similar to: Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- why I hate these meta-discussions ...

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> > It's a little more than that. I find few people who consider RedHat to > be a Demon Evil or that they can't do anything right, but I can > understand the concern about some of their decisions which have made > life difficult for (granted) a few, and it's not really helpful to > demonize those who complain, as Bryan has

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > If you believe that, you have to believe that Red Hat's programmers > are always better than the original upstream program author. How do you assert that? It has _nothing_ to do with my statement. You keep thinking there is this absolute "black/white" on why developers, vendors, etc... do this or that. There are reasons

From: R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> > Bryan - Please don't overstate this and make a problem where > none exists. There is an infinity of choices of which you > list three ... > Nor does one _have_ to 'get involved' with either the > RH-Fedora or Centos project to do effective distribution > building, or add-on packaging. There are independent

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > We would not build and distribute either of these things if they were > not released via the GPL. The RPMS/SRPMS that we are distributing are > indeed GPL. We firmly agree with RedHat on this issue (that only GPL > things should be distributed). The problem is that many distros are statically building MySQL 4 with some

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Thanks - as you probably know, the long-winded discussion isn't > really about CIPE specifically so much as the philosophy behind > bundling a few thousand things together and then trying to > please anyone with a blanket policy about maintaining backwards > compatibility vs bug fixes vs new features. You just can't

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > RHEL-4 shipped with MySQL 4.1.x (and has a 3.23.58 client to work with > older databases) ... the latest SRPMS are mysql-4.1.10a-1.RHEL4.1.src.rpm > and mysqlclient10-3.23.58-4.RHEL4.1.src.rpm. You are indeed correct (I must have been looking at the RHEL3 dir**):

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC > has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we > have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year). Oh, sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or

From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> > I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some, > someone can only be with or against Red Hat. Yes, that was my major complaint too. > I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and > are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure > even Red Hat

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > I'm still wondering about that... If anyone except Linus himself > even suggested that changing kernel interfaces in a way that would > break device drivers was a good thing, I can't imagine the reaction. > I could see that the changes through 2.4 were improving things, but > is there anything that is measurably better in

Even I've left this thread. I guess we're all waiting for Lee to turn Blue. ;-> Or is it Red (Hat)? ;-> Okay Lee, we all agree, Red Hat makes stupid decisions, adopts buggy software - especially the kernel and Red Hat is to blame for the decisions in the kernel, and also stupidly backports fixes instead of adopting newer versions with the fixes. And there is absolutely no need for

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > No, I am looking for a solution that provides what a typical user needs, > not what a particular vendor feels like supporting this week. I didn't > really want this to be about motives for vendor's business decisions but > I think Johnny Hughes nailed it in saying the push for 2.6 was because > SLES 9 had it. Their

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Yes, but... whose choice was it to ship 2.6 with lots of broken > and omitted stuff when 2.4 works better for many things? Again, 2-2-2, 6-6-6 At some point, Red Hat has to start the new series for "early adopters." That means being the first to adopt the new GLibC, GCC, kernel, etc... Looking at just the GLibC 2+ generations

> Ubuntu and Knoppix can say they use Debian sources ... SLAX can say it > uses Slackware sources. Those guys have trademarks too. Debian and Slackware don't sell "enterprise" products. And many such projects are non-profit or otherwise. Unless Debian plans to establish itself as a commercial player, they don't need to defend their trademark. In fact, the commercial

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Agreed. But note that the standards are set long before that... ??? By "standard" what do you mean. ??? Linux's history has been notorious for variance from ANSI, NIST, POSIX and GNU standards. Yes, far less than Microsoft and even some UNIX vendors, but there are still major issues today with this. When developers try

On 5/23/2015 11:22 PM, Luigi Rosa wrote: > Kirk Bocek wrote on 24/05/2015 04:37: >> So I've built my first CentOS 7 host and am learning all the new ways >> of doing >> things. I setup and enabled ntpd but after a reboot I get: > > In CentOS 7 is bettere to use chrony, here's an howto > > http://linoxide.com/linux-command/chrony-time-sync/ > So

[ context from the previous thread ] On Saturday 28 May 2005 14:41, Collins Richey wrote: > On 5/28/05, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > > Sure. LVM. > I'm curious about this. At work we haven't finished our evaluation of > RHEL3/RHEL4 (CentOS is out of the question, since SLA is king here). > Most of our servers and desktops are RH9 legacy, and we use LVM

On 5/24/2015 12:22 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 05/24/2015 11:41 AM, Kirk Bocek wrote: >> to activate your selected daemon. I just used the new systemd commands, >> thinking that would be enough. So I tried that and rebooted. Nope, same >> problem: > > chronyd and ntpd both use UDP port 123, so each will terminate the > other when it starts. If both are enabled,

I am running smbd version 2.0.9 and cannot map to a samba share from a Windows 2000 SP2 Server. I can however map from the samba server to the win2k Server. I can also map from the Windows Server to a windows 2000 Pro laptop on the same network, so I know that the server can map shares outside of itself. I can also map from a Win2K pro client and from other unix boxes to the samba server. I can

UseRs, Version 0.9-4 of actuar should be making its way to CRAN mirrors. The main highlights of this new version are speed enhancements for a few functions, support for phase-type distributions and functions for ruin theory. The relevant section of the NEWS file follows Version 0.9-4 ============= Maintenance and new features release. NEW FEATURES -- LOSS DISTRIBUTIONS o Functions

UseRs, Version 0.9-4 of actuar should be making its way to CRAN mirrors. The main highlights of this new version are speed enhancements for a few functions, support for phase-type distributions and functions for ruin theory. The relevant section of the NEWS file follows Version 0.9-4 ============= Maintenance and new features release. NEW FEATURES -- LOSS DISTRIBUTIONS o Functions