CentOS - Dec 2015 - wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on boot]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> >> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just
bugged one
>> of
>> > Because of the context of this conversation. We can't have
user
>> > feedback and involvement without user feedback and involvement.
>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into
the
>> development process, but that developers don't need to poke their
noses
>> out to the end users... or at least, that's how I read what
you're
>> saying.
>
> If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's hard to
> stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The development
process is
> conducted in the open for a reason.
I don't see that as going "out of my way". Let's put it this
way: how many
times have folks on the development side poked their nose in here - the
general redhat list is pretty dead - and asked anything? I've been here
since '09, and I *think* that maybe once, *maybe* twice, someone asked
something here, who was on that side of the house.

Perhaps, if it's open, it should be a two way street, not one way, for us
to take time from what we're being paid for, to hit that side.

Oh, and btw, we *do* have a few RH licenses... and for those who have to
deal with smart card ID cards, you can thank my manager for pushing
through native support in RHEL 7. So I guess you could say we do,
sometimes, go to the development side.

       mark

On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:55 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> 
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>>>> 
>>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses
into the
>>> development process
>> 
>> If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's hard to
>> stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The development
process is
>> conducted in the open for a reason.
> 
> I don't see that as going "out of my way". Let's put it
this way: how many
> times have folks on the development side poked their nose in here - the
> general redhat list is pretty dead - and asked anything?
So?you want veto power over Fedora?  You want every proposed change to cross
your desk for a yea/nay?

What if the Fedora project gatewayed the low-traffic development mailing list to
this one, so that you don?t even have *that* barrier to participation?  Now ask
yourself: what user-visible changes do you expect in the world afterward?

Hint to the correct answer: F/OSS is a do-ocracy: those who do the work, rule.

People give Poettering a lot of static, but the fact is, he Gets. Stuff. Done. 
If you want different stuff done, you?re going to have to make that happen
somehow.  Shouted complaints from a soapbox don?t compile.

And don?t play the ?underfunded government agency? card.  LANL, LLBL, ORNL,
NASA, USGS?all have given back lots of code to the open source world.  As well
they should, because they derive an awful lot of benefit from that world.

I?m not against your basic position, Mark.  I, too, have shaken my head in
dismay at several of the desktop-focused behaviors in recent versions of
CentOS.[*]  I think where we actually differ is that I realize that I have no
right to complain all that loudly about them, because I have the means to change
them, but do not.

Partly that?s because of differing priorities, partly it?s out of rational
self-interest (i.e. I know how many OS forks fizzle) and yes, it?s partly just
laziness.  But there?s that difference: I know why I?m not out there trying to
change it.

What are your reasons?



[*] My favorite fumble is the one where a 2-NIC box with one DHCP interface and
one static will swap the configurations silently when you boot with only the
DHCP cable plugged in.  Because *obviously* you want the static IP to be
available all the time, right?  This is great for wifi + Ethernet laptops, where
you want the static IP to move when you plug the wired LAN cable in, but it
doesn?t work out so great for servers where the DHCP NIC is normally
disconnected, and exists only so the boots on the ground can move the cable in
an emergency to reestablish the Internet link after they roached the LAN config
somehow.  This behavior means the broken static IP moves to the secondary NIC,
where it remains broken.  Solution: Plug both network cables in so
NetworkManager doesn?t get Clever.?

Warren Young wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:55 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their
noses into the
>>>> development process
>>>
>>> If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's
hard to
>>> stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The
development process is
>>> conducted in the open for a reason.
>>
>> I don't see that as going "out of my way". Let's put
it this way: how
>> many times have folks on the development side poked their nose in here
>> - the general redhat list is pretty dead - and asked anything?
>
> So?you want veto power over Fedora?  You want every proposed change to
> cross your desk for a yea/nay?
Beg pardon? Why are you caricaturing what I said? I don't believe any of
us who are complaining are talking about every small change; rather, the
major ones.

As a lesser example, I just *adore* the new ethernet names - NOT. Breaks
scripts, makes it all more difficult, not to mention *so* much easier to
guess, when you've debugging a box and your organization has hardware from
many OEMs. What was wrong with eth0, or even em1? Why go to Sun naming
conventions? Maybe it helps EEs, but not sysadmins.

Please, though, that naming is *not* the point of the
thread.
>
> What if the Fedora project gatewayed the low-traffic development mailing
> list to this one, so that you don?t even have *that* barrier to
> participation?  Now ask yourself: what user-visible changes do you expect
> in the world afterward?
Why not what was suggested, a summary every month or three? How about
sending announcements?
<snip>
> People give Poettering a lot of static, but the fact is, he Gets. Stuff.
> Done.  If you want different stuff done, you?re going to have to make that
> happen somehow.  Shouted complaints from a soapbox don?t compile.
Which a vast number of us strongly opposed, but were not listened to. That
stuff is fine for a desktop, but who *cares* How Fast a *server* Shuts
Down? And coming up - hell, damn HP server take for-bloody-*ever* with
their firmware, init V is faster than their firmware.
>
> And don?t play the ?underfunded government agency? card.  LANL, LLBL,
> ORNL, NASA, USGS?all have given back lots of code to the open source
> world.  As well they should, because they derive an awful lot of benefit
> from that world.
May be, but my federal agency is at *least* 5% under what we were getting
in 2003, and my manager, who's working with another Institute about 2/3rds
of his time, and I, and another admin have to manage over 170 servers,
workstations, and clusters, some with special software, and ranging in age
from just bought to 2007 (I think there may be a workstation or 3 older),
and some of which we haven't managed to get the owners to allow us to get
off CentOS 5....
>
> I?m not against your basic position, Mark.  I, too, have shaken my head in
> dismay at several of the desktop-focused behaviors in recent versions of
> CentOS.[*]  I think where we actually differ is that I realize that I have
> no right to complain all that loudly about them, because I have the means
> to change them, but do not.
And I ask permission from my fed manager to put in a ticket with upstream
(which reminds me, I need to ask about putting one in for those docs with
links to google ads).
>
> Partly that?s because of differing priorities, partly it?s out of rational
> self-interest (i.e. I know how many OS forks fizzle) and yes, it?s partly
> just laziness.  But there?s that difference: I know why I?m not out there
> trying to change it.
>
> What are your reasons?
>
Lack of time, as I've indicated.
>
> [*] My favorite fumble is the one where a 2-NIC box with one DHCP
> interface and one static will swap the configurations silently when you
> boot with only the DHCP cable plugged in.  Because *obviously* you want
> the static IP to be available all the time, right?  This is great for wifi
> + Ethernet laptops, where you want the static IP to move when you plug the
> wired LAN cable in, but it doesn?t work out so great for servers where the
> DHCP NIC is normally disconnected, and exists only so the boots on the
> ground can move the cable in an emergency to reestablish the Internet link
> after they roached the LAN config somehow.  This behavior means the broken
> static IP moves to the secondary NIC, where it remains broken.  Solution:
> Plug both network cables in so NetworkManager doesn?t get Clever.?
Oh, I remember when you couldn't be sure, pre-NM, what would be eth0,
until you put the MAC address in....

       mark