similar to: Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- the _real_ history of Red Hat Linux support

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

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. >

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> > I roll my eyes when I hear how good and great and all-virtuous > RedHat is, On GPL. That's all. On GPL. IBM is praised while HP, Red Hat and Sun are demonized. Companies have their agendas, and we need to be _cautious_. But one thing remains: Stallman's Moral Delima Which means that the only thing that matters in the end is

From: Martyn Drake <martyn at drake.org.uk> > To be quite honest with you - that's been and gone so quickly I can't > ever remember what my position was at that time. It actually happened over the span of 2 years before any name change. With the introduction of RHEL as a separate product, RHL was having an identity crisis. It used to be that ".2" was the

On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Alan McKay <alan.mckay at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have been googling for a few weeks now and not finding anything. > Apache 2.2 is EOL at the end of this year. > > Has Red Hat announced a plan yet on what they are doing in RHEL6? > > I am assuming they will up-version from 6.9 to 6.10 and as part of > that upgrade from Apache 2.2 to

Hi folks, I have been googling for a few weeks now and not finding anything. Apache 2.2 is EOL at the end of this year. Has Red Hat announced a plan yet on what they are doing in RHEL6? I am assuming they will up-version from 6.9 to 6.10 and as part of that upgrade from Apache 2.2 to Apache 2.4 ? thanks, -Alan -- "You should sit in nature for 20 minutes a day. Unless you are busy, then

In the course of troubleshooting a netfilter problem, I've run into a scenario where I can reliably generate an oops with the netfilter module(s). I generally like perusing the bugs on Red Hat's bugzilla system because I can usually find solutions or patches to issues I encounter there. In this case, I couldn't. What do CentOS users do when they discover bugs? Will Red Hat

Attached is Red Hat's judgement on my bug report for the missing value corruption problem that appears in RH 9. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174 Martyn -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: bugzilla@redhat.com Subject: [Bug 88174] Optimization causes corruption of NA value in the R language Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:13:24

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:51:30PM +0300, R?zvan Sandu wrote: > Taking into account that both Red Hat and Debian (8.x) families now use > systemd, there is, IMHO, one small. but important correction to be done: > tinc's initialization. > > IMHO, we need: > > 1. A proper tinc.service file, included by default (prepackaged) in the > stock .deb and .rpm packages in

This post appeared on another forum: Will CentOS become obsolete now because of the changes Red Hat is implementing? Red Hat has changed the way it distributes Enterprise Linux kernel code in an effort to prevent Oracle and Novell from stealing its customers, making it more difficult for these competitors to understand which patches have been applied where. Some have speculated that the change

The segfault logged below occurs on two different Red Hat 6.2 systems running OpenSSH installed from the 2.5.1p2 RPM. (Similar problems occured with the 2.5.1p1 RPM.) The most recent of the Red Hat 6.2 systems tested is stock except for an upgrade of rpm-3.0.5-9.6x.i386.rpm and the install of Red Hat's release of openssl-0.9.5a-3.i386.rpm, both necessary for the OpenSSH RPM install. The

> 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

To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published. The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using Red Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice

-- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:44:37 -0400 From: taroon-beta-list at redhat.com To: taroon-beta-list at redhat.com Subject: Announcing Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 (Nahant) Beta 1 Public Availability Red Hat is pleased to announce the availability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (version 4)

Hi, I'm trying to build samba 2.0.5a on Red Hat 5.2. It originally came with 1.9something, which seemed to have some bugs accessing large mounted directories. I downloaded Red Hat's updates package, but unfortunately it only comes with smbclient and smbd, and what I need is smbmount and smbumount. My binaries from my more recent systems (RH6 and OL2.2) won't run due to

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Sorry ... I was talking about the SRPM from SL ... it also build the > kernel modules ... Oh, right, sorry -- understand what you mean now. BTW, one of the worst assumptions I've seen is that because a distro or project ships something, its users believe it was done legally or with permission. I've seen many cases where

There's nothing like asking someone to "give it a rest" while taking the opportunity to make fun of them. Lucky for you (and the list), I can laugh at myself, because I can seem comical at times. But in all seriousness, just remeber to hold us all to the same standard. And we are all responsible for what we say and how we say it, and I'll never claim to be better than the worst

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and > release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :( ??? Actually, you _can_. You just can't link it into the GPL kernel program. [ I'm not posting this to cross you. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. ] There is nothing in the GPL that prevents a GPL

From: Dag Wieers > Bryan, stop generalising and dramatising. What dramatising? At some point, several people decide that anything they dislike was said by me. Several other people said far more negative comments about CIPE than myself. Those comments have now been attributed to me. I purposely avoided making it about whether or not CIPE should or shouldn't not be included, just why it

Hi David, Thanks for asking. I too am an MCSE, but I don't think i have the patience, experience, or understanding to actually teach the stuff although I am fascinated by everything that is Linux. Hey Linux Community, does that feeling for Linux ever fade? Anyway, on with the story... Unforunately, I am slowly accumulating information about RHat 8.0 linux's SAMBA much too slowly. I