similar to: Design changes are done in Fedora

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list > does not give one much hope that such a point of view would be > tolerated, much less welcomed. Exactly. They don't care about breakage, only change. In the early days I tried to follow Fedora development and no one

On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: > On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I >> misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ? > > > Enterprise to me implies large business Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used euphemistically since the later

On Thu, January 8, 2015 11:32 am, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Thu, January 8, 2015 10:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >>> >>> A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list does not give one much hope that such a point of view would be tolerated, much less

On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote: > On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> > wrote: >> On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: >>> >>> Enterprise to me implies large business >> >> Enterprise literally means 'undertaking?. > > Danger: We?re starting to get into dictionary flame

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:48:03AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: > After all, because we use CentOS rather than RHEL and forgo the > provision of RH's expert advice, then we ourselves and our > organisations are a self-identified technologically advanced user > community. And we are concerned more with the entire package than > with any particular component or detail. If we

On Thu, January 8, 2015 10:44 am, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> > wrote: >> >> A perusal of the contents of both the Fedora devel list and users list >> does not give one much hope that such a point of view would be >> tolerated, much less welcomed. > > Exactly. They don't care about

On Mon, December 29, 2014 04:22, Ned Slider wrote: > What business model do you have that you > can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for > the next 10 years? Well, despite the hype from Wall St., Bay St. and The City, a large number of organisations in the world run on software that is decades old and cannot be economically replaced. In many instances

On Wed, December 31, 2014 12:03, Warren Young wrote: > > So, cope with change. > Is one to infer from your mantra 'cope with change' that one is not supposed to express any opinion whatsoever, ever, on any forum; on the externalised cost of changes made to software with no evident technical justification? And that to do so is evidence of some moral or intellectual defect in

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote: > If we express them >> here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless, >> that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in >> most of the traffic on the Fedora devel list, might take notice. > > I think this essentially sums up your

On Sat, January 31, 2015 05:14, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 01/30/2015 06:09 PM, Scott Robbins wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:27:55PM +0000, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:15:05 -0800 >>> Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scott Robbins >>>> <scottro at nyc.rr.com>

I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me - and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS. The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very different, hence many of the current features, or future features, should remain in one or the other and not cross

CentOS-5.5 # uname -a Linux inet05.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 5 17:52:25 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Can anyone tell me why I am seeing these error message? Specifically, why is TYPE=Bridge giving Unknown connection type 'Bridge'? Jan 13 08:25:31 inet05 nm-system-settings: Loaded plugin ifcfg-rh: (c) 2007 - 2008 Red Hat, Inc. To report bugs

On Mon, December 29, 2014 21:04, Warren Young wrote: > On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: >>> >>> the world where you design, build, and deploy The System is disappearing >>> fast. >> >> Sure, if you don't care

On Tue, February 3, 2015 14:01, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Tue, February 3, 2015 12:39 pm, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev >> <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds so I almost have to feel shame for securing my boxes no >>> matter what job vendor did ;-) >> >> Yes, computers and

I have this code in a dial plan: exten => _417XX,n,GotoIf($["${CALLERID(num)}" > "SIP/41799"]?notfromlocal) exten => _417XX,n,GotoIf($["${CALLERID(num)}" < "SIP/41700"]?notfromlocal) The value of "${CALLERID(num)}" appears to be "SIP/41712-00000181" -- Executing [41720 at from-internal:5]

I want to do something like this: 30 2 * * * MAILTO=testaddr at harte-lyne.ca; echo "this should be mailed" I have searched extensively and from what I have read I believe that this should work. But evidently I misapprehend how cron and MAILTO is supposed to work as my example does not cause any mail to be sent as far as I can determine from maillog. How does one specify unique

On Thu, July 23, 2015 13:19, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Physically dragging the thread back on topic... > > I really am going crazy, trying to deal with the hourly logs from the > loghost. We've got 170+ servers and workstations... but a *very* large > percentage of what's showing up is from his bloody new fedora 22, with > its idiot systemd logging of *ever* selinux

Message-ID: <479F2A63.2070408 at centos.org> On: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:30:11 -0600, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> Subject Was: [CentOS] Unknown rootkit causes compromised servers > > SOME of the script kiddies check higher ports for SSH *_BUT_* I only see > 4% of the brute force attempts to login on ports other than 22. > > I would say that dropping brute force

Can anyone inform me as to whether or not Java on CentOS-6.6 still has SSLv3 enabled? And if it does then how is it disabled? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1

Where can I find a list of the options and their usage and meanings for the contents of this file? Regards, -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada