of the
concerns raised in this thread. See https://getfedora.org/ for details. I
gather we'll see the impact of this change with CentOS-8.
Kal
On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I
misunderstood the USA definition of Enterprise ?
Enterprise to me implies large business
Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'.
I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me
- and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is
primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS.
The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very
different,
On Jan 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote:
unless the USA people, who have decimated my language
(English), have a new definition for technology”.
If you roll back all the changes made to English since colonial times, you’re
left with Middle English. So, how do you
Quoting Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 09:35 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Once a thing becomes reliable, it stops being technology.
Oh No. Just because something works well it does not stop being
technology unless the USA people, who have decimated my language
On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I
misunderstood the USA definition of Enterprise ?
Enterprise to me implies large business. Businesses that don't adapt
to external changes become fossils and die off.
--
john r pierce
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 14:20 -0800, Dave Stevens wrote:
Quoting Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net:
Oh No. Just because something works well it does not stop being
technology unless the USA people, who have decimated my language
(English), have a new definition for technology.
ah,
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 14:36 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I
misunderstood the USA definition of Enterprise ?
Enterprise to me implies large business. Businesses that don't adapt
to
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 09:35 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Once a thing becomes reliable, it stops being technology.
Oh No. Just because something works well it does not stop being
technology unless the USA people, who have decimated my language
(English), have a new definition for technology.
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 12:55 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/8/2015 8:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
But now that I'm approaching retirement ...
is that a promise ? please, hurry up. I, for one, am tired of your
diatribes about how change is bad, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Is
Hello,
Kt, 2015 01 08 11:32 -0600, Valeri Galtsev rašė:
right: snorkel ;-) One of the pushing points was: already then on
average every 30-45 days was either glibc or kernel update, meaning you
have to reboot the box (and on multiple threads here there was a bunch of
other unpleasant things
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote:
If we express them
here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless,
that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in
most of the traffic on the Fedora devel list, might
On Thu, January 8, 2015 10:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
wrote:
A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list
does not give one much hope that such a point of view would be
tolerated, much less
On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
I question intelligence of an attitude that something
(that works for some people) has to be destroyed to make room for
something else one thinks to be more appropriate.
The amount of actively-maintained software has
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:11:10AM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Just on a side note: I question intelligence of an attitude that something
(that works for some people) has to be destroyed to make room for
something else one thinks to be more appropriate.
Let me start by saying I'm also not a
On Thu, January 8, 2015 11:32 am, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Thu, January 8, 2015 10:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
wrote:
A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list
does not give one much hope that
On Thu, January 8, 2015 11:27 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:11:10AM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Just on a side note: I question intelligence of an attitude that
something
(that works for some people) has to be destroyed to make room for
something else one thinks to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
2. Reduce the amount of effort it takes to maintain a given feature set.
A lot of work has gone into that. It’s one reason software is moving to
higher- and higher-level languages. Much of the Red Hat specific code in
On Jan 6, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 20:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is there any centralized approach to converting something
that worked on CentOS6 to run on CentOS7?
Brilliant task to assign to Warren Young.
You’re awfully free
On Wed, January 7, 2015 09:48, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 08:45:29PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
It's not relevant in _any_ sense. CentOS is nothing more than (at
it's core) a rebuild of RHEL. This type of nonsense should be
directed to Red Hat in a Red Hat venue.
On Jan 7, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
There's still a very odd mix of art and science involved.
Yes. This is part of what I was getting at with my definition of “technology.”
Once a thing becomes reliable, it stops being technology. It’s been reduced
to the
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Would the world really be a better place if CDE had never been replaced? Me,
I’ll take GNOME 3 and all its warts over CDE any day of the week. CDE never
would have *evolved* to be the equal of GNOME; it had to be
On Thu, January 8, 2015 10:52 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Would the world really be a better place if CDE had never been replaced?
Me, Iâll take GNOME 3 and all its warts over CDE any day of the week.
CDE never would have
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list
does not give one much hope that such a point of view would be
tolerated, much less welcomed.
Exactly. They don't care about breakage, only
On Jan 8, 2015, at 8:48 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
these influential people have chosen not to pay RH
for their offering. It might be of some interest to RH in determining
why this is so.
I’ll tell you why we don’t subscribe.
First, we don’t need their support. We’re
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:48:03AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
After all, because we use CentOS rather than RHEL and forgo the
provision of RH's expert advice, then we ourselves and our
organisations are a self-identified technologically advanced user
community. And we are concerned more
On Jan 6, 2015, at 7:45 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:52:48PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
I am explaining to them why this is not a productive view.
It's not relevant in _any_ sense. CentOS is nothing more than (at it's
core) a rebuild of RHEL.
On 1/8/2015 8:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
But now that I'm approaching retirement ...
is that a promise ? please, hurry up. I, for one, am tired of your
diatribes about how change is bad, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
--
john r pierce 37N
On 1/8/2015 12:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well it was what I want. Now it's different.
the world changes.get over it.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
___
CentOS mailing
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
How log do you need to keep saying the same thing.
As long as it is right and people keep arguing with it, I guess.
CentOS is now what it has been for 11 years. If that is what you want,
use it. If it is not what you
On 01/08/2015 11:23 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org
wrote:
If we express them
here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless,
that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in
most of
On 07 January 2015 @01:37 zulu, Always Learning wrote:
You seem to forget. Computers were invented to perform repetitive tasks.
Or maybe, some of us just seem to remember it differently.
In my opinion, robots/automatons were invented to perform repetitive
tasks; computers were invented to
John R. Dennison писал 2015-01-07 04:49:
Quick question, if I may? What does this have to do with CentOS?
I for one read this thread with interest. Let it be.
And IMHO the topics are relevant for anybody professionally involved
with computers.
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 08:31 -0500, Darr247 wrote:
On 07 January 2015 @01:37 zulu, Always Learning wrote:
You seem to forget. Computers were invented to perform repetitive tasks.
Or maybe, some of us just seem to remember it differently.
In my opinion, robots/automatons were invented to
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Darr247 darr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07 January 2015 @01:37 zulu, Always Learning wrote:
You seem to forget. Computers were invented to perform repetitive tasks.
Or maybe, some of us just seem to remember it differently.
In my opinion, robots/automatons were
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 08:45:29PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
It's not relevant in _any_ sense. CentOS is nothing more than (at it's
core) a rebuild of RHEL. This type of nonsense should be directed to
Red Hat in a Red Hat venue. It's nothing but off-topic noise here as
CentOS will not
On 01/07/2015 01:06 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 16:07 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that
remains is more and more precise measurement.”
— William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1900
Now means the current
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Docker will eat away at this problem going forward. You naturally will not
already have Dockerized versions of apps built 10 years ago, and it may not
be practical to create them now, but you can start insisting on getting
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 16:07 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that
remains is more and more precise measurement.”
— William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1900
Now means the current time. Now is not, and never will be, The
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
There are more JavaScript interpreters in the world than Dalvik, ART,[2]
and Java ® VMs combined. Perhaps we should rewrite everything in
JavaScript instead?
I'm counting the running/useful instances of actual program
On Jan 6, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
So, after you've spent at least 10 years rolling out machines to do
things as fast as you can, and teaching the others in your
organization to spell
On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
There are more JavaScript interpreters in the world than Dalvik, ART,[2]
and Java ® VMs combined. Perhaps we should rewrite everything in
JavaScript
On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 16:07 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that
remains is more and more precise measurement.”
— William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1900
On Jan 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:37:42PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Noise removed.
Quick question, if I may? What does this have to do with CentOS?
Some people are annoyed that CentOS keeps changing on them, and keep going
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 20:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is there any centralized approach to converting something
that worked on CentOS6 to run on CentOS7? Does the program that is
supposed to try to automatically upgrade versions have any tricks
hidden away to fix things so they work after
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:37:42PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Noise removed.
Quick question, if I may? What does this have to do with CentOS?
Some
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:37:42PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Noise removed.
Quick question, if I may? What does this have to do with CentOS?
John
--
Spring is nature's way of saying, Let's party!
-- Robin Williams (1952-), American
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 18:51 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
I think we’ll figure out something new to do with computers tomorrow.
Certainly by Friday at latest.
You seem to forget. Computers were invented to perform repetitive tasks.
Computer usage should be serving mankind - not making it more
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:52:48PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Some people are annoyed that CentOS keeps changing on them, and keep going to
greater and greater lengths to try and argue that CentOS should not change.
I am explaining to them why this is not a productive view.
It's not
On Jan 3, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
where is the part of EL7 that doesn’t add columns of numbers correctly?
If the program won't start or the distribution libraries are
incompatible
On Jan 2, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
I’m not interested in the reverse case, where an old server could not take
over from a newer one, because there’s no good reason to manage the upgrade
that way. You drop the new one in as a backup, take the old one offline,
On 01/02/2015 07:49 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On Jan 1, 2015, at 2:15 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Wed, December 31, 2014 12:03, Warren Young wrote:
So, cope with change.
Is one to infer from your mantra 'cope with change' that one is not supposed
to express any opinion
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
OK, but should one developer make an extra effort or the bazillion
people affected by it?
That developer is either being paid by a company with their own motivations
or is scratching his own itch. You have no claim on his
On Jan 1, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 12/29/2014 09:04 PM, Warren Young wrote:
The vast majority of software developed is in-house stuff, where the
developers and the users *can* enter into an agile delivery cycle.
Where did you get the 5% from
An industry
On Jan 1, 2015, at 2:15 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Wed, December 31, 2014 12:03, Warren Young wrote:
So, cope with change.
Is one to infer from your mantra 'cope with change' that one is not supposed
to express any opinion whatsoever, ever, on any forum
No, it’s a
On Dec 31, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
You keep talking about the cost of coping with change, but apparently you
believe maintaining legacy interfaces is cost-free.
Take it from a
On Wed, December 31, 2014 12:03, Warren Young wrote:
So, cope with change.
Is one to infer from your mantra 'cope with change' that one is not supposed
to express any opinion whatsoever, ever, on any forum; on the externalised
cost of changes made to software with no evident technical
On 12/29/2014 09:04 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing fast.
Sure, if you don't care if
On Thu, January 1, 2015 3:15 pm, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Wed, December 31, 2014 12:03, Warren Young wrote:
So, cope with change.
Is one to infer from your mantra 'cope with change' that one is not
supposed
to express any opinion whatsoever, ever, on any forum; on the externalised
cost
On 12/28/2014 08:52 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.. The design changes are done in Fedora, .
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people
make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate
On Dec 29, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
it's not necessary for either code interfaces or data structures
to change in backward-incompatible ways.
You keep talking about the cost of coping with change, but apparently you
believe maintaining legacy interfaces is
On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:00 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
How many single computers have to be up 24/7?
A hundred or more, here, individual servers, 24x7.
I’m more interested in a percentage than absolute values.
And I’m only interested in boxes that simply cannot go down
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
it's not necessary for either code interfaces or data structures
to change in backward-incompatible ways.
You keep talking about the cost of coping
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
