On Mon, June 27, 2011 02:26, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
> Not quite. Those are at least "not before this date". And those are
> goals set for upcoming period. If issues are found between now and
> then, then schedule has to be moved. They are not Microsoft to
> release unfinished product.
>
> B
Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes
> it useful.
> besides, read the title text on that page again:
> "QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not
> official release dates, but only a guide f
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>
>> I vote "who cares?"
>
> I vote "http://qaweb.dev.centos.org";.
>
Too bad that does not seem to be good enough for some.
_
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>
> I vote "who cares?"
I vote "http://qaweb.dev.centos.org";.
John
--
I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.
-- Euripides (c
On Monday, June 27, 2011 10:46 AM, robert mena wrote:
> So,
>
> to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it
> happen in June or July?
>
I vote "who cares?"
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/
So,
to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it happen
in June or July?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
> yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes
> it useful.
> besides, read the title text on that page again:
> "QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not
> official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target
> dates are s
On 16 June 2011 01:20, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS.
>
> so says the person who has not done it
>
> - the rpm tool changed, adding a non-backward compatible
> compression scheme. as I blogged about
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
I don't know about ISC UNIX (aka Interactive UNIX) but SCO did not use run
level 5 for X. I cut my teeth on System V UNIX including SC
On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can rememb
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
wh
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
>
> In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
> OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
> while () {
>crash
>respawn
>
On 06/16/2011 06:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps
I think you're referring to Solaris' init. I'm not aware of any Linux
init systems that start up by stepping through runlevels.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS
Laurence Hurst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 fr
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Scott Robbins wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> >> > command line (w
Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
>> > command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you
>> > can append 3 to the kernel lin
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
> >
> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> > command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you can
> > append 3 to the kernel line...
>
> That doesn't work
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>
> Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you can
> append 3 to the kernel line...
That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart
>
> CentOS 7 (based on upstream 7) will be a vastly different beast
CentOS 7 will most probably have systemd not upstart.
___
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>>
>>> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
>>> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that i
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>>
>>> Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
>>
>> To boot into "everything but X", you can append "text" to t
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I'd go that far when using a different installer (or
> avoiding LVM) in the same environment gives vastly better results.
> Even if some quirk of the low level environment really turns
> out to be responsible its not nec
On 6/15/11 7:08 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward
>> production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions.
>
> And blaming the OS being installed
Paul Heinlein wrote:
> In *this* case, since Red Hat has already released 6.1, it may even be
> prudent to wait for the CentOS 6.1 release before public deployment.
My guess is devs will first work on critical updates and release them
before the 6.1 official release. That way 6.0 will still be u
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:08:11PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> Any disk layout that doesn't align filesystem blocks with actual disk
> blocks is going to perform very badly.
I will agree this is possible in real-world environments, yes. I also
will say that this is an issue of the admin not
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> I've had a couple network installs take a long time (Desktop installs
> not Servers) but that was because the mirror I chose at random was
> really slow.
That's possible, yes; but not germane here as the post stated that he
was usi
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:15:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Agreed, but testing something on vmware is a likely first step toward
> production and bad performance on the first look can warp your opinions.
And blaming the OS being installed or the installer itself in such
circumstances is l
On 6/15/2011 5:56 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> I've seen vmware disk emulation -> LVM -> partitions run very, very
>> slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking "if it hurts, don't do it",
>> though. And I don't remember if it
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> I do not in any way believe your claims of an hour-long install process,
> even if done manually by walking through anaconda screen by screen.
I've had a couple network installs take a long time (Desktop installs
not Servers) but that wa
On 06/15/2011 03:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I've seen vmware disk emulation -> LVM -> partitions run very, very
> slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking "if it hurts, don't do it",
> though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it
> probably was. Could have been an is
On 06/15/2011 03:57 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> Maybe Red Hat will continue to obfuscate its infrastructure and
> increase the burden on teams like CentOS who try to rebuild the
> distribution from SRPMs
Nothing that Red Hat did has increased the burden on CentOS.
__
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 01:39 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>> I'm not trying to serve as apologist for RHEL 6. I'm just saying that
>> there's little room in my world for an abolutist position like "never
>> use a .0 release -- ever."
>
> I wouldn't favor such a sent
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> I've seen vmware disk emulation -> LVM -> partitions run very, very
> slowly. Didn't diagnose it beyond thinking "if it hurts, don't do it",
> though. And I don't remember if it was a sparse disk or not, but it
> probably was.
On 06/15/2011 03:08 PM, Craig White wrote:
> those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart
Upstart would still honor the setting in /etc/inittab.
Fedora, however, is now using systemd. It's an even more different
beast than you are familiar with:
http://0pointer.de/blo
On 6/15/2011 5:26 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>>
>> I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh,
>> VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10
>> minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 t
On 06/15/2011 01:39 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> I'm not trying to serve as apologist for RHEL 6. I'm just saying that
> there's little room in my world for an abolutist position like "never
> use a .0 release -- ever."
I wouldn't favor such a sentiment either, but as it stands, CentOS 6
will be de
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>
> I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh,
> VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10
> minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took about an hour. I
> didn't time anything but I re
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> Okay, thanks. Good to know. I forget what "kludging" process I had to
>> go through to get Mint to boot into text, I think I disabled the X
>> server somehow. But even when I got to text mode, the Nouveau driver
>> had loaded, wh
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard
>>> wrote:
Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
>>>
>>> To boot into "everything
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
>> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
>> overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setti
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
>>
>> To boot into "everything but X", you can append "text" to the kernel
>> (grub1) or linux (
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>> Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-)
>
> http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html
>
> There are a number of "Important" reasons not to deploy 6.0 for
> public-facing
On 06/13/2011 10:12 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> Never wait until revision.1 unless there's a good reason. :-)
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6-errata.html
There are a number of "Important" reasons not to deploy 6.0 for
public-facing systems.
_
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>
>> Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
>
> To boot into "everything but X", you can append "text" to the kernel
> (grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configu
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
To boot into "everything but X", you can append "text" to the kernel
(grub1) or linux (grub2) line in the grub configuration.
___
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
> overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image
> w/ Ubuntu Server takes at
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> ElRepo has kernel modules already compiled:
> http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia so I guess it should be OK. Playing
> around with recompiling nVidia drivers was a real pain in a
Bookmarked. Thanks.
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't
>> become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for
>> Ubuntu.
>
> I don't have to generalize, I go to the
On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fed
On 6/15/2011 6:54 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS?
>> Does it have a rival in this role?
>
> you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos
> at all.
> It's just another third party
gvim wrote:
> On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
>>
>
> This was the original entry I saw:
>
> http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/
>
> gvim
I assume that that person made an typo. There was announcement that it
will b
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
> erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
>
This was the original entry I saw:
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/
gvim
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos
On 06/15/2011 02:59 PM, gvim wrote:
> On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere
>
> Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to "cybernautape"
>
> http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728
I don
On 15/06/2011 14:53, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere
Sorry, it was not your Twitter account but one belonging to "cybernautape"
http://twitter.com/#!/CentOS6/status/79206786703433728
gvim
On 06/13/2011 05:56 PM, NOYK wrote:
> No. Given the economy people are trying to make systems last as long as
> possible and this is just 6.0 not 6.1. Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how
> apps perform/behave and then wait till 6.1. Never go to a major revision.0
> unless you are forced.
>
hopefu
On 06/15/2011 02:37 PM, gvim wrote:
> Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned
> the postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now.
erm, I havent deleted anything. Are you confusing accounts somewhere ?
- KB
___
C
On 14/06/2011 22:52, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>
> What 24th are you talking about?
>
Karanbir Singh's Twitter posts had an entry dated 10th June which mentioned the
postponement. However, I see it's been pulled now.
gvim
___
CentOS mailing list
Cen
Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> Am I alone in regarding epel as more or less a part of CentOS?
> Does it have a rival in this role?
you may not be alone, but you're still wrong: epel is not part of centos
at all.
It's just another third party repo.
There are others including some reputable and widely u
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Most of the stuff that you have to use 3rd party repos to get
> on CentOS is in the stock ubuntu repositories in usably recent versions.
I've found 99% of the things I need on a CentOS
(which I only use on home servers)
is in the epel repository if it is not in the CentOS re
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
>> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
>> > from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough
>> for
>> > production.
>>
>> *blin
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack
>> PAE support.
>
> This laptop is a Latitude D400, which I think were made in 2005. It
> definitely doesn't have PAE support. I discovere
Craig White wrote:
> I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I
> don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora
> for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so
> completely out-of-date.
>
Time from CentOS 5.0 to 6.0 was mark
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Since Pentium Pro, only old 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M lack
> PAE support.
This laptop is a Latitude D400, which I think were made in 2005. It
definitely doesn't have PAE support. I discovered that when I tried to
test Red
On Jun 15, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
>
> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
> overloaded with bloat from the very start.
Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>> On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the
>> information
>> given on this site:
>>
>> http://qaweb.dev
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
> > from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
> > production.
>
> *blink*
>
> Abs
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:06 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Benjamin Franz wrote:
> > On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> >>
> >> Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
> >> CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that
> >>
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:19 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 06:49 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:22 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> >> > easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu - no more
> >> new CentOS in
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:37 +0930, Mark Bradbury wrote:
> On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the
> information
> given on this site:
>
> http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar
>
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't
>> become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for
>> Ubuntu.
>
> I don't have to generalize, I go to the forums and see all the issues
>
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Do you have something other than an intel wifi chip?
>
> No, not any more. I had a Broadcom card, but an older laptop we gave
> away needed a WiFi card, so I invested $12 into an Intel card on eBay
> and installed th
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom H wrote:
> I wouldn't generalize based on your experience because Mint hasn't
> become a very popular distribution by being broken. Same goes for
> Ubuntu.
I don't have to generalize, I go to the forums and see all the issues
-- often the same issues I'm havi
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Do you have something other than an intel wifi chip?
No, not any more. I had a Broadcom card, but an older laptop we gave
away needed a WiFi card, so I invested $12 into an Intel card on eBay
and installed the Broadcom card in the "old" lapt
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> And by the way - if you need to run something yourself just to be able
> to support someone else you can usually do it under vmware player,
> virtualbox, etc. It's easier than fighting with real hardware and
> shutting down whatever else you
On 6/14/11 8:29 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> >
> In any case, an LTS release for a server is a joke. How many PPA's have
> you added for your servers?
For what? Most of the stuff that you have to use 3rd party repos to get on
CentOS is in the stock ubuntu repositories in usably recent versions.
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 08:59 AM, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried
>>> to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:23:38PM +0100, gvim wrote:
>
> Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these
> problems. That's why I switched. Don't get it.
But yet you felt the need to comment. Bravo.
You realize that SL has people PAID to work on the distro, right? As in
the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM, wrote:
>
> Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
> from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
> production.
That was me. Using fedora isn't my choice but it's been running fine
for the purposes of
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
>
>> Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried
>> to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if
>> she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize he
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:37 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
By
> the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over
> the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first
> place because Centos didn't include a driver for the wifi and ubuntu
> 'just worked'.
>
Th
On 6/14/2011 5:00 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> By
>> the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over
>> the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first
>> place because Centos didn't include a driv
On 6/14/2011 4:54 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
>
>> Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried
>> to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if
>> she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboar
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> By
> the way, my install was originally a 9.x LTS, upgraded to a 10.x over
> the network while running under vmware and I installed it in the first
> place because Centos didn't include a driver for the wifi and ubuntu
> 'just worked'.
Oppo
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> Odd you should mention it - a friend on a techie mailing list just tried
> to set up dual-boot XP w/ ubuntu, and had all *kinds* of grief, dunno if
> she just restored XP. Wouldn't recognize her USB keyboard, didn't get the
> graphics card and monitor r
gvim wrote:
>
> Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems.
> That's why I switched. Don't get it.
>
What 24th are you talking about?
QA site has 16th as pushing to internal mirrors. I was informed that all
rpm's are OK, they are just fixing few distro/ISO bugs.
on 6/14/2011 2:23 PM gvim spake the following:
,snip>
>
> Then 21st, now 24th. Scientific Linux doesn't seem to have these problems.
> That's why I switched. Don't get it.
>
> gvim
You forgot to switch lists... ;)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@cento
On 14/06/2011 05:07, Mark Bradbury wrote:
> On 13 June 2011 23:53, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> I just want to say that I really, really, appreciate the information
>> given on this site:
>>
>> http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/calendar
>>
>>
>
> It seems every time I look at that site the dates hav
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>> I'm an admin. I'm a contractor.
>
> Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term
> consequences.
Yes, I bloody well am. I work for a federal contractor, and as long as
they have the multi-year contract, an
On 6/14/2011 12:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> I'm an admin. I'm a contractor.
Oh - OK. Then you aren't expected to care about the long term consequences.
>> OK, but what was that about things like ruby and java? (Java being more
>> or less OK now...). If you don't use/need software from th
>>> Smart folks will test 6.0 to see how apps perform/behave and then wait
>>> till 6.1.
>>
>> I beg to differ. Smart folks will test 6.0 and deploy it if performance
is
>> acceptable.
>
> Guess you have never worked in an organization of any size where you worry
> about reliability, patches, bug
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team
that's
>>
10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of
gnome, and put KDE on
I want solid and stable.
On 6/14/2011 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>>> Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's
>
>>> 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of
>>> gnome, and put KDE on
>>>
>>> I want solid and stable.
>>
>> I don't get the comparisons.
On 6/14/2011 10:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental
>> releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs
>> in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do
>> major-rev upgrades provided that you
Jerry Franz wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
>> from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough
>> for production.
>
> *blink*
>
> Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu S
On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
> from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
> production.
*blink*
Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use
Fedora
Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental
> releases. Eve
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE
ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:26 PM, Trutwin, Joshua wrote:
>> heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same.
>
> There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system.
>
>> Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't
>> possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness.
>
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY
CONTROL!!! Given how many deve
> heck it's still Linux and pretty much the same.
There's a lot more than just a kernel to break a system.
> Red Hat went far too long between releases and it is clear to me that I can't
> possibly rely on CentOS for timeliness.
Maybe I'm just in a different kind of environment, but why do you
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
