Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 05/05/2021 23:13, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: > > Things seem to be much quieter and event-less in the BSD and Debian (& co) > camps. I greatly fear that the BSDs are gradually losing the battle to keep up with Linux in terms of newer features and support for certain classes of hardware. It

Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 05/05/2021 23:53, Yasha Karant wrote: > From the list you reference below, I find > > Amazon Web Services > > (AWS) is *NOT* a small (market share, startup, etc) for-profit entity. > Is AWS looking at an alternative to licensing IBM RH EL that AWS can > use without any license for fee?  AWS has

Re: [SL-Users] Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 05/05/2021 00:38, Yasha Karant wrote: > I have not attempted to get a "dev" IBM RH license that supposedly is > at no cost -- has anyone done so and down a full buildable source > download? Just go here to create a free dev account (which allows up to 16 RHEL instances and, of course, access

Re: [SL-Users] Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 04/05/2021 23:41, Leon Fauster wrote: > The source are at >

Re: [SL-Users] Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 04/05/2021 21:42, Yasha Karant wrote: > Your statement at the end indicates that I have missed a source > distribution channel. Sorry, which statement is that? Just for the avoidance of doubt, my comment about "Discourse" was a reference to the Discourse software

Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 04/05/2021 21:51, Jack Aboutboul wrote: > Yes and contrary to the pure FUD that has been spread around, the AlmaLinux > OS Foundation is in fact a 501©6 non-profit and our governing board includes > a leadership from diverse backgrounds, some from industry and even Simon > Phipps, former

Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 04/05/2021 20:51, James M. Pulver wrote: > Honestly, I've seen a lot of the FLOSS community prefer Rocky over Alma, and > I think it's because Rocky is actually not backed by any company. However, we > see how that went before, and I just think Rocky as described is ripe for > CENTOS 2.0 to

Re: [SL-Users] Re: any update on CERN Linux and CentOS-8 situation?

On 04/05/2021 18:01, Yasha Karant wrote: > then one is forced to either Rocky or AlmaLinux, assuming either > pushes out an EL 9 clone as soon as CentOS or other IBM RH buildable > source is released. Well, we know there's not going to be a CentOS 9. There will obviously be a CentOS Stream 9 but,

Re: Rhel 8

On 24/01/2021 18:07, Mark Rousell wrote: > As for why less bloated (as many would see it) or over-expanded (as > many would see it) init systems have not been more widely adopted s/or over-expanded/or not-over-expanded/

Re: Rhel 8

On 24/01/2021 16:26, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:00 AM Mark Rousell > wrote: >> BUT... the fact that SysVInit is seen as outdated is NOT a reason in and of >> itself to support SystemD. >> There may have been and, in many people's opinion, t

Re: Rhel 8

On 24/01/2021 02:52, Lamar Owen wrote: > Straight SysV init does not meet the needs of many server setups, > especially server setups that need to dynamically change the daemon > mix that is currently running.  Virtualization hosts, software-defined > networking setups, and what is typically

Re: Rhel 8

On 23/01/2021 02:20, Yasha Karant wrote: > I had not heard the history of SystemD in any detail.  What, if any, > were the software engineering and design justifications for SystemD?  > I recall some vague mentions of "designs for the future" Have a look at the SystemD Wikipedia entry which links

Re: Rhel 8

all of these > in current production release use SystemD, etc., baggage.  Was > Torvalds behind SystemD, etc.?  Just curious. > > On 1/22/21 3:55 PM, Mark Rousell wrote: >> On 22/01/2021 16:30, Larry Linder wrote: >>> My only wish is that the SL community start a New Linux b

Re: Rhel 8

On 22/01/2021 16:30, Larry Linder wrote: > My only wish is that the SL community start a New Linux based on SL 6.9 > and erase all the needless junk added to SL 7.5. Mainly dump the > systemctl crap. If only expands the number of characters I need to > type to get it done and contributes

Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] scientific.org

(I've been forced to post this via the Outlook.com web UI. It's vile. Sorry.) On 11/06/2020 15:34, Larry Linder wrote: > When I did a search on the internet for the problem. There were a > number of reports from other distributions of linux 6.10 with the same > problem. > > I tried their

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

On 22/02/2020 23:41, Keith Lofstrom wrote: As a community of scientific, like-minded Linux users, let's begin to prepare a rudimentary plan B, and hope that we never need to implement it. Well, the CentOS mail list is at

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

On 22/02/2020 02:15, Yasha Karant wrote: Two comments. I am not pursuing the IBM FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) [...] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think you are pursuing FUD about IBM. I was not the person who accused you of that. Indeed, I think you are being sensibly cautious. I

Re: EL 8

On 03/02/2020 21:39, Stephan Wiesand wrote: On 3. Feb 2020, at 22:23, ONeal, Miles <0be99a30c213-dmarc-requ...@listserv.fnal.gov> wrote: And there's no real reason to get the source from anywhere but RHEL, since it's freely

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

Andrew Z wrote on 2/21/20 1:57 PM: > It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems for your > department, Yasha. > > What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they indeed are? And if > they are not - then get fedora and be done with it. I don't think Yasha said that

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

On 21/02/2020 19:21, Yasha Karant wrote: In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall return-on-investment (e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly competes with licensed-for-fee products does not fit that for-profit model. Whilst I don't disagree that one should be cautious, it

Re: centOS 8

On 16/10/2019 21:14, Yasha Karant wrote: Will the SL list continue to exist as a mechanism for raising issues (and getting suggested solutions) for CentOS post-SL releases? I have found no equivalent list for either CentOS or the other possibility, Ubuntu LTS (not RPM based, not RHEL based, but

Re: question regarding the future

On 03/05/2019 17:51, Olek Proskurowski wrote: Unless IBM decides to charge "modest" download fee.

Re: question regarding the future

On 03/05/2019 08:19, Tom H wrote: Red hat can limit access to its source RPMs to its paying customers and prevent free rebuilds Whilst it is true that Red Hat could legitimately limit access to its source code to authorised users of its software, I don't think this could or would prevent free

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 23/06/2014 14:54, Steven Timm wrote: I was at the HEPiX meeting at which those slides were presented and there was further discussion during the course of the week as to what would happen. RedHat/CentOS was also represented at that meeting in the person of Karanbir Singh. You should not

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

Thanks to everyone who commented and I apologise for the delay in replying. So it seems that complete clarity is not yet available. Ok. A couple more questions in the search for clarity:- 1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual limitations on what a subscriber (who has

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 27/06/2014 20:43, Lamar Owen wrote: On 06/27/2014 03:28 PM, Mark Rousell wrote: 1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual limitations on what a subscriber (who has access to the RHEL7 SRPMs) can do with the source code so obtained? Please read http://lwn.net/Articles

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 27/06/2014 22:16, Mark Rousell wrote: On 27/06/2014 20:43, John Lauro wrote: One reason to remove public sources is to keep the load off of their servers. Yes, that's one reasons. There are other reasons too, of course. My might will infer that other reasons are the overridingly

Ask Red Hat for clarification about differentiating between RH source and CentOS on git.centos.org?

Apologies for starting a new thread but this seems to warrant one. On another mail list where the issue of Scientific Linux versus RHEL7 has been mentioned in passing, an employee of Red Hat has offered to seek clarification about the RHEL/CentOS source code identification/verification/tracing

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 27/06/2014 23:00, Lamar Owen wrote: On 06/27/2014 05:07 PM, Mark Rousell wrote: Clearly, however, Red Hat's lawyers (and the FSF it seems) think such a limitation is not a violation of GPL. For what it's worth, such limiting contractual terms (even if freely entered into) do seem

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 27/06/2014 23:45, Lamar Owen wrote: On 06/27/2014 06:29 PM, Mark Rousell wrote: And yet it most certainly *has* taken on a new form. That changes things. The threads about it on this mail list would not exist if there had not been such a substantive, real world, change. On February 29

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

On 27/06/2014 23:41, Mark Rousell wrote: And then, finally, the banking industry lost a court case and the government regular got round to doing something about it. What had been totally accepted, barely questioned, common practice was outlawed and improperly taken fees had to be paid back

Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

I've been following the discussions on this list about the changes in RHEL's source availability and I'd like to confirm my understanding of the current situation. Someone on another mail list made this comment: RedHat have said that they'll not be releasing source RPMs any more, so