On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Nathan Duehr wrote:
>>
>> True, but pretty much everything was written wrong to begin with, back
>> in the day when everyone thought bad guys just shouldn't be allowed to
>> use the network. And the fixes are trickling in bit by bit.
>
> Been hearing that “back in
On 11/4/2014 11:32 AM, Nathan Duehr wrote:
Been hearing that “back in the day” excuse since Novell / IPX was big. Wash,
rinse, repeat.
which would have been 1980s to mid 90s.
the fundamental IP application protocols like FTP, Telnet date back to
the late 60s and early 1970s, concurrent with
>
> True, but pretty much everything was written wrong to begin with, back
> in the day when everyone thought bad guys just shouldn't be allowed to
> use the network. And the fixes are trickling in bit by bit.
Been hearing that “back in the day” excuse since Novell / IPX was big. Wash,
rinse,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Nathan Duehr wrote:
>> Things break and need maintenance. If your services can't tolerate
>> that, you need more redundancy. As for the OS updates (which are
>> only one of the many things that can break...), they are 'pretty well'
>> vetted by upstream so break
> Things break and need maintenance. If your services can't tolerate
> that, you need more redundancy. As for the OS updates (which are
> only one of the many things that can break...), they are 'pretty well'
> vetted by upstream so breakage is rare and your odds are better
> installing them tha
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:21 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 1:07 AM, Cliff Pratt wrote:
>
>> I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were
>> hatchlings.
>> At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and
>> powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you i
On 29/10/14 15:32, Mark Felder wrote:
>
> I don't understand the direction that has been taken. Anything that runs
> on 6.0 should run flawlessly on 6.6. Period.
I agree, and the way to help make that happen ( and to help document and
track down breakage before this gets released ), is to submit
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 21:07 +1300, Cliff Pratt wrote:
> I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings.
> At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and
> powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days?
In my early days, the entir
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:00:16AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> If I remember Unix world, patching almost never led to downtime and almost
> always could be accomplished in presence of users logged in.
RHEL has kpatch:
http://rhelblog.redhat.com/2014/02/26/kpatch/
Technologies like kpatch, kspl
Once upon a time, Valeri Galtsev said:
> If I remember Unix world, patching almost never led to downtime and almost
> always could be accomplished in presence of users logged in.
I think that's a rose-colored glasses look in the rear-view mirror. The
"traditional" Unix flavors I dealt with (Sola
On Thu, October 30, 2014 3:01 am, Cliff Pratt wrote:
> That's exactly what I mean. It's not a matter of "starting into the
> Windows
> world". My point was that Windows admins have not become obsessed with
> "uptime", and hence given their users the expectation of 100%
> availability.
>
> I'm all
Bending a spoon 100 times it will break.. Keep temp the same hot or cold no
bends.. thus the tracks do not break...
Its not 22Deg Celsius or 28Deg it is keeping the temp the same, as the temp
changes the metal expands and contracts..
Regards Michael Cole
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:21:22
On 10/30/2014 1:07 AM, Cliff Pratt wrote:
I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings.
At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and
powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days?
We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not
I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings.
At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and
powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days?
We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not because the users wanted it.
It was because
That's exactly what I mean. It's not a matter of "starting into the Windows
world". My point was that Windows admins have not become obsessed with
"uptime", and hence given their users the expectation of 100% availability.
I'm all for being responsible to users - and that means patching and if
tha
>
> in my enterprise world, production systems are fully redundant, and have
> staging servers running identical software configurations. all upgrades
> and upgrade procedures are tested on staging before being deployed in
> production.quite often, the staging systems double as the Disaster
>
On 10/29/2014 4:40 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by
thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too responsible
to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the
direction of Windows world, sorry. I d
On Wed, October 29, 2014 6:32 pm, Cliff Pratt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>> >
>> >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows
>> >> more
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev
wrote:
>
> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> >
> >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows
> >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal
> >> p
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Valeri Galtsev
wrote:
>
>>> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows
>>> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal
>>> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we,
>>> normal people know that if the distro maintainers h
On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:18 pm, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 29.10.2014 um 22:12 schrieb Valeri Galtsev:
>> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>>
... Basically, if one thinks he knows
more than system vendor,
On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
>> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows
>> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal
>> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we,
>>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows
> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal
> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we,
> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to u
On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:28 am, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.10.2014 um 15:22 schrieb Valeri Galtsev:
>>
>> On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've
been upd
Once upon a time, Bowie Bailey said:
> RHEL, and therefore CentOS, does not support maintaining a specific
> point release version.
That's not true for RHEL. A subscription can be switched to an extended
x.y.z release train (but that's a "you get what you pay for" kind of
thing; that level of ex
On 10/29/2014 11:43 AM, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:22:35 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote:
+100
Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1],
6.[m+1] just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backport
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:22:35 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote:
>> +100
>>
> Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1],
> 6.[m+1] just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_
security
> patches/bugfixes,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014, at 09:22, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote:
> > On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote:
> >>I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've
> >> been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 package
On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote:
>> I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've
>> been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages!
>>
>> Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some o
On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've
been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages!
Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't
appreciate how much work the developers do.
I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've
been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages!
Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't
appreciate how much work the developers do.
Strength to their arms, and many he
31 matches
Mail list logo
