On 08/03/2012 01:54 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Brian Mathis
> wrote:
>> Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
>
> I suggest death by stoning to anyone who dares to engage into light
> chat about OS history while conversation drifts from the orig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Brian Mathis
> wrote:
>> Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
>
> I suggest death by stoning to anyone who dares to engage into light
> chat about OS history while convers
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Brian Mathis
wrote:
> Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
I suggest death by stoning to anyone who dares to engage into light
chat about OS history while conversation drifts from the original
topic...
*sarcasm*
FC
__
on 7/25/2012 6:44 AM Brian Mathis spake the following:
> Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
>
>
Sometimes you have to share the memories before they are gone for ever...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.o
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Brian Mathis wrote:
> To: CentOS mailing list
> From: Brian Mathis
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Oracle tries to capture CentOS users
>
> Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
Yes - the email address sti
Is any part of this thread related to CentOS anymore?
❧ Brian Mathis
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> Sorry, no. The only consulting special code I ever used was X25-uucp
> on SunOS 4.1.x
Thanks anyway for replying. I lose nothing by asking every former Sun
employee I run across. :))
I once built a small mini-ITX AMD x86 box mobo with ris
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:40:33PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> > (In my basement I have Solaris 1.1.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; all
> > but 2.5.1 are original in-box distributions)
>
> You're the right man, then, whom I should a
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> ext2fs fsck on reboot after a crash when you have dozens of SAN
> volumes totaling a few terabytes ? meh.
You mention ext2fs and I get cold sweath down my spine...
I lost an awful lot of data due to ext2 fsck...
FC
_
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> (In my basement I have Solaris 1.1.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; all
> but 2.5.1 are original in-box distributions)
You're the right man, then, whom I should ask about the elusive Sun
Bandwidth Manager (bwmgr) that someone at Sun Micr
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:45:47PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> with Irix mostly, through the early/mid-nineties). Solaris 6.3 == Sun 3;
> Solaris 6.4 was the next release, and was perfectly fine and solid.
There was no Solaris 6.3 or 6.4. "Sun 3" was a hardware platform (pre
Sparc)!
The Sys
On 07/24/12 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> We were primarily
>> >using Solaris as a Oracle database and Java application host.
> Linux wasn't all that great at Java then - you made the right choice.
early Linux was absolutely wretched at storage management if you had
more than a couple direct at
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 07/24/12 1:08 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Yeah, but fast forward another year or two and you had an extremely
>> buggy OS
>
> I've managed development servers running pretty much all of the Solaris
> releases from 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) to Solaris
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, wrote:
> >>>
>>> The first time I was doing sysadmin work was on a sparcserver, back in
>>> '95-'97, and I really, really liked that box. I agree, it was a real
>>> shame.
>>
>> Yeah, but fast forward another year or two and you had an extremely
>> buggy OS (not a
On 07/24/12 1:08 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yeah, but fast forward another year or two and you had an extremely
> buggy OS
I've managed development servers running pretty much all of the Solaris
releases from 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) to Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10), and if there
were bugs, they sure didn't aff
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, wrote:
>>>
>> The first time I was doing sysadmin work was on a sparcserver, back in
>> '95-'97, and I really, really liked that box. I agree, it was a real
>> shame.
>
> Yeah, but fast forward another year or two and you had an extremely
> b
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, wrote:
>>
> The first time I was doing sysadmin work was on a sparcserver, back in
> '95-'97, and I really, really liked that box. I agree, it was a real
> shame.
Yeah, but fast forward another year or two and you had an extremely
buggy OS (not a problem by itsel
Gé Weijers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Fernando Cassia
> wrote:
>> Sun JDS Linux was damn good (included Java and StarOffice preloaded,
>> and a cool Gnome theme).
>>
>> I used (purchased!) both JDS Linux 2003 and JDS Linux R2.
>> JDS Linux R3 was in beta by the time the Solaris mil
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Sun JDS Linux was damn good (included Java and StarOffice preloaded,
> and a cool Gnome theme).
>
> I used (purchased!) both JDS Linux 2003 and JDS Linux R2.
> JDS Linux R3 was in beta by the time the Solaris militia won the
> internal bat
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM, wrote:
> I agree. It was a real shame when Sun went on the block. But then, back in
> the nineties, I loved Sun 3 and Solaris. Most of this decade, though,
> Linux has become even friendlier and more useful to me.
Sun JDS Linux was damn good (included Java and St
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
>> "One throat to choke", as Scott McNealy used to say.
>
> Hehe, never heard that one. Cool guy Scott... too bad Sun had to go up for
> sale.
> I have my own version "a single person (or firm) to yell at"
I agree. It was
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
> "One throat to choke", as Scott McNealy used to say.
Hehe, never heard that one. Cool guy Scott... too bad Sun had to go up for sale.
I have my own version "a single person (or firm) to yell at"
FC
_
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> I just don't see the value proposition of OL from a user perspective.
I'd only consider OL if I was running Oracle software on top of it.
"One throat to choke", as Scott McNealy used to say.
--
Gé
_
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:39:16AM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> If someone wanted the 'value-added services of Oracle' they wouldn't
> be using CentOS but rather paying customers already and if they
> needed those services this 'free service to the community' Oracle is
> offering would not be
> RedHat and Oracle both provide value-add services. THAT is what you pay for.
>
But that flies in the face-value (rather than the hidden agenda) of
their statements... Oracle wouldn't *lie* to you would they?! /s
If someone wanted the 'value-added services of Oracle' they wouldn't
be using CentO
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>> I don' t think that would happen anytime soon. AFAIK if you check
>> distrowatch Oracle Linux ranks #50 and CentOS ranks #8.
>>
>> Also, I read somewhere that ORCL has 8,000 paid custmers to their
>> Linux subscr
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> I don' t think that would happen anytime soon. AFAIK if you check
> distrowatch Oracle Linux ranks #50 and CentOS ranks #8.
>
> Also, I read somewhere that ORCL has 8,000 paid custmers to their
> Linux subscription hardly a major player still.
> But like I said, the m
On Jul 20, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> While I will not be petty enough to post a Migration script from Oracle
> Linux to CentOS (I can't believe they posted that ... REALLY?), I will
> likely help anyone who asks me for help with that specific migration.
I wouldn't describe you
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Craig White wrote:
> >From my experience with Fernando on Fedora-List...
Hi there Craig :)
FC
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> So for all your ramblings of commercialism these past few posts you
> would rather use something free instead of paying? Really?
I said that Oracle Database does not interest me, because MySQL /
PostgreSQL is enough for my simple needs.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, wrote:
> Don't worry, just as soon as Oracle drives RH under, or buys them, they'll
> crank up the prices to higher than RH now -
I don' t think that would happen anytime soon. AFAIK if you check
distrowatch Oracle Linux ranks #50 and CentOS ranks #8.
Also, I re
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Craig White wrote:
> they want to sell SLA's which they sell cheaper than Red Hat which has caused
> a rather sucky side effect which makes it more difficult to produce
> customized kernels which would never have happened had Oracle not chosen to
> ride the coat
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Brian Mathis
wrote:
> Aren't the SRPMs available for OEL? How about an "Indestructible
> CentOS" sub-distro?
Yes, the srpms are available. That' s completely possible to do :)
FC
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.o
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Ken godee wrote:
>> Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Why don't they just continue to do something more useful
> like continue the support for "OpenSolaris"!
To be honest, it never had any traction. At least not down here. And
it goes back to the Sun days, pre-Oracle.
Back
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM, wrote:
> Um, there *is* a free version of Oracle.
I thought you meant "free as in freedom" and not "free as in free beer".
Yes, probably there is a free - limited - restricted -tryout -
development etc version fo Oracle database has IBM as provided of DB2
as well
On 22 July 2012 20:02, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 08:12 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> And I*love* the chart... never mind that RH changed the build structure
>> to give Oracle pain, and it hurt us
> That change affects Oracle because they update and modify the kernel.
> Since it's not
On 07/20/2012 08:12 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> And I*love* the chart... never mind that RH changed the build structure
> to give Oracle pain, and it hurt us
That change affects Oracle because they update and modify the kernel.
Since it's not pristine + patches like other SRPMs, Oracle has a m
> Came here asking about OpenJDK 7 support in CentOS 6.3, as I plan to
> run a Java based app server on it.
> Since I haven't installed Oracle's yet on the Sun box, no need still
> to ask any questions (I don't even know if there are mailing lists for
> Oracle's or web based forums).
>
You'll be p
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:45:40PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I think John was saying that Oracle isn't trying to "mirror" the RHEL
> package set, but "leech" off the RHEL package set.
Just to clarify so there are no mistaken impressions.
Oracle are, in the form of Larry Ellison, a bunch o
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:37:34PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>
> nit picking someone whose first language isn't English? Better to
> build a barrier to communication than to actual discuss the actual
> issues I guess.
Oh please. His mastery of the language is better than many native
speaker
Craig White wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:30:49PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>>> If you mean, ´free as in free beer" ... I guess it´s a matter of
>>> keeping things simple... as they try to mirror the RHEL package set...
>>
>> You
On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:30:49PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>> If you mean, ´free as in free beer" ... I guess it´s a matter of
>> keeping things simple... as they try to mirror the RHEL package set...
>
> You misspelled, once again
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:11:03PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
>
> Aren't the SRPMs available for OEL? How about an "Indestructible
> CentOS" sub-distro?
Yeah can we please just forget this and avoid all the litigation?
John
--
Of a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:30:49PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> If you mean, ´free as in free beer" ... I guess it´s a matter of
> keeping things simple... as they try to mirror the RHEL package set...
You misspelled, once again, "leech". It's a simple word, you should
really use it more ofte
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Craig White wrote:
>Oracle really doesn't care whether users install their OUL... they want to
>sell SLA's which they sell cheaper than Red Hat which has caused a rather
>sucky side effect which makes it more difficult to produce customized kernels
>which would
Craig White wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM, wrote:
>>> No, you should pay us, says Larry, I need to keep my yacht and fighter
>>> jet taken care of
>>
>> Once again, the problem seems to be hatred of Ellison more than anyth
On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM, wrote:
>> No, you should pay us, says Larry, I need to keep my yacht and fighter jet
>> taken care of
>
> Once again, the problem seems to be hatred of Ellison more than anything else.
some people
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ken godee wrote:
>> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Hinton wrote:
Meanwhile, if this is linux.oracle.com, shouldn't Oracle database be
included in the 'free version'?
>>>
>>> No, as IBM doesn´t make DB2 GPL either. It´s t
> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Hinton wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, if this is linux.oracle.com, shouldn't Oracle database be
>>> included in the 'free version'?
>>
>> No, as IBM doesn´t make DB2 GPL either. It´s the big bucks from the
>> fortune 500 proprietary products
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Hinton wrote:
>> Meanwhile, if this is linux.oracle.com, shouldn't Oracle database be
>> included in the 'free version'?
>
> No, as IBM doesn´t make DB2 GPL either. It´s the big bucks from the
> fortune 500 proprietary products which p
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Hinton wrote:
> Meanwhile, if this is linux.oracle.com, shouldn't Oracle database be
> included in the 'free version'?
No, as IBM doesn´t make DB2 GPL either. It´s the big bucks from the
fortune 500 proprietary products which pays -in part- for all the FOSS
g
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM, wrote:
>> Just one last question: if you think this highly of OUL, why are you
>> here?
>> Why haven't you gone to their lists?
> I want to run both, and don't see the point of having any grudges
> against any particular distro. But hey,
On 7/20/2012 11:15 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> On 20 July 2012 15:19, Chris wrote:
>> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
> I found the "update delay" graph laughable. They're comparing
> themselves to a bunch of volunteers and then say "we beat people work
> for free and for the love of it"...
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM, wrote:
> Just one last question: if you think this highly of OUL, why are you here?
> Why haven't you gone to their lists?
I have two AMD Opteron servers, a self-built one with Asus mobo, and a
Sun w1100z (ages old, single core Opteron).
I plan to run Oracle's o
On Friday, July 20, 2012 10:19:05 AM Chris wrote:
> Hello CentOS Guys :-)
>
> Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users :o
>
> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
They also mention Scientific Linux in their 'Q&A.'
___
CentOS mailing l
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM, wrote:
>> No, you should pay us, says Larry, I need to keep my yacht and fighter
>> jet taken care of
>
> Once again, the problem seems to be hatred of Ellison more than anything
> else.
Have you seen any of my other posts, where I d
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM, wrote:
> No, you should pay us, says Larry, I need to keep my yacht and fighter jet
> taken care of
Once again, the problem seems to be hatred of Ellison more than anything else.
Red Hat and CentOS based on it are #1, it´s only natural that smaller
players
On 20 July 2012 15:19, Chris wrote:
> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
I found the "update delay" graph laughable. They're comparing
themselves to a bunch of volunteers and then say "we beat people work
for free and for the love of it" Right... IMHO, I'd rather go for
RHEL if I'm paying.
Chris wrote:
> Hello CentOS Guys :-)
>
> Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users :o
>
> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
Yup. No, don't switch from CentOS to RHEL, switch to *us*, and pay even
more for very, very, very lousy support.*
And I *love* the chart... never mind th
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users :o
>
> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/106971/novell-looks-to-lure-red-hat-users/
---
Novell has launched a migration service in an attem
Hello CentOS Guys :-)
Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users :o
http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
--
Chris
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
61 matches
Mail list logo
