similar to: Current RHEL fragmentation landscape

> I can't predict the future but my feeling is that AlmaLinux has a good > chance to become the second Gold standard. I disagree with you. Both Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are in a very comfortable position, and they will likely stay that way. my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader, writing software is a hard work. SuSe hardfork will probably be only an

On 2023-07-20 04:36, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote: > > my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader, > writing software is a hard work. > #offensive terms to the community :-), hide hat wrote it. No, they didn't. That term was bandied about on social media by people who were speculating about the reasoning behind discontinuing the practice of debranding

I subscribe (pay) for a lot of things personally. Music, Movies, Anti Virus, VPN, Storage, etc. But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google Workspace. Why ? Because the general rule seems to be Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable' service. Because being a

Cologne, 10.12.00 Dear Sir, Dear Madam, We are concerned about the possibility that the European Commission might introduce software patenting into the European Community because we think this will harm our profession. We make our living on data management and statistical analyses. Modern statistics crucially depends on algorithms [cf. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (1999). Modern applied

Anyone looked into almalinux? I was sort of waiting for rocky, but I see from over the weekend on slashdot that almalinux stable is released. mark

Thank you. While I'm currently in the process of migrating to AlmaLinux 8 via an in-place upgrade, I initially wanted to update the base packages on CentOS 7 before proceeding. However, given the circumstances, it seems deploying a separate AlmaLinux machine for testing might be the most efficient approach to troubleshooting the issue. If the problem persists on a fresh AlmaLinux

On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: > But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google Workspace. > Why ? > Because the general rule seems to be > Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service > What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable' service. > Because being a 'business' by default

On 3/28/23 08:59, GitLab wrote: > GitLab > ? Pipeline #819889104 has failed! > > ? > Project nbdkit <https://gitlab.com/nbdkit> / libnbd > <https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/libnbd> > Branch > master <https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/libnbd/-/commits/master> > > Commit > 2db30279 >

Fwiw we pay for Google Workspace. I think there is a pricing issue though, but I guess changing it would affect their income from their bigger customers. We just have 5 servers, and don't want any personal support. We'd be fine to pay what we'd consider a reasonable fee I think. I contacted Redhat to ask about their licensing and if we could fit somehow into it (i.e the personal

On 2023-07-25 09:19, Gordon Messmer wrote: >>> 5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit. >> >> As you acknowledge, that's a subjective question.? I would say "no." > > Seriously? You are the only person here who thinks that. After reading an unrelated thread, I want to make an additional comment: There are several reasons that I

Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> said: > If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't > published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of > thing, but they aren't.? There's nothing there that isn't published > elsewhere. This will not be the case for the second half of a RHEL major release life

On 2023-07-25 12:18, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> said: >> If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't >> published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of >> thing, but they aren't.? There's nothing there that isn't published >> elsewhere. > This will

Am 26.07.23 um 00:52 schrieb Gordon Messmer: > On 2023-07-25 12:18, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> said: >>> If Red Hat were doing development in RHEL minor releases that wasn't >>> published elsewhere, I would probably have a different view of >>> thing, but they aren't.? There's nothing

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:13?AM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote: > > On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They > >> give away software. All of their software is available at no charge, > >> typically in an

On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: >> But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google >> Workspace. >> Why ? >> Because the general rule seems to be >> Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service >> What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely

It works for us with Rocky Linux 8.8 and Samba 4.17.5. DCs are Samba 4.18.2. Looking at your conf I see this: I do _not_ have this: idmap config DOMAIN:unix_primary_group = yes I have and you don't: disable netbios = yes smb ports = 445 server min protocol = SMB2 client min protocol = SMB2 Different: kerberos method = secrets and keytab And this is deprecated: winbind nss info =

On 2023-07-25 04:25, Phil Perry wrote: > Nonsense. For years Red Hat freely published the complete RHEL SRPMs > to their public ftp server. No, they didn't.? Take a look at the planning guide diagrams, here: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata A RHEL major release isn't a single lifecycle.? It's a sequence of minor releases, many of which have 4 year

On 7/24/23 10:12, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote: >> On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: >>> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They >>> give away software.? All of their software is available at no >>> charge, typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is >>> support.

Pipeline #819889104 has failed! Project: libnbd ( https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/libnbd ) Branch: master ( https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/libnbd/-/commits/master ) Commit: 2db30279 ( https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/libnbd/-/commit/2db30279bad4f9923baa541008f5da11624d2d1f ) Commit Message: socket activation: set LISTEN_FDNAMES Add LIST... Commit Author: Laszlo Ersek ( https://gitlab.com/lersek ) Pipeline

On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote: > On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They >> give away software.? All of their software is available at no charge, >> typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is support. > > Does Red Hat give away software anymore? Yes?? I'm not aware