Nothings
They just don't want you to see all the files in this directory.
yum doesn't need to.
It will access to this url
http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/repodata/repomd.xml
and access directly to the install and update RPM files given in the
others urls (primary.xml.gz for example
On 01/15/2014 10:14 AM, Matthieu Guionnet wrote:
yum doesn't need to.
It will access to this url
http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/repodata/repomd.xml
and access directly to the install and update RPM files given in the
others urls (primary.xml.gz for example here).
Thank you Matthieu
On 01/15/2014 11:08 AM, Jean-Michel Barbet wrote:
On 01/15/2014 10:14 AM, Matthieu Guionnet wrote:
yum doesn't need to.
It will access to this url
http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/repodata/repomd.xml
and access directly to the install and update RPM files given in the
others urls
On 01/15/2014 11:20 AM, Urs Beyerle wrote:
Adobe discontinued the Adobe Reader 9 for Linux in June 2013 and has not
fixed and will not fix any further security issues in it. Therefore it
makes totally sense to remove it from their repo.
Thank you Urs,
OK, that's clear. What are the
On 1/15/2014 4:20 AM, Urs Beyerle wrote:
Adobe discontinued the Adobe Reader 9 for Linux in June 2013 and has not
fixed and will not fix any further security issues in it. Therefore it
makes totally sense to remove it from their repo.
I'm not disagreeing with you but it's still a
FYI they also did the same thin with Shockwave Flash player for Linux too.Apparently Adobe doesn't care about the linux user market share any more.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Jan 15, 2014 10:56, Graham Allan al...@physics.umn.edu wrote: On 1/15/2014 4:20 AM, Urs Beyerle wrote:
Adobe discontinued
On 15 January 2014 12:47, Paul Robert Marino prmari...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI they also did the same thin with Shockwave Flash player for Linux too.
Apparently Adobe doesn't care about the linux user market share any more.
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
--
On Jan 15,
acroread is still distributed as an rpm in the SL CERN extras repo. They
also distribute flash-plugin and some other things. Access to these repos
seems to be publicly allowed.
[redactedh...@here.org]$ rpm -qi acroread
Name: acroread Relocations: (not relocatable)
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:45:01AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
RedHat is a company. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making
money. Every action by any company -- literally every single action,
ever -- is motivated by that goal.
This sounds as if this is bad: are you a communist?
Remember, every corporation has a legal responsibility to its shareholders
which usually looks like (and I quote from
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm because the author has
experience as a corporate securities attorney and I am a physical
scientist with no legal training),
On 14/01/14 23:59, John Lauro wrote:
Your first assumption, although largely correct as a generality it is not
entirely accurate, and at a minimum is not the sole purpose. That is why
companies have mission statements. They rarely highlight the purpose of
making money, although that is often
On 15/01/14 23:09, Stijn De Weirdt wrote:
hi all,
could someone explain what the 6x repository is about (as opposed to the 6.X
and 6rolling).
in particular, it seems that the 6x security updates repo has eg 6.5 kernel
and glibc, but not eg sssd rpms from 6.5.
Please have a look here:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Sommerseth da...@sommerseths.net wrote:
On 15/01/14 19:49, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
- Red Hat (the company) considers Oracle (the company) one of their
top two competitors.
- Red Hat considers CentOS a competitor.
- Red Hat believes acquiring
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:27:18PM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
*Of course* Red Hat has acquired CentOS. SIngh et. al. are now
full-time RedHat employees (proof left as exercise for the reader).
The relationship could hardly be more clear.
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product nor the project. Red
Hat does not own the various marks.
Wrong.
http://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/
The CentOS Marks are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.
- Pat
At the risk of repeating myself... I refer you to Red Hat's 10-K
filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1
See the Competition section on pages 12-14. Search for Oracle and
CentOS.
So when I say, Red Hat considers CentOS a
On 01/15/2014 03:37 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
Red Hat does not own CentOS, either the product nor the project. Red
Hat does not own the various marks.
Wrong.
http://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/
The CentOS
On 2014/01/15 15:27, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Sommerseth da...@sommerseths.net wrote:
On 15/01/14 19:49, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
- Red Hat (the company) considers Oracle (the company) one of their
top two competitors.
- Red Hat considers CentOS a
On 01/15/2014 11:27 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
Singh does not mention this detail in his own announcement
(http://www.karan.org/blog/2014/01/07/as-a-community-for-the-community/).
I guess it must have slipped his mind? Or maybe he figured nobody
would consider it relevant? Ha ha ha.
so,
Would not it be sufficient to have a scientific applications group in the
installer?
On Jan 15, 2014 7:29 PM, Jean-Victor Côté jean-v.c...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
They have included interesting IDEs:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Scientific_Spin
Collaboration between the two projects might prove
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 01/15/2014 11:27 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
so, rather than looking at an opinion blog, why dont you go read the
actual announcement ? see if that mentions this little detail...
Do you mean Red Hat's
On 01/15/2014 04:36 PM, Andrew Z wrote:
Would not it be sufficient to have a scientific applications group
in the installer?
On Jan 15, 2014 7:29 PM, Jean-Victor Côté jean-v.c...@sympatico.ca
mailto:jean-v.c...@sympatico.ca wrote:
They have included interesting IDEs:
Sounds like an attempt to solve nonexistent problem.
On Jan 15, 2014 10:40 PM, Jean-Victor Côté jean-v.c...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
There could be a Long Term Support (LTS) option for Fedora Scientific,
built from the latest stable release and tested by the builders. This
sounds a bit like
I'm not touching this question lol.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Jan 15, 2014 22:40, Jean-Victor Côté jean-v.c...@sympatico.ca wrote: There could be a Long Term Support (LTS) option for Fedora Scientific, built from the latest stable release and tested by the builders. This sounds a bit like Ubuntu,
I guess im missing something tonight.
So back to my question - why not to have a group of scientific apps in
installer ? Whats the advantage of having a separate iso for the os?
Say in fedora the scientific apps will be latest git versions and on el
level - production quality.
// just trying to
25 matches
Mail list logo
