[CentOS] Problems with Samba-based Home-Directory
Hi folks,
I'm running CentOS 6.6 on my workstation. There I have a user meikel,
and its home directory /home/meikel ist stored on a samba share on a
server which also runs CentOS 6.6.
In the very beginning I added the mount options for that home directory
into the /etc/fstab file which led to some problems, so I set up autofs
for mounting the home directory.
The autofs seems to work for /home/meikel, but sometimes when I login at
the GUI, I get error messages which look a little as if the home dir
isn't available, I then also don't get my desktop background image. The
two error dialogs which I get in that situation show the following messages:
Could not update ICEauthority file /home/meikel/.ICEauthority
and
Es gibt ein Problem mit dem Konfigurationsserver.
(/usr/libexec/gconf-sanity-check-2 beendet mit Status 256)
Sorry for the german, it's not clear to me how to get it in english.
It's something like There's a problem with configuration server.
(/usr/libexec/gconf-sanity-check-2 terminated with exit-code 256)
To do some analysis I did the following:
- Restart workstation, wait until login screen appears
- use CTRL-ALT-F2 to go to a text console
- log in as root
- mount -- it seems that /home/meikel isn't mounted (and this is what I
expect)
- ll /home/meikel/ -- it's fine, I can see alls the files and
subdirectories
- ll /home/meikel/Dokumente/ -- it's also fine
- df -h /home/meikel -- now the mount is there
- mount | grep meikel -- yes, the mount is there
- use CTRL-ALT-F3 to go to another text console
- log in as user meikel -- I get an error saying No directory
/home/meikel!, but I'm logged in
- pwd -- it shows the root dir /
- id -- it shows uid=500(meikel) gid=500(meikel)
- ll -d /home/meikel -- drwx-- meikel:meikel
- echo ${HOME} -- shows /home/meikel
So the directory /home/meikel is definitely there. Can someone explain
the error message No directory /home/meikel! and give any hints about
possible problem causes? How can it say that the directory isn't here
but I can see all the data?
Regards,
Meikel
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS-virt] New VDSM and QEmu-KVM versions available for testing
Hi, the following packages from oVirt 3.5.4 RC1 have been pushed to testing repositories: - qemu-kvm-ev-2.1.2-23.el7_1.4.1 - vdsm-4.16.21-1.el7 You're welcome to test them[1] and provide feedback. [1] http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/oVirt Thanks, -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com ___ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
[CentOS] Status: openssl security update
Hello CentOS-Team, is https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1197.html in the pipeline? Thanks, LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What causes phantom update nags?
On 7/1/2015 2:35 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: OK, here ya go -- Obsoleting Packages perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-Compress-Zlib.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Base.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Zlib.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates rpmforge née RepoForge is not being updated much anymore and is no longer a 'good' repository. for an example perl-IO-Compress hasn't been updated since 2012.anyways, perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2 is part of base in el6. I would uninstall any packages you need that are from rpmforge, remove that repo from your repos.d and find equivalent packages in a better supported repository. this should list any RepoForge packages that are already installed on your system... rpm -qa |egrep \\.rf -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On 07/01/2015 05:10 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:20, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: My understanding is CentOS doesn't really support dual-boot anyway, whereas Fedora does. Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. -- Jonathan Billings Since Linux first came out in '92, every distro I've used-- SLS, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, CentOS, and probably one or two others-- *all* have allowed dual-boot. The feature is built into grub, and lilo before that. Anyone who put together a distro which didn't support dual-boot would have to take the feature out-- rewrite the code (and why do that just to take out a perfectly functioning feature?)--, else use some other boot loader... e.g., the Raspberry Pi distros don't support dual-boot AFAIK. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] IPMI/BMC/BIOS
We have recently been asked to evaluate some computing machinery for a new project. This particular end user has very limited experience with the stated security requirements in a lights-out environment. Their primary work (as well as mine) in the past has been with very small, simple networks of desktop machines and a few servers with extremely limited access. For the most part, their admins haverefused to use any maintenance connectivity to servers other thanthe primary serial ports. There is a concern about system security primarily driven by recent information searches performed by end user admins and included below. IPMI/BMC Security Issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Platform_Management_Interface http://www.google.com Search: IPMI Security Holes -- Hits: 14,500 http://www.google.com Search: IPMI BMC Security Holes -- Hits: 4950 BIOS Security Issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS http://www.google.com Search: BIOS Security Holes -- Hits: 342,000 My initial recommendation was to use a totally separate network for any service processors within the servers that implement IPMI/BMC capabilities. This has been standard practice in most systems I have worked on in the past, and has allowed certification with essentially no problems. The BIOS concern seems to be another issue to be addressed separately. Any connectivity and access to a system brings security issues. The list from these searches is huge. Are there specific things that must always be addressed for system security besides keeping junior admins off the server supporting the maintenance network? Thanks in advance for any feedback and best regards. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2015:1197 Moderate CentOS 5 openssl Security Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2015:1197 Moderate
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1197.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
8b8c609255b3fc78e8a8227dfcf456fc6fad6ee44402b00741d66eb7a7c91b02
openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm
61f39339bba2e5d56667ccf56d5209e48dc3bce26b45d1b0d043ae5a5f4cd96c
openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i686.rpm
00f5e3d2df2c933bbc7d49df3a0496212963eae0923ea1a8ab78c698bd67ab30
openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm
6e76fd11355d47b0ba0afc79f8cfe97fea5ec3434dc4ec0a75d426fd2a1f3d09
openssl-perl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm
x86_64:
61f39339bba2e5d56667ccf56d5209e48dc3bce26b45d1b0d043ae5a5f4cd96c
openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i686.rpm
9f922500d3726e5e910e3291bd6ababbd82df79b9b504f654e8711e3922d24a7
openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm
00f5e3d2df2c933bbc7d49df3a0496212963eae0923ea1a8ab78c698bd67ab30
openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm
be2e32d534efa94c2be0077f4cd9fcb4923f4cf1c5f34002ad865ea28e127f6a
openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm
949a68f470e7baaa9385c6a5b6efbab45762e8693a2258e2b5cf2a755fadfc16
openssl-perl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm
Source:
d3fd488129138efbffee4176587436a22c10e54950bc274f1fd894dc355adf55
openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2015:1205 CentOS 6 cluster BugFix Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:1205
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1205.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
90ef0a84184a3857346cc2b4693509e5d91d5bb0a9acda7cd4904fd14aade523
clusterlib-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
24a565af8a5f95f74ce5e361db082cfd583507446ba2915772e2f54ce5ef16a2
clusterlib-devel-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
0649fb13b74635527b1bbdfeb34dadf4198d6886397b38f9605b38cd85e5f8a2
cman-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
dab56b4f6957e8a1136e735d1b3f271555c04adb61dbca496c50393277d13529
gfs2-utils-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
x86_64:
90ef0a84184a3857346cc2b4693509e5d91d5bb0a9acda7cd4904fd14aade523
clusterlib-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
06cd9d2f96a961d1c67f89ced86925224b636d2371a5ea75b2ab9fd7afb78f98
clusterlib-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.x86_64.rpm
24a565af8a5f95f74ce5e361db082cfd583507446ba2915772e2f54ce5ef16a2
clusterlib-devel-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.i686.rpm
ea72d89d426bc921d34d650b69c07673558dea746d6de0f11785729fba7c398f
clusterlib-devel-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.x86_64.rpm
9bc8ecb5f0a5daf0a1dd7890612395a905576b922b1820baee4213a4614557d0
cman-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.x86_64.rpm
fcf679b864fb47c769c2a735197f853164aec04d5a968efbb23efa567f9d1698
gfs2-utils-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
13e2a6f640e75705771785dd7248eb66bb3dd039df0eb3ea462df0497e65968d
cluster-3.0.12.1-68.el6_6.1.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
Re: [CentOS] Status: openssl security update
Am 02.07.2015 um 11:45 schrieb Leon Fauster leonfaus...@googlemail.com: is https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1197.html in the pipeline? http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-July/021230.html -- Thanks! LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] An mdadm question
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: CentOS 7. I have a server with four drives. 1 is /, and the other three are in RAID5. I need to pull a drive, so I can test whether the server can read 2TB drives. I've been googling, but don't want to screw the server up I think I'd like to 1. stop the RAID 2. pull a drive 3. put in a large drive, and run parted, and mkfs 4. pull the large drive 5. replace the RAID drive 6. fire up the RAID. So, can I do it in that order? Do I need to fail something? If you really just want to test if it can use 2Tb disks, unplug all disks, plug in 4Tb disk, boot off liveCD, tinker. When done, reverse. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM, ken geb...@mousecar.com wrote: On 07/01/2015 05:10 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:20, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: My understanding is CentOS doesn't really support dual-boot anyway, whereas Fedora does. Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. Considering CentOS 7, at least, doesn't include ntfsprogs, the installation of CentOS can't support shrink or discovery of Windows in order to create a GRUB menu entry for it. That tools exist the user can make this work after installation is not at all what I'd consider supported. Since Linux first came out in '92, every distro I've used-- SLS, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, CentOS, and probably one or two others-- *all* have allowed dual-boot. The feature is built into grub, and lilo before that. Anyone who put together a distro which didn't support dual-boot would have to take the feature out-- rewrite the code (and why do that just to take out a perfectly functioning feature?)--, else use some other boot loader... e.g., the Raspberry Pi distros don't support dual-boot AFAIK. Dual boot support has a large number of dependencies, it's not just dependent on GRUB doing the right thing. When ntfsprogs isn't included on installation media, for example, Windows dual boot isn't going to happen at install time, you have to do it manually after installing ntfsprogs. Further, Anaconda (the installer used by RHEL, CentOS, Fedora) does not support enabling all LVs at installation time. Therefore GRUB won't find other Linux installations. So a default CentOS installation followed by a default Fedora installation, or vice versa; or CentOS/Fedora n system which then has n+1 installed, renders the n version unbootable. The user has to fix this post install. I'd hardly call this form of dual boot support, any kind of support whatsoever. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 Next, the RHEL/CentOS/Fedora GRUB lacks the rather old patches that SUSE submitted, to bring UEFI Secure Boot to GRUB's chainloader.mod. Therefore it isn't possible to have Secure Boot enabled, and chainload Windows 8 (it fails). So that's broken too. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170245#c23 Finally, GRUB's grub-mkconfig command doesn't create EFI chainloading entries for OS X. Instead it wrongly assumes Linux is booted in CSM-BIOS mode, and has OS X boot entries designed to do an EFI boot from a BIOS build of GRUB and the result is a kernel panic. For this to work correctly it needs to chainload Apple's OS X bootloader, which is the only reliable way to do this now that they've moved to using their version of a logical volume manager by default, and nothing in the free software world knows how to read that format yet. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893179#c16 So pretty much in every possible way this is broken. I don't see how anyone says dual boot is supported on CentOS. It's barely supported on Fedora where right now only Windows on BIOS or 'UEFI without Secure Boot' are supported configurations. It's not even supported to install Fedora after CentOS, there's no release criteria saying that it must work, therefore there's no blocking releases on that bug, therefore it's considered not supported. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] An mdadm question
CentOS 7. I have a server with four drives. 1 is /, and the other three are in RAID5. I need to pull a drive, so I can test whether the server can read 2TB drives. I've been googling, but don't want to screw the server up I think I'd like to 1. stop the RAID 2. pull a drive 3. put in a large drive, and run parted, and mkfs 4. pull the large drive 5. replace the RAID drive 6. fire up the RAID. So, can I do it in that order? Do I need to fail something? mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Jul 2, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: It's effectively impossible. Very few people know how to do this. Relatively few people know how to write C programs, but that doesn’t make it effectively impossible” to write them, nor does it mean that CentOS can’t run C programs. Bad analogy. Car doesn't come with a CD player. Does the dealer support your user installed CD player? No. Your CD player, you installed it, you support it, or whoever you paid to install it can support it, not the car manufacturer or dealer's problem. Car analogies are almost as bad as philosophy when it comes to getting oneself tangled in thought. The “CD player” equivalent of the current CentOS situation is the old DIN 7736 standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_7736 If your car has a DIN 7736 bay, you can easily replace the existing head unit without redesigning the car. This is directly equivalent to repartitioning and installing CentOS alongside Windows. If you have UEFI and Secure Boot screwing things up for you, that’s like one of these modern cars that integrates the body computer and what we used to call the head unit into a single proprietary electronics package so that if you tried to replace the radio, you could no longer roll down the windows. To blame CentOS for this UEFI+SB situation is like blaming Crutchfield for the fact that you can’t buy a Pioneer head unit for a 2015 Ford Focus. In both cases, the blame properly resides with the provider of the host hardware. Fewer care to learn when there are platforms that make this much easier. If you want Ubuntu, you know where to get it. Ubuntu fails to boot UEFI+Secure Boot Windows 8.x as well. For some lame reason, only openSUSE has the secure boot patches for GRUB Whatever. Unimportant detail. The important thing is that the availability of OSes that do this does not force CentOS to also do it. Regardless, this is not the right place to argue about it. CentOS does not drive changes into Fedora or RHEL. If you want this fixed, get involved with Fedora. Android arrived at rapid success Yyyeahh… A bit of revisionist history there. Android started out in 2003 as yet another boring cellphone OS, aimed at replacing the likes of Palm, Symbian, Blackberry, and Danger. Google bought them in 2005, but the resulting Android 1.0 utterly failed to set the world on fire. It wasn’t until 2007 when the iPhone came out and showed the world what a mobile communication device was supposed to look like that Google got onto the path that lead to what we think of as Android today. Android 2.x (2009) was Google’s first try at market space exclusively held by the iPhone, up to that time. It was to iPhone as Ubuntu is to OS X today: kinda the same thing, but not really a serious competitor. Then they rebuilt much of the OS in the semi-proprietary 3.x line, which wasn’t widely deployed to the rest of the OHA partners until 4.0 came out in 2011. That’s between 4 and 8 years to achieve “rapid success,” and it was done with the resources of a $133+ bn company chasing a 2+ bn handset market. The idea that CentOS can or even should follow such a trajectory is ridiculous. Oh, and just to drag this thing back on-point, Android won’t repartition an iOS device and dual-boot *it*, either. And no it's not just about dual boot. It's also the never ending regressions that break things. Welcome to computing. There is no shielded enclave where nothing changes, and nothing breaks. Get over it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Jul 2, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On 07/01/2015 05:10 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. Considering CentOS 7, at least, doesn't include ntfsprogs, the installation of CentOS can't support shrink or discovery of Windows in order to create a GRUB menu entry for it. That tools exist the user can make this work after installation is not at all what I'd consider supported”. That’s a really narrow interpretation. The behavior you describe, where the OS installer can shrink an existing NTFS partition to allow room for Linux partitions doesn’t go back to 1992, yet we managed to dual-boot back then. I've suggested that the distribution doesn't support dual boot if it has no hand in making it possible. The user doing this on their own manually is user enabled and supported. The distro has nothing to do with it. Would it be *nice* if RHEL/Fedora/CentOS could do this? Sure. Is it a necessary prerequisite? Absolutely not. I disagree. Along the same lines as this, relating primarily to security and privacy: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32686.html I'll argue that the four freedoms aren't meaningful when they only benefit a scant minority. And the end result is, increasingly, developers are picking Macs because so many basic UI/UX things are handled so well and continue to be a PITA on Linux (desktop in particular). http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31714.html -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: I've suggested that the distribution doesn't support dual boot if it has no hand in making it possible. The user doing this on their own manually is user enabled and supported. The distro has nothing to do with it. The difference between us is that you see that as a problem. It is a problem for everyone except the privileged few. It is not a problem for me, because I happen to be one of the privileged few and I happen to think dual boot UX is complete utter shit and therefore avoid it whenever possible. But that reality doesn't help everybody else achieve their goals. There are a great many things the CentOS installer doesn’t do for you, that you are expected to do for yourself. And those are likewise things that are not supported by the CentOS installer. All I've said here is that dual boot is NOT actually supported by the CentOS installer. Now if you want to argue that's a bug, and ntfsprogs should have been included in the media so that this could be supported, that's an improvement. But the support would still be weak because it'd still be broken in more use cases. Would it be *nice* if RHEL/Fedora/CentOS could do this? Sure. Is it a necessary prerequisite? Absolutely not. I disagree. Along the same lines as this, relating primarily to security and privacy: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32686.html I'll argue that the four freedoms aren't meaningful when they only benefit a scant minority. Ah, it's *philosophy* then. The “science” that lets us spin words until we get ourselves so dizzy we can’t think straight. Sigh. I'm not dizzy, my clarity on this is quite good. Philosophy is in part what's brought us the concept of libre software in the first place, I seriously doubt you're going to castigate the whole concept of free software just because it's founded in a philosophy of, you know, freedom. Given that CentOS doesn’t let you create C programs without any knowledge of how to program, would you also argue that CentOS doesn’t give you Freedom 0? No, but that would render the freedoms moot. Programs are assumed to exist, just like electricity is assumed to exist. This is what happens when you start using entitlement arguments. No entitlement argument has been made. Software freedom doesn't matter if there's no software. Software freedom doesn't matter if there are no users. When you have users who need a particular workflow for which all the programs exist, and the solutions to deficiencies are known but aren't addressed by development, then there are disenfranchised users and to them the freedoms don't matter. Those freedoms can't be realized without access. I'm not saying access is a right or an entitlement, I'm saying the lack of access has consequences, and that consequence is free software is rendered impotent to those users. It doesn't free them if it's not something they can use. CentOS isn’t required to do absolutely everything for you that it could possibly do. Someone has to spend the time to make that happen. If you are not willing and able to do this work yourself, you have no claim on the time of people who can. I'm not making a claim on anyone's time. I'm stating, as provable fact, that as a consequence of those who could do this work and choose not to, even when the problems and solutions are clear and even well tested, many users who could and would use free software do not use free software. They resort to using proprietary software. And the end result is, increasingly, developers are picking Macs because so many basic UI/UX things are handled so well and continue to be a PITA on Linux (desktop in particular). OS X *also* doesn’t resize Windows partitions for you. OS X's Boot Camp feature will resize an HFS+ partition to make room for Windows, but it can’t then split the NTFS partition to make room for Linux. Triple booting is an unsupported configuration by Apple. Installing OS X after Windows is an unsupported configuration. There is only one supported configuration, and that's a disk with one (visible) partition with OS X on it. Boot Camp Assistant will only split that configuration to make room for a single Windows installation. But this can be done with CLI tools successfully. But it's still unsupported by Boot Camp Assistant. Just like CentOS's installer not being able to shrink NTFS, install to free space, and configure a boot loader that boots both OS's means the CentOS installer doesn't support dual boot (with Windows, and also doesn't support dual boot with any Linux that uses LVM). I'm being completely consistent here. Just because there's some way for the user to make something work doesn't mean it's supported by anyone except them. Boot Camp won’t even support triple boot. If you want to, you’re into a situation that’s considerably more complicated than
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: I've suggested that the distribution doesn't support dual boot if it has no hand in making it possible. The user doing this on their own manually is user enabled and supported. The distro has nothing to do with it. The difference between us is that you see that as a problem. There are a great many things the CentOS installer doesn’t do for you, that you are expected to do for yourself. Would it be *nice* if RHEL/Fedora/CentOS could do this? Sure. Is it a necessary prerequisite? Absolutely not. I disagree. Along the same lines as this, relating primarily to security and privacy: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32686.html I'll argue that the four freedoms aren't meaningful when they only benefit a scant minority. Ah, it's *philosophy* then. The “science” that lets us spin words until we get ourselves so dizzy we can’t think straight. Sigh. Given that CentOS doesn’t let you create C programs without any knowledge of how to program, would you also argue that CentOS doesn’t give you Freedom 0? This is what happens when you start using entitlement arguments. CentOS isn’t required to do absolutely everything for you that it could possibly do. Someone has to spend the time to make that happen. If you are not willing and able to do this work yourself, you have no claim on the time of people who can. And the end result is, increasingly, developers are picking Macs because so many basic UI/UX things are handled so well and continue to be a PITA on Linux (desktop in particular). OS X *also* doesn’t resize Windows partitions for you. OS X's Boot Camp feature will resize an HFS+ partition to make room for Windows, but it can’t then split the NTFS partition to make room for Linux. Boot Camp won’t even support triple boot. If you want to, you’re into a situation that’s considerably more complicated than what you have to go through to dual-boot Windows and CentOS: http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Triple_Boot_via_BootCamp Oh, and lest you think I have no idea what I’m talking about, I’m writing this on an OS X box which I’m using instead of CentOS not because CentOS sucks, but because Apple is one of the few sources of really nice modern Unix workstations. I’ve got a SecureCRT window constantly open to the CentOS box I develop on, I’m making a CentOS 7.1 USB stick right now in the background, and I’m about to build another CentOS server once it’s finished dd’ing that stick. So no, “developers” are not abandoning Linux for OS X. A bunch of us are choosing to use OS X on the desktop, but when it comes to deployment, well, let’s just say that macminicolo.net is very much on the fringe. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On 7/2/2015 5:22 PM, Warren Young wrote: If your car has a DIN 7736 bay, you can easily replace the existing head unit without redesigning the car. This is directly equivalent to repartitioning and installing CentOS alongside Windows. how many modern cars have DIN mount stereos anymore? almost all have some weird custom shaped dashboard specific stereo insert. sure, you can get DIN adapters for most cars, for instance I installed one in my daughter's 2004 Camry. then there's the wiring, you have to make up an adapter where one end is car model specific, and the other end is stereo specific. and if the car has more than 4 speakers, life gets more complex, you'll probably need to add in additional amplification. -- john r pierce, who's stuck a lot of stereos into various cars over the years ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Jul 2, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, ken geb...@mousecar.com wrote: Yes, a little manual work was needed on the Windows side, but this was well documented and frankly not that hard. Since I've done it-- numerous times-- I'm not readily persuaded that it's impossible to do. It's effectively impossible. Very few people know how to do this. Relatively few people know how to write C programs, but that doesn’t make it effectively impossible” to write them, nor does it mean that CentOS can’t run C programs. Bad analogy. Car doesn't come with a CD player. Does the dealer support your user installed CD player? No. Your CD player, you installed it, you support it, or whoever you paid to install it can support it, not the car manufacturer or dealer's problem. And the same here, dual boot is not a supported feature on RHEL/CentOS, the piece to enable that is missing and the user has to install that to make it possible. User supported. Not distro supported. Fewer care to learn when there are platforms that make this much easier. If you want Ubuntu, you know where to get it. Ubuntu fails to boot UEFI+Secure Boot Windows 8.x as well. For some lame reason, only openSUSE has the secure boot patches for GRUB, I've found them no where else so far even though they've been around for years. Oh, and let me point out that Windows doesn’t resize Linux partitions, so please don’t give me any kind of argument that this is a necessary step before we can get to the Glorious Year of Linux. ___ No, the list of requirements to get there is quite long still. Android arrived at rapid success in the everybody else can use it where Linux on the desktop still struggles with catering to users who think everybody else is a moron because they want a dumbed down system and therefore they don't matter. So as long as everybody doesn't matter and only the current user base does matter, the Linux desktop market isn't ever going to grow. And no it's not just about dual boot. It's also the never ending regressions that break things. It isn't any one thing, and that's why this is hard. But the dual booting thing is pretty much completely figured out, yet it's essentially inaccessible because that knowledge hasn't been translated through development to enable everyone to benefit. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On Jul 2, 2015, at 9:21 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: CentOS doesn't support dual boot, because I did all the work to make that happen, the CentOS installer did nothing to help me make this possible. If free space on a drive is available at time of installation, CentOS will let you install itself into it, and it will even offer to put its boot loader on a CentOS partition instead of overwriting the boot drive’s boot sector. That counts as “supports dual boot” in my book. I do not require that CentOS be able to *create* that free space. That’s my job. Just like the car dealer doesn't support this new head unit I installed, because I installed it. If you buy a car from a dealer and it has an open DIN bay, you can install your own head unit into it. This is exactly analogous to booting the CentOS installer with free space on a second drive or an unused partition. Just because most cars come off the lot with something plugging that space up doesn’t mean it’s Crutchfield’s problem to fix, any more than it’s CentOS’s problem to fix UEFI+SB on your new Dell. Once again: It would indeed be *nice* if CentOS could resize an NTFS partition to make room for itself, despite UEFI+SB. My problem is only with your insistence that it *must* do this. Regardless, this is not the right place to argue about it. CentOS does not drive changes into Fedora or RHEL. If you want this fixed, get involved with Fedora. I included URLs for the bugs I either filed or have contributed to in trying to get this problems solved *on Fedora*. So why are you continuing to bang on about it on a CentOS mailing list? No amount of yelling here will change anything. Take it to where you can effect change. I will expect to see the results of your efforts when CentOS 8 comes out, years hence. The idea that CentOS can or even should follow such a trajectory is ridiculous. No I'd be better off comparing it to Windows or OS X. Neither Windows nor OS X will nondestructively push aside a competing OS’s installation to make room for itself to dual-boot. The reason why I compared to Android is because it is Linux based and a lot of it is free software. Android only installs single-boot on hardware made specifically for it. It can make up whatever rules it likes for that hardware. You’re trying to extend that to CentOS pushing Windows aside on a machine that came from the factory running Windows. It’s a specious argument. Android managed to get where it is today has to do with what's made all of these things more successful than Linux on the desktop and that's simply better user experience. Until you explain how you’re going to get CentOS to be preinstalled on a billion devices per year, I don’t see how you can connect Android’s success to CentOS. Where is the market force that will cause this to happen? ...they use a Mac - which just so happens to have this so totally figured out they've put a GUI boot manager into the firmware While I will agree that holding Option or C down on boot is worlds better than madly pressing DEL and then poking around in a BIOS/EFI screen to switch around the boot order, I don’t really see what this has to do with the question at hand. OS X’s installer won’t push a Windows installation aside and make room for itself to dual-boot, either. Windows likewise won’t push OS X aside on Apple hardware. It requires Boot Camp’s help to do that, which is a nice tool, but you’re arguing against using third-party utilities. (Boot Camp being third-party with respect to Windows.) You’re asking CentOS to *exceed* what Apple, Microsoft, and Google do without giving it any of their market advantages first. There is no shielded enclave where nothing changes, and nothing breaks. Apple's installer. Nothing changes. Nothing's broken. Apple breaks stuff *all* *the* *time*. They’re famous for it. And I’m telling you this as an Apple fanboi. I have accepted the fact that I must cope with broken stuff on my Macs, just as I do on my CentOS boxen. Windows installer? Nothing changes. Nothing's broken. Go compare the standard paths for changing network settings in Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, and 10, and tell me Microsoft never moves things around. Go try to run No One Lives Forever on Windows 8, and tell me nothing breaks. And this despite Microsoft’s heroic levels of backwards-compatibility, fueled by $173 billion in assets, which allows it to employ 128,000 people. But CentOS must meet this same level. Y’right! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, ken geb...@mousecar.com wrote: I guess it depends on one's definition of support. Your definition seems to be more demanding... which often is a good thing, urging Linux on to be better. Me, I didn't use the word support at all. I only said that I've done it on every one of my Linux systems since 1992 (except Raspberry Pi's). Yes, a little manual work was needed on the Windows side, but this was well documented and frankly not that hard. Since I've done it-- numerous times-- I'm not readily persuaded that it's impossible to do. It's effectively impossible. Very few people know how to do this. Fewer care to learn when there are platforms that make this much easier. Sure, it would be nice during the install process to simply click a button for Yes, I want to dual-boot with Windows (or whatever) and it would just happen. Yeah, I'd like that. On the other hand, what other (i.e., commercial) OSs support/allow/permit dual-booting? Windows explicitly permits dual boot with Windows. So does OS X, but in addition can even set up the system to accept a Windows installation. So I personally think it's embarrassing that RH/CentOS/Fedora can't reliably install N+1 after version N, and for both of them to be bootable; *and* for both of them to do kernel updates that cause their respective boot entries to be automatically updated (and visible to the user) as well. That part is completely busted in GRUB because instead of using configfile to point to distro specific grub.cfg, it creates a whole new boot entry for that first distro instance in a grub.cfg that's only available to the 2nd instance. It's an ugly mess, bad UX all around. Given all the code for Linux is readily available to Apple and MS, it's much, much simper for them. The exact opposite is true for Linux developers. Yeah I don't buy that. The way Windows, OS X, and Linux boot are not secrets. It's well understood by those who know this, but getting developers to fix GRUB is what's hard. I explained to GRUB upstream what needs to be done to get a Mac to boot OS X properly from GRUB, but no one cares to actually do the work. So not only does that not get done, but the old code that wrongly puts in bad OS X menu entry that panics the system, isn't removed. It's 2x the bad UX of two Linux systems coexisting. And has nothing to do with how proprietary those other systems are. And, to underscore it again, Linux code is available to Linux developers, and yet the most common outcome for Linux A + Linux B dual boot is Linux B literally *enjoys* stepping on Linux A. The cooperation that exists with the kernel? It's nearly the opposite level of cooperation when it comes to OS installation and booting. Every distro reinvents the wheel, and has zero concern about how hostile their installer is to an existing Linux installation that isn't their own. Hell, the RH/CentOS/Fedora eco system borks it's own prior installations! So it has nothing to do with code availability. It has to do with not caring (and to some degree the resources to care). With VMs solid and much more useful and with deep market penetration, the need for dual-booting seems to be fading anyway. Sure, but increasingly it's Linux being put into that VM. Not the other way around. And that's due to things like dual-GPU systems simply working better, automatically, with no fuss, on Windows and OS X. This is at least variable on Linux, still. And yes a lot of this is because of proprietary behaviors on the part of Nvidia and AMD. So the reasons why this is difficult on free software are all valid, but it's also valid when users just give up and use a different platform because they don't have to deal with these sorts of problems. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What causes phantom update nags?
On 7/2/2015 10:20 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: Yes, I did see this warning on CentOS wiki re RPMForge but decided to use it anyway. But how does this relate to the problem? I DO NOT even have perl-IO-Compress installed. Mostly I figured this was a repository entanglement problem, but I didn't know why. I mean why do I keep getting messages about updating something I don't have installed. its a broken repository and shouldn't be used.I know its broken but decided to use it anyways? maybe that warning should be made stronger. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problems with Samba-based Home-Directory
Have you yet: setsebool -P use_samba_home_dirs 1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] IPMI/BMC/BIOS
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:30:47PM -0400, Paul Heinlein wrote: If your admins are comfortable with serial consoles, a concentrator like those available from Digi or WTI can offer fairly robust access controls; they can also be set to honor SSH keys rather than passwords, which may help increase security. I've used those for devices that were fairly dumb, but for servers it can be nicely cheaper to use serial-over-ipmi plus conman for that purpose. It's necessary to log and monitor the serial consoles, there are a variety of OOPses and BUGs and whatnot that only appear there. I've been using 'conman' for this purpose. I totally agree with you about having a separate admin-only network. It's not that expensive to build one up using dumb switches. -- greg ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] An mdadm question
On 07/02/2015 07:24 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Do I need to fail something? No, don't --fail anything. It should be sufficient to 'mdadm --stop /dev/md0' assuming that's the only array. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On 07/02/2015 11:51 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM, ken geb...@mousecar.com wrote: On 07/01/2015 05:10 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:20, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: My understanding is CentOS doesn't really support dual-boot anyway, whereas Fedora does. Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. Considering CentOS 7, at least, doesn't include ntfsprogs, the installation of CentOS can't support shrink or discovery of Windows in order to create a GRUB menu entry for it. That tools exist the user can make this work after installation is not at all what I'd consider supported. Since Linux first came out in '92, every distro I've used-- SLS, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, CentOS, and probably one or two others-- *all* have allowed dual-boot. The feature is built into grub, and lilo before that. Anyone who put together a distro which didn't support dual-boot would have to take the feature out-- rewrite the code (and why do that just to take out a perfectly functioning feature?)--, else use some other boot loader... e.g., the Raspberry Pi distros don't support dual-boot AFAIK. Dual boot support has a large number of dependencies, it's not just dependent on GRUB doing the right thing. When ntfsprogs isn't included on installation media, for example, Windows dual boot isn't going to happen at install time, you have to do it manually after installing ntfsprogs. snip I guess it depends on one's definition of support. Your definition seems to be more demanding... which often is a good thing, urging Linux on to be better. Me, I didn't use the word support at all. I only said that I've done it on every one of my Linux systems since 1992 (except Raspberry Pi's). Yes, a little manual work was needed on the Windows side, but this was well documented and frankly not that hard. Since I've done it-- numerous times-- I'm not readily persuaded that it's impossible to do. Sure, it would be nice during the install process to simply click a button for Yes, I want to dual-boot with Windows (or whatever) and it would just happen. Yeah, I'd like that. On the other hand, what other (i.e., commercial) OSs support/allow/permit dual-booting? Given all the code for Linux is readily available to Apple and MS, it's much, much simper for them. The exact opposite is true for Linux developers. With VMs solid and much more useful and with deep market penetration, the need for dual-booting seems to be fading anyway. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] IPMI/BMC/BIOS
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Chris Olson wrote: We have recently been asked to evaluate some computing machinery for a new project. This particular end user has very limited experience with the stated security requirements in a lights-out environment. Their primary work (as well as mine) in the past has been with very small, simple networks of desktop machines and a few servers with extremely limited access. For the most part, their admins haverefused to use any maintenance connectivity to servers other than the primary serial ports. There is a concern about system security primarily driven by recent information searches performed by end user admins and included below. [...snip...] My initial recommendation was to use a totally separate network for any service processors within the servers that implement IPMI/BMC capabilities. This has been standard practice in most systems I have worked on in the past, and has allowed certification with essentially no problems. The BIOS concern seems to be another issue to be addressed separately. +1 to network separation for OOB management. I assume you mean non-routable LAN, but that segment's connectivity is an interesting question in itself. I like having access to management consoles via VPN, but others dislike any off-LAN access whatsoever. If your admins are comfortable with serial consoles, a concentrator like those available from Digi or WTI can offer fairly robust access controls; they can also be set to honor SSH keys rather than passwords, which may help increase security. WTI: https://www.wti.com/c-4-console-server.aspx Digi: http://www.digi.com/products/consoleservers/ I've had an easier time working with the Digi firmware, but either will do the job. -- Paul Heinlein heinl...@madboa.com http://www.madboa.com/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What causes phantom update nags?
On 07/02/2015 03:11 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 7/1/2015 2:35 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: OK, here ya go -- Obsoleting Packages perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-Compress-Zlib.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Base.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates perl-IO-Compress.noarch 2.052-1.el6.rfx rpmforge-extras perl-IO-Compress-Zlib.i686 2.021-136.el6_6.1 @updates rpmforge née RepoForge is not being updated much anymore and is no longer a 'good' repository. for an example perl-IO-Compress hasn't been updated since 2012.anyways, perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2 is part of base in el6. I would uninstall any packages you need that are from rpmforge, remove that repo from your repos.d and find equivalent packages in a better supported repository. this should list any RepoForge packages that are already installed on your system... rpm -qa |egrep \\.rf Yes, I did see this warning on CentOS wiki re RPMForge but decided to use it anyway. But how does this relate to the problem? I DO NOT even have perl-IO-Compress installed. Mostly I figured this was a repository entanglement problem, but I didn't know why. I mean why do I keep getting messages about updating something I don't have installed. -- MzK We can all sleep easy at night knowing that somewhere at any given time, the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo. -- David Letterman ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] An mdadm question
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:24 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: CentOS 7. I have a server with four drives. 1 is /, and the other three are in RAID5. I need to pull a drive, so I can test whether the server can read 2TB drives. I've been googling, but don't want to screw the server up I think I'd like to 1. stop the RAID 2. pull a drive 3. put in a large drive, and run parted, and mkfs 4. pull the large drive 5. replace the RAID drive 6. fire up the RAID. So, can I do it in that order? Do I need to fail something? Almost invariably that RAID will assemble degraded, and the drive you pulled will now be out of sync. When you add it back in, it will have to be, block by block, resynced. So if you want to avoid that, you have to avoid the autoassembly at boot time, or pull at least one more drive to prevent assembly. Even live media may assemble the RAID, degraded, if enough drives for degraded operation are found. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] CESA-2015:1197 Moderate CentOS 5 openssl Security Update
FYI I believe applying this openssl update may result in breaking SSL MySQL connections similar to RHEL/CentOS 6 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228755 I opened a bug report for RHEL5/CentOS 5 weeks ago - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231960. However, it hasn't gained any attention. --Blake Johnny Hughes wrote on 7/2/2015 7:10 AM: CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2015:1197 Moderate Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1197.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 8b8c609255b3fc78e8a8227dfcf456fc6fad6ee44402b00741d66eb7a7c91b02 openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm 61f39339bba2e5d56667ccf56d5209e48dc3bce26b45d1b0d043ae5a5f4cd96c openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i686.rpm 00f5e3d2df2c933bbc7d49df3a0496212963eae0923ea1a8ab78c698bd67ab30 openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm 6e76fd11355d47b0ba0afc79f8cfe97fea5ec3434dc4ec0a75d426fd2a1f3d09 openssl-perl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm x86_64: 61f39339bba2e5d56667ccf56d5209e48dc3bce26b45d1b0d043ae5a5f4cd96c openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i686.rpm 9f922500d3726e5e910e3291bd6ababbd82df79b9b504f654e8711e3922d24a7 openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm 00f5e3d2df2c933bbc7d49df3a0496212963eae0923ea1a8ab78c698bd67ab30 openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.i386.rpm be2e32d534efa94c2be0077f4cd9fcb4923f4cf1c5f34002ad865ea28e127f6a openssl-devel-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm 949a68f470e7baaa9385c6a5b6efbab45762e8693a2258e2b5cf2a755fadfc16 openssl-perl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.x86_64.rpm Source: d3fd488129138efbffee4176587436a22c10e54950bc274f1fd894dc355adf55 openssl-0.9.8e-36.el5_11.src.rpm ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] IPMI/BMC/BIOS
https://lwn.net/Articles/630778/ I think you definitely want this stuff as far away from the regular LAN, let alone the Internet, as possible. Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing Cents os server 7.0
On Jul 2, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On 07/01/2015 05:10 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. Considering CentOS 7, at least, doesn't include ntfsprogs, the installation of CentOS can't support shrink or discovery of Windows in order to create a GRUB menu entry for it. That tools exist the user can make this work after installation is not at all what I'd consider supported”. That’s a really narrow interpretation. The behavior you describe, where the OS installer can shrink an existing NTFS partition to allow room for Linux partitions doesn’t go back to 1992, yet we managed to dual-boot back then. Would it be *nice* if RHEL/Fedora/CentOS could do this? Sure. Is it a necessary prerequisite? Absolutely not. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dual-booting - Re: installing Cents os server 7.0
On Jul 2, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, ken geb...@mousecar.com wrote: Yes, a little manual work was needed on the Windows side, but this was well documented and frankly not that hard. Since I've done it-- numerous times-- I'm not readily persuaded that it's impossible to do. It's effectively impossible. Very few people know how to do this. Relatively few people know how to write C programs, but that doesn’t make it effectively impossible” to write them, nor does it mean that CentOS can’t run C programs. Fewer care to learn when there are platforms that make this much easier. If you want Ubuntu, you know where to get it. Oh, and let me point out that Windows doesn’t resize Linux partitions, so please don’t give me any kind of argument that this is a necessary step before we can get to the Glorious Year of Linux. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
