similar to: wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on boot]

Gordon Messmer wrote: > I think it's likely that, instead, you believe that you are > representative of all of the people who do your job, and that features > which you do not need are therefore not needed by others. That logic is > quite normal, but completely wrong. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy to determine the number of CentOS users, or CentOS machines, in

On Wed, December 9, 2015 16:50, James Hogarth wrote: > On 9 Dec 2015 9:07 p.m., "Lamar Owen" <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: >> > >> No, it seems to me that a suitably motivated CentOS user needs to >> scratch this itch; and, no, I am not volunteering, as I've >> followed Fedora before......and just simply cannot give the >> time to it at this

On Tue, December 8, 2015 11:05, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> I have been bitten by things done in Fedora that only have any use >> on >> a laptop and that should never have been allowed into a server >> distribution. But I cannot see how I would have been aware of them >> until they manifested themselves on equipment under my care. By >> which > > ^

Lamar Owen wrote: > On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is >> that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora >> developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or >> hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may >> impact a

On 12/09/2015 09:37 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is >> that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora >> developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or >> hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion

On 12/09/2015 08:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is > that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora > developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or > hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may > impact a server installation. .... > > Am I

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:56:34PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Why not what was suggested, a summary every month or three? How about > sending announcements? Do people _want_ accepted Fedora change announcements posted to this list? That's pretty easy to arrange if it really helps. I don't see a big benefit over just following the annoucement list where they're posted

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:03:50AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:50:38PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > > For laptops, great. For anything else, not so much. For example, > > it's supposed to be an *ENTERPRISE* o/s... why does it > > automatically, without ever asking, install anything wifi? I'm [...] > The short answer: Because

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:03:50AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:50:38PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> > For laptops, great. For anything else, not so much. For example, >> > it's supposed to be an *ENTERPRISE* o/s... why does it >> > automatically, without ever asking, install anything wifi?

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:03:50AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:50:38PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> > For laptops, great. For anything else, not so much. For example, >> > it's supposed to be an *ENTERPRISE* o/s... why does it >> > automatically, without ever asking, install anything wifi?

The device I encountered it on had 10 NICS, at installation 6 of them got the new naming convention and four of them got the eth convention. I guess my question is "what's wrong with using the MAC address?" Yes, I know some things don't have MAC addresses, let the exceptional situation be the exception. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Billings"

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:54:56AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: > So, the implication of your suggestion, if I understand it aright, is > that I should audit all of the communication forums in use by Fedora > developers and then point out whenever any of the many dozens or > hundreds of contributors introduces something that in my opinion may > impact a server installation. To do

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:54:57AM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > Working with your employer to fix the "will not allow Fedora into the > > premises" part seems like a good start. > <snip> > Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged one of my Because of the context of this conversation. We can't have

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 >

On 12/09/2015 11:45 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > I'm sure it's *far* too much work for, say, the fedora development team to > put out once a quarter a notice to upstream, and maybe CentOS, Scientific > Linux, and whatever other main user groups to inform them of major > changes, and see the feedback.... Someone just needs to spend the time to do it. So who is that someone?

On 12/10/2015 1:56 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > 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? when you have multiple adapters, perhaps different

On 12/10/2015 3:05 PM, Leroy Tennison wrote: > You think this is irritating, what about when you're trying to replicate the network configuration to failover hardware... IMHO, active/standby failover hardware should have exact identical configurations down to firmware revisions, so I'm not sure what the issue is. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Leroy Tennison <leroy at datavoiceint.com> wrote: > There is a freedesktop.org web page about why they did this - it has to do with mobile devices and plug-and-play networking. Take that page's statement about setting net.ifnames=0 cautiously, I found it was the exact opposite. To be honest, I found that this change better suited servers, which often

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:54:56AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: <snip> > Working with your employer to fix the "will not allow Fedora into the > premises" part seems like a good start. <snip> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged one of my users yesterday that I'm *GOING* to update and reboot his system, since it

On 12/10/2015 07:21 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > If the bulk of the developers working on Fedora use laptops as their > platform then, inevitably, Fedora will become in essence a laptop > distribution and RHEL will follow. Surely you're not suggesting that the code a developer writes is dependent on the form factor of the computer on which they write it? I'm sure that idea