On Fri, October 31, 2014 9:56 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:38 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Hmm, I wonder when 128-bit processors will appear
a 32 bit address got us up to 4,000,000,000 (4 billion) bytes of
directly addressible memory.
a 64 bit address gets you into a
On 11/3/2014 10:32 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
So, I would just echo what you said: we hardly will see the need in 128
bit CPUs soon. (BTW, I'm glad to hear the choice which is power of 2. As,
in general, the length of CPU word can be anything: 17, 89, ... I'm not
mentioning 1 which is used in
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 12:32 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
So, I would just echo what you said: we hardly will see the need in
128 bit CPUs soon. (BTW, I'm glad to hear the choice which is power
of 2. As, in general, the length of CPU word can be anything: 17,
89, ... I'm not mentioning 1
On 10/31/2014 10:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Always Learningcen...@u62.u22.net said:
Hopefully ? there is a Linux capable of providing conventional
facilities on old, but working, 32-bit desktop and portable equipment
which could be given to the needy people.
CentOS 6 didn't
7) Lack of 32-bit support
I think I understand this. After all, 32-bit machines may become
unusable when the clock overflows, but isn't that a few years
away, and couldn't some solution be found, even if kludgy? Some of
the 32-bit hardware was of very high quality, and still runs
On 10/30/2014 07:45 PM, david wrote:
Folks
I'm sure the Centos team has done a yeoman's job getting Centos7 ready,
and that the Redhat team has done marvels in creating rhel7, but here's
a little voice from a personal hobbyist user.
Background:
('ve been maintaining several remote
david da...@daku.org writes:
I'm sure the Centos team has done a yeoman's job getting Centos7
ready, and that the Redhat team has done marvels in creating rhel7,
but here's a little voice from a personal hobbyist user.
I'm not sure why you're voicing these here. Since CentOS matches RHEL
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic cen...@plnet.rs wrote:
I have been using Postfix from 5.x. The fact that you chose to use obsolete
(from Red Hat's point of view) software should be on no one but you.
That's just an arbitrary choice both on the default side and what you
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Basically, RHEL is Enterprise (the E); very very few enterprises have
32bit machines any more.
Nobody is _buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold 10
years ago were surprisingly robust. It is just unfortunate
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:19:07AM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I would add idiotic Gnome 3 that does not have right click menu for
creating launchers (copying .desktop files from
/usr/share/applications? works like a charm but you need to create
them manually for every launcher) and
On 10/31/2014 08:53 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Nobody is_buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold 10
years ago were surprisingly robust
They were also surprisingly slow. Without any hyperbole, you could
almost certainly replace an entire rack of ten year old 1U servers with
a
On 10/31/2014 10:48 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 10/31/2014 08:53 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Nobody is_buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold 10
years ago were surprisingly robust
They were also surprisingly slow. Without any hyperbole, you could
almost certainly replace an entire
On Thu, October 30, 2014 21:30, Fred Smith wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:45:58PM -0700, david wrote:
5) Sendmail is out, postfix is in.
This is a huge change, since I had lots of scripts that tailored
the Sendmail system for spam protection, dealing with SmartHosts
that required
On 2014-10-31, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody is _buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold 10
years ago were surprisingly robust.
I am a notorious old hardware milker, and even I don't have any more
32bit hardware. By the time CentOS 6 is EOL you'd better have
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 10:46 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
You can
use MATE from EPEL but even that isn't exactly like Gnome2.
My impression from other posters was Mate as fairly similar to G2. Is it
really much different ?
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU.
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 10:53 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Basically, RHEL is Enterprise (the E); very very few enterprises have
32bit machines any more.
Nobody is _buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 10:46 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
You can
use MATE from EPEL but even that isn't exactly like Gnome2.
My impression from other posters was Mate as fairly similar to G2. Is it
really much
On 11/01/2014 06:48 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 10/31/2014 08:53 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Nobody is_buying_ 32 bit machines any more, but machines sold 10
years ago were surprisingly robust
They were also surprisingly slow. Without any hyperbole, you could
almost certainly replace an
On 10/31/2014 2:35 PM, Always Learning wrote:
It is a shame to chuck-out perfectly good working machinery - just
because someone, somewhere else, decided it should be redundant.
its a shame to waste 1000s of watts of electricity plus air conditioning
on a rack full of old computers when a
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 18:32 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/31/2014 2:35 PM, Always Learning wrote:
It is a shame to chuck-out perfectly good working machinery - just
because someone, somewhere else, decided it should be redundant.
its a shame to waste 1000s of watts of electricity plus
On 10/31/2014 8:38 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Hmm, I wonder when 128-bit processors will appear
a 32 bit address got us up to 4,000,000,000 (4 billion) bytes of
directly addressible memory.
a 64 bit address gets you into a 18,440,000,000,000,000,000 byte address
space. I think thats 18
Once upon a time, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net said:
Hopefully ? there is a Linux capable of providing conventional
facilities on old, but working, 32-bit desktop and portable equipment
which could be given to the needy people.
CentOS 6 didn't just disappear; it should still get updates
Folks
I'm sure the Centos team has done a yeoman's job getting Centos7
ready, and that the Redhat team has done marvels in creating rhel7,
but here's a little voice from a personal hobbyist user.
Background:
('ve been maintaining several remote servers since Redhat 6 days,
migrating from
On 10/31/2014 01:45 AM, david wrote:
Folks
I'm sure the Centos team has done a yeoman's job getting Centos7 ready,
and that the Redhat team has done marvels in creating rhel7, but here's
a little voice from a personal hobbyist user.
Background:
('ve been maintaining several remote servers
On 10/31/2014 01:45 PM, david wrote:
1: Firewall changes
The change in firewall technology forced a complete re-do of my scripts
which maintain firewalls, respond to attacks, etc. I think I've
programmed my way around the issues, but it wasn't easy.
It's trivial to disable firewalld then
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:45:58PM -0700, david wrote:
Folks
I'm sure the Centos team has done a yeoman's job getting Centos7
ready, and that the Redhat team has done marvels in creating rhel7,
but here's a little voice from a personal hobbyist user.
Background:
('ve been maintaining
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:45:58PM -0700, david wrote:
1: Firewall changes
Remove firewalld; install iptables. Problem solved. This has been
discussed ad nauseum on this list recently.
2: Apache changes
Not RedHat specific issues; that's just progress from upstream.
3: Service - systemd
27 matches
Mail list logo
