On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 14:27 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I've been pleased that the folks on this list have been solicited
> several times in the last six months for our opinions.
???
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
On 12/11/2015 06:45 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
On the other hand, it would be relatively easy to determine the number
of CentOS users, or CentOS machines, in various categories. For some
reason both CentOS and Fedora seem to shy away from gathering this
kind of information, or indeed any informa
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:45:05AM +, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On the other hand, it would be relatively easy to determine
> the number of CentOS users, or CentOS machines, in various categories.
> For some reason both CentOS and Fedora seem to shy away from gathering
> this kind of information,
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
On 12/10/2015 05:33 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/10/2015 1:56 PM, m.r...@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 h
On Dec 10, 2015, at 2:56 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Warren Young wrote:
>> So…you want veto power over Fedora?
>
> Beg pardon? Why are you caricaturing what I said?
I didn’t think it was a caricature at all. You clearly don’t want people to
“listen” to you, you want veto power.
If all yo
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
On 10 Dec 2015 23:25, "Leroy Tennison" wrote:
>
> 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
nal situation be the exception.
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Billings"
To: "CentOS mailing list"
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:15:09 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic
on boot]
On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:05
that but then there's reality.
- Original Message -
From: "John R Pierce"
To: centos@centos.org
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on
boot]
On 12/10/2015 3:05 PM, Leroy Tennison wrote:
> You think t
On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Leroy Tennison 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 hon
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
f the whole thing is
hardware vendors doing whatever they want and in some cases not playing b
y the rules.
- Original Message -
From: "John R Pierce"
To: centos@centos.org
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:33:24 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2
On 12/10/2015 1:56 PM, m.r...@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 wit
Warren Young wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:55 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into the
development process
>>>
>>> If you want to
On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:55 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into the
>>> development process
>>
>> If you want to go out of your way to r
On 12/10/2015 10:21 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
Since the import of what I was trying to convey has been lost, no
doubt due to my poor choice of words, I will restate the obvious: If
the bulk of the developers working on Fedora use laptops as their
platform then, inevitably, Fedora will become in
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:21:56AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Since the import of what I was trying to convey has been lost, no
> doubt due to my poor choice of words, I will restate the obvious: If
> the bulk of the developers working on Fedora use laptops as their
> platform then, inevitably
On Wed, December 9, 2015 16:50, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2015 9:07 p.m., "Lamar Owen" 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 th
On 9 Dec 2015 9:07 p.m., "Lamar Owen" 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 point in
time in my life.
>
>
> So who wa
On 12/09/2015 11:45 AM, m.r...@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
On 12/08/2015 07:46 AM, James B. Byrne 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 unde
On 12/09/2015 05:54 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 t
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.r...@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 inv
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:15:56PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
> I think saying that you can have some say as to what goes into Fedora
> is being a little naive, look at systemd, many people complained
> about its inclusion but the powers to be heard none of it, and the
That's not a historically acc
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.r...@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
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:54:57AM -0500, m.r...@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.
>>
>> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just
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
hund
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:54:57AM -0500, m.r...@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.
>
> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged one of my
Because of
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:45:55AM -0500, m.r...@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,
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:54:56AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Working with your employer to fix the "will not allow Fedora into the
> premises" part seems like a good start.
Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged one of my
users yesterday that
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 contr
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 contributor
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:37:33AM -0500, 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
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 t
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 the
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:46:58AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> > This is roughly true, although "downstream" RHEL makes its own
> > decisions about many things. If you (Mark, or anyone else) would like
> > to make this different in the future, getting involved with Fedora
> > Server is a good wa
On Mon, December 7, 2015 13:41, 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.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> > For laptops, great. For anything else, not so much. For example,
>> > it's supposed to be an *ENTERPRISE
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:23:21PM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> 1. Ignoring the several hundred log, etc, emails I deal with at work
> every day, I'm currently on at least 5 mailing lists, including
> this one, each ranging in business from 10-30 emails/day.
I didn't say you have t
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.r...@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
>> > automat
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.r...@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
>> > automat
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.r...@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,
42 matches
Mail list logo
