CentOS - May 2005 - CentOS and SL, together?

From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu>
> Referencing SL3 and CentOS 3 (as I haven't run SL4 as yet) there were
some
> scientific applications and some Java stuff, eclipse for one, 
You do understand the redistribution issues with Java, correct?
It's a Sun problem (a typical thorn for Red Hat in general), not a Red Hat
one.
> part of cluster suite for another, included.
> Lessee,  
> https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/30x/features/ is the
reference.
> GFS, Eclipse, Cluster Suite, OpenAFS, ksh93, a set of 'tweak' RPMs
(my
> favorite being the serial console tweak RPM).
Red Hat is pushing to get GFS in the stock kernel.
They bought out Sistina for a reason, to keep it GPL.
These things don't happen overnight.  ;->
GFS was introduced as an add-on, and probably will until it
is in the stock kernel -- Red Hat is trying to avoid heavily
patching the kernel nowdays (for various reasons).

As far as OpenAFS, I assume you mean the server?
Or you don't like Red Hat's included client in the kernel?
As always, make a Bugzilla request if you want something.
> For SL4, the doc is at 
> https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/4x/features/ and includes
fewer
> addons.  OpenAFS is the biggest of these, I guess.
And I too have deployed OpenAFS.
The server is 100% userspace, so it shouldn't be too difficult
to get it included, at least in Fedora Core (possibly the next
RHEL5).
> Once the cluster suite and eclipse are available they probably will be
rolled in.
Eclipse is now in Fedora Core 4.
One thing to always remember that Eclipse's licensing is outside the control
of Red Hat, and is IBM.
It is also released under a non-GPL compatible license by IBM, and is similar in
restriction to Sun/Mozilla licenses, so I'm sure Red Hat was hesitant to
include
it before.
> The Fermi version of SL 3 had included a packaged JRE and was very
attractive
> for that, but later releases have not had that and rather have pointers to 
> download from sun.
It is illegal to redistribute the JRE for Linux without a license.
Again, see Sun for details.  ;->
> Pine also is in the SL dists.
Pico/Pine also changed licenses awhile back and is considered
"non-free."
Nano replaced Pico, can't remember what replaced Pine.

Once again, I will remind people that an "enterprise/SLA" focused
distro
will rarely be focused on features.  At the same time, it's clear that it
requires many "enterprise" software packages built upon an
"enterprise"
distro -- which is not uncommon.  Red Hat can't ship an
"all-in-one" distro
for enterprises -- and a SL solution is going to be on the other side of the
spectrum from, say, a financial industry focused Linux.

So Red Hat would rather ship a common base, supported by SLAs, and then
sell add-ons with SLAs for a more specific configuration.

If you want an industry-specific Linux, you're not going to find it from
a generic distribution vendor.  And you shouldn't wonder why they don't
throw in things -- especially not things like Java which are _illegal_ to
bundle freely.

-- Bryan

P.S.  As always, maintain your own APT/YUM repository internally, and mix
in any required RPMs.  I virtually _never_ install from CD/DVD, almost always
via NFS -- possibly with some post-install APT/YUM.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 19:38 -0400, Bryan J. Smith 
wrote:
> From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu>
> > Referencing SL3 and CentOS 3 (as I haven't run SL4 as yet) there
were some
> > scientific applications and some Java stuff, eclipse for one, 
> 
> You do understand the redistribution issues with Java, correct?
> It's a Sun problem (a typical thorn for Red Hat in general), not a Red
Hat one.
> 
Righto ... no JRE redistributes in CentOS ... that is not allowed :)

They also have mp3 stuff ... also not allowed :)
> > part of cluster suite for another, included.
> > Lessee,  
> > https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/30x/features/ is the
reference.
> > GFS, Eclipse, Cluster Suite, OpenAFS, ksh93, a set of 'tweak'
RPMs (my
> > favorite being the serial console tweak RPM).
> 
> Red Hat is pushing to get GFS in the stock kernel.
> They bought out Sistina for a reason, to keep it GPL.
> These things don't happen overnight.  ;->
> GFS was introduced as an add-on, and probably will until it
> is in the stock kernel -- Red Hat is trying to avoid heavily
> patching the kernel nowdays (for various reasons).
> 
For CentOS-3.x  you can get GFS (and RH ClusterSuite) here:

http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/

(there is no GFS/RHCS for RHEL-4 (or CentOS-4) yet)
> As far as OpenAFS, I assume you mean the server?
> Or you don't like Red Hat's included client in the kernel?
> As always, make a Bugzilla request if you want something.
> 
> > For SL4, the doc is at 
> > https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/4x/features/ and
includes fewer
> > addons.  OpenAFS is the biggest of these, I guess.
> 
> And I too have deployed OpenAFS.
> The server is 100% userspace, so it shouldn't be too difficult
> to get it included, at least in Fedora Core (possibly the next
> RHEL5).
> 
OpenAFS:  I'll have to look at the license that it is released under ...
that might be able to be in Extras ... someone want to maintain it :)
> > Once the cluster suite and eclipse are available they probably will be
rolled in.
> 
When RHGFS / Eclipse / RHCS are released for RHEL-4 they will be
available for CentOS-4.
> > Pine also is in the SL dists.
> 
> Pico/Pine also changed licenses awhile back and is considered
"non-free."
> Nano replaced Pico, can't remember what replaced Pine.
> 
Correct ... Pine is non-free license, won't be built for CentOS-4 :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050528/574128ea/attachment-0004.sig>

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at
hughesjr.com>
> Righto ... no JRE redistributes in CentOS ... that is not allowed :)
> They also have mp3 stuff ... also not allowed :)
If you want an example of what I consider "ignorance," that's it
right there.
Someone who asks, "why doesn't Red Hat include X," won't get
grief.
But people who say, "I use Y because it includes X and Red Hat does
not,"
sorry, that's starting to play into that game.

I have a rule at my clients:  "No Linux CDs are allowed into the building
until
they are approved -- especially _not_ Knoppix."  Why?  Because I have to
verify they are "pure" Linux and not an indemnification nightmare.
> For CentOS-3.x  you can get GFS (and RH ClusterSuite) here:
> http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/
> (there is no GFS/RHCS for RHEL-4 (or CentOS-4) yet)
BTW, I haven't looked yet, is Netscape Directory Server available for
CentOS?  You can get it from the RHN (as well as the "technology
preview"), just wondering if it's available for CentOS from another
source.
> OpenAFS:  I'll have to look at the license that it is released under
...
> that might be able to be in Extras ... someone want to maintain it :)
IBM's IPL, yet another GPL-incompatible license along with IBM's CPL.
People claim I have an "agenda" against IBM.  No, but I _do_ have an
"agenda" to get people to realize that they should hold IBM up against
the same standard (and "agenda") they have against Sun.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

Now the last time I checked, Red Hat did include the OpenAFS client
in the kernel -- at least GPL portions (the history of AFS is a little
interest).  The OpenAFS server is user-space, so there is not a licensing
issue there.

I typically just download and build the full IPL licensed client/server from
OpenAFS, despite the licensing issues.  If it's for private use, you can
do this per the GPL -- you just can't redistribute anything that isn't
GPL compatible linked against GPL (which is what I make my clients
aware of).

BTW.  If people think "ignorance" is a "harsh word,"
understand when you
are "ignorant" as a consulting engineer with a Professional
Engineering
license, the term becomes "Professsional Negligence" with the same,
_liability_ as an MD.  ;->

So I tend to avoid "ignorance" and care about little details.  ;->
> Correct ... Pine is non-free license, won't be built for CentOS-4 :)
But remember, it's Red Hat's fault.  ;->


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

On Saturday 28 May 2005 19:38, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>
wrote:
> From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu>
> > Referencing SL3 and CentOS 3 (as I haven't run SL4 as yet) there
were
> > some scientific applications and some Java stuff, eclipse for one,
> You do understand the redistribution issues with Java, correct?
> It's a Sun problem (a typical thorn for Red Hat in general), not a Red
Hat
> one.
I was asked what the differences between CentOS and SL were.  I simply 
enumerated some of the differences.  The Fermi internal Linux had permission 
from Sun to redistribute JRE for a particular version, apparently, but the 
latest does not include a JRE.

As to Pine, the license does not preclude distribution; Red Hat just didn't 
like the way modifications couldn't be done, rendering it unsupportable.  A 
'SLplus' repo addition to CentOS (hosted by Fermi or whoever) would
probably
handle the things that are different (like pcp and the others), and that 
could handle things.

However, with the reaction this got I wonder if Connie and the rest would want 
to try working in that direction.  The OpenAFS kernel portion could be a 
problem, but could be handled again by a 'SLPlus' repository.

Overreaction is not a good thing, and the upthread post was an overreaction; 
you're not telling me anything I don't know, Bryan.  I was just
enumerating
the differences; nothing more.  I do not use SL at this point; but just 
pointing out the duplication of effort that is going on.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com>
> It's just too bad that there is really nothing on offer for these
> former customers. Please don't suggest Fedora. The customers who are
> complaining the loudest are not interested in experimental versions.
To me, the quality of Fedora Core is no better or no less than Red Hat Linux
before it.  One thing I _do_ find is that people are making claims on Red Hat
Linux that were _never_ true.

SLAs were _never_ offered, except on Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E".
Support was virtually never offered as standard beyond installation.
Yes, there were and still are professional services, but they are
typically more for development anyway (which includes Fedora).

Updates were typically cut off for all releases except the last .2 once
the next series came out.  This all changed in the version 7 series,
because companies and users started demanding it.

But after the version 7 series, 2 years before Fedora, Red Hat switched
back to no more updates beyond one year.

So as far as "abadonment," I never saw anything Red Hat did above
and beyond as unofficial charity.  And I rather tire of claims that Red Hat
did this or did that on Red Hat Linux when they _never_ did.

Which is why I scratch my head.  Especially when you compare what
people want and the fact that there's virtually no other company that
offers it.  Even SuSE doesn't make it's 2 year guarantees, and they
are yanking support on SuSE Linux 7.

It's almost like there is this Red Hat Linux product that existed like
a myth, a word-of-mouth fairy tale.  And that's what just makes me
roll my eyes.

At the same time, people still complain about the GLibC 2.0 change,
the GCC 2.96/3.0 change, the NPTL change, etc...  It's like even the
critics sometimes contradict themselves -- much like I also see done
with Microsoft as well.

It's not that Red Hat doesn't have its issues or focus.  It's just
that
people need to focus on those details that are actual issues, and not
invent things.  Like this Red Hat Linux product I never knew existed.

;->



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" <thebs413 at
earthlink.net>
> Which is why I scratch my head.  Especially when you compare what
> people want and the fact that there's virtually no other company that
> offers it.  Even SuSE doesn't make it's 2 year guarantees, and they
> are yanking support on SuSE Linux 7.
Sorry, that last part should read "yanking support early on SuSE Linux
Enterprise Server 7."

Underpromise, overdeliver, that's always been the Red Hat way.

Unfortunately, people seem to have taken their occassional past overdeliveries
as policy.  Especially since they were largely just short-lived, and never
promised.


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org