I have found at times the community to CentOS-leadership relations to be
quite poor.
I have witnessed the summary judgements against people like Dag Wieers
driving them away. Useful members driven out.
I have seen release dates slip for months at a time with no word from the
people in control o
On 01/16/2014 09:37 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> I too am studying for the RHCSA.and while it IS tough (SO different
>> from when I had to study for Windows 2000 Server Administration certs!)
>> I wonder if the fact that Red Hat is about to release version 7 if the
>> 6.x exams are still going
On 01/17/2014 02:35 AM, Michael Klitgaard wrote:
> Jangs book is really thorough, but if you ask me, it's too big.
> I studied for approx. 5 weekends and never made it half way through the
> book, due to it being so long and covering way to much. Eg. it covers
> sendmail and postfix setup, while p
op 09-01-14 11:41, Johan Vermeulen schreef:
> op 19-12-13 12:38, Johan Vermeulen schreef:
>> op 19-12-13 12:23, wwp schreef:
>>> Hello Johan,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:08:17 +0100 Johan Vermeulen
>>> wrote:
>>>
Dear All,
I'm having trouble on 2 laptops Lenovo B580 since u
On 01/16/2014 09:14 PM, Nux! wrote:
> On 08.01.2014 01:04, Always Learning wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 21:09 +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>> With great excitement I'd like to announce that we are joining the
>>> Red
>>> Hat family. The CentOS Project ( http://www.centos.org ) is joining
>>
On 01/16/2014 10:45 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:29:09PM -0500, Joseph Godino wrote:
>> stating and what it was referring to. Please retract the word new.
> That's the point though. If "you" (for generic values of "you") export
> code under US legal restriction from the
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 08:04 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> The only exception in the treaty is cryptographic academic papers
> (how
> we got pgpv3 exported, in book form); but even this got challenged
> because of the pgp export.
Still have the sources and Windoze binaries from PGP 2. Those
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 08:04 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> The only exception in the treaty is cryptographic academic papers (how
> we got pgpv3 exported, in book form); but even this got challenged
> because of the pgp export.
I really mean
Still have the sources and M$ DOS binaries
I see you haven't read announcements and explanations, or you haven't
understood them.
On 01/17/2014 10:14 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> I have found at times the community to CentOS-leadership relations to be
> quite poor.
>
> I have witnessed the summary judgements against people like Dag Wieers
> dri
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 15:59 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild,
> you could have also teamed up and found sponsors
> from all those unhappy community members you say exist
I lack knowledge of how the community inspired Centos
They are two seperate exams, no summing of grades.
You can fail the RHCSA and pass the RHCE, but the RHCE is not valid before
after passing the RHCSA.
Maximum points is 300, 210 is the passing mark.
My heart was beating and I was a bit stressed when the RHCSA exam started,
but there is more time
"Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a
single CentOS.
Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a
few that have now financially benefited and retain a dict
"You ARE aware that RepoForge is forzen solid because Dag Wieers does not
want to release control to others but has no time to build packages ready
for build"
There is quite a bit of open-source surrounding rpmforge and rpmforge
doesn't have the work "Community" it its very name.
--
View this m
I view this as a takeover. I view this as a few who kept how to rebuild RHEL
a state secret benefiting financially. I don't see how a community benefits
when we cannot recreate for ourselves what is being done here. I don't see
how we benefit when a large company comes in and buys their way into th
"Essentially Red Hat is slowly taking over and developing/assisting
Centos to be a more regular and structure organisation. The fact that
Red Hat now owns the Centos brand worries me but that's life. Absolutely
nothing remains static."
Interesting how a _community_ "Brand" can be bought.
Seems th
On 01/17/2014 04:35 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
>> (Love is in the Air)
>
> Great to see you are still in love - she must be very special :-)
>
Actually, "Ljubo" in both my first and last name means closely to
someone who loves, kisses someone. Ljubomir means "one who loves/kisses
peace (peace =
On 01/17/2014 05:05 PM, IonPacepa wrote:
> "You ARE aware that RepoForge is forzen solid because Dag Wieers does not
> want to release control to others but has no time to build packages ready
> for build"
>
> There is quite a bit of open-source surrounding rpmforge and rpmforge
> doesn't have the
IonPacepa wrote:
> "Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
>
> A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a
> single CentOS.
>
> Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a
> few that have now financially
On 01/17/2014 05:03 PM, IonPacepa wrote:
> "Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild,"
>
> A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a
> single CentOS.
>
> Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a
> few th
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
> Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
Excellent. Now if others would stop responding to the trolls it would
be even better.
John
--
I don't know. Just b
On 01/17/2014 05:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>
>> Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
>
> Excellent. Now if others would stop responding to the trolls it would
> be even better.
>
Sorry, I saw other troll e-mails
On 01/17/2014 10:03 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> "Every one of "you", unhappy ones, could have created your own rebuild, "
>
> A lot of Redhat rebuild projects gave up their very existence to support a
> single CentOS.
>
> Not giving up the secret sauce is about control and power in the hand of a
> fe
On 17/01/14 11:12 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> I view this as a takeover. I view this as a few who kept how to rebuild RHEL
> a state secret benefiting financially. I don't see how a community benefits
> when we cannot recreate for ourselves what is being done here. I don't see
> how we benefit when a la
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
> >
> What we didn't do was create a support mechanism to fracture the
> community every time someone got an idea. That seeks only to tear away
> at the community rather than to build it up.
Is that how you describe every other open source proje
John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>
>> Ok, what ever, I am done wasting time on you.
>
> Excellent. Now if others would stop responding to the trolls it would
> be even better.
>
Can't resist: I think he's trying to get our goat... and
On 01/17/2014 10:15 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> "Essentially Red Hat is slowly taking over and developing/assisting
> Centos to be a more regular and structure organisation. The fact that
> Red Hat now owns the Centos brand worries me but that's life. Absolutely
> nothing remains static."
>
> Interestin
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 13:53 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> What the heck are you talking about ... rpmbuild -ba .src.rpm
>
> It builds if you install the proper packages from the CentOS repos.
>
> Using mock and a CentOS Tree can reproduce CentOS just as easily.
>
> We are creating git.centos.o
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> don't see
> how we benefit when a large company comes in and buys their way into the
> board and pays off all members. Where is the Community's say in this? This
> is a payoff. Will we get releases sooner? Will we know how to rebuild the
> build environmen
On 1/17/2014 12:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>> Offering free RHEL would fracture and destroy several communities,
>
> I strongly disagree with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
I count 115 Debian/Ubuntu variants.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Digimer wrote:
> CentOS was never under any requirement to release their build methods.
> Whether that was a good or bad choice is not very relevant now.
I'd thought that the GPL's said differently.
>From a subsequennt post, I gather that there
is disagreement on whether Cent
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security
updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to
provide that. Maybe that goes back
On 01/17/2014 10:12 AM, IonPacepa wrote:
> I view this as a takeover. I view this as a few who kept how to rebuild RHEL
> a state secret benefiting financially. I don't see how a community benefits
> when we cannot recreate for ourselves what is being done here. I don't see
> how we benefit when a
On 01/17/2014 01:57 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 13:53 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> What the heck are you talking about ... rpmbuild -ba .src.rpm
>>
>> It builds if you install the proper packages from the CentOS repos.
>>
>> Using mock and a CentOS Tree can reproduce Cent
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Snip...
>
In summary, opinions are like ... well, you know the rest. Opinions are
a dime a dozen. Actions are relevant. Our actions show we want to
continue to provide the best OS in the world to the community AND we
want to also bring
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if
> they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related
> systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
>
>
I don't expect that it would ever be necessary,
On 1/17/2014 13:33, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, if you want a wide-open Linux, Les, you know where to get it.
>
> Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security
> updates. But I don't like being dependent on any sin
On 01/17/2014 09:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> I don't really think the CentOS team has an evil plan here, but they
> should take it as a compliment that I think they are smart enough to
> fool me if they did want to do something like inject a
On 01/17/2014 02:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> But, the bigger question is where it leaves us if
> they just decide to quit after assimilating most of the related
> systems under a build ecosystem that no one else can reproduce easily.
Les,
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-build-repo
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> Sigh..., It's complicated. I want stability and reliable security
>> updates. But I don't like being dependent on any single entity to
>> provide that.
>
> You want your Linux to be under control, but not controlled. Is that it? :)
Co
I updated java-1.7.0-openjdk a few hours ago - it *was* listed as a
critical security update, and I don't want yelling from rkhunter. The man
page tells me I can tell it rkhunter --propupd ... but it
doesn't know the name above as a package. Been googling a bit, and cannot
find a good example of a
We don't have enough arguments here
I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail tools, other than
t-bird (or maybe mutt or pine )?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:13:05PM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We don't have enough arguments here
>
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's pr
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:13:05 -0500
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail tools, other than
> t-bird (or maybe mu
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 17:13 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> So, what are people's preferred mail tools, other than
> t-bird (or maybe mutt or pine )?
Evolution 2.12.3 on C5.
--
Paul.
England,
EU.
Our systems are exclusively Linux. No Micro$oft Windoze here.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM, wrote:
> We don't have enough arguments here
>
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail tools, other
On 17.01.2014 22:13, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We don't have enough arguments here
>
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail tools, o
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 17:21 -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> sylpheed will do most things--or claws-mail, which, IIRC, is a fork of
> sylpheed.
I find Claws is better than Sylpheed. Claws uses the same data files as
Sylpheed.
--
Paul.
England,
EU.
Our systems are exclusively Linux. No Mic
On 17/01/14 21:37, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I updated java-1.7.0-openjdk a few hours ago - it *was* listed as a
> critical security update, and I don't want yelling from rkhunter. The man
> page tells me I can tell it rkhunter --propupd ... but it
> doesn't know the name above as a package. Been
John Horne wrote:
>
> On 17/01/14 21:37, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I updated java-1.7.0-openjdk a few hours ago - it *was* listed as a
>> critical security update, and I don't want yelling from rkhunter. The
>> man page tells me I can tell it rkhunter --propupd ...
but it
>> doesn't know the name
On 01/17/2014 04:13 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We don't have enough arguments here
>
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail tools,
On Jan 17, 2014, at 2:13 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We don't have enough arguments here
>
> I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
> evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
> years with t-bird. So, what are people's preferred mail
Hi
I decided to also use Centos, when RedHat took ownership. so I'm
learning the ropes. :-)
I have a question, are Thunderbird and evolution the only gui based
email clients
available for centos yum repos?
Thanks
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@cen
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:18:09PM -0800, Edward M wrote:
> Hi
>
> I decided to also use Centos, when RedHat took ownership. so I'm
> learning the ropes. :-)
> I have a question, are Thunderbird and evolution the only gui based
> email clients
> available for centos yum repos?
While I'm not
My problem with Evolution is that it's not a mail tool, it's "a
personal information management application" (their words). I don't
want a calendar and I only barely want an address book; I do want
something that operates without a server daemon (other than SMTP),
against a local-disk-only mail st
# repoquery --repofrompath foo,
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/ --repoid=foo -i --search
mail
Looks like EPEL has claws and seamonkey, plus a few webmail apps.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:18:09PM -0800, Edward M wrote:
> >
I find gmail very useful for some things, but it always feel a little
tainted by it. I really wish there was an open source webmail app that
could come closer to matching it.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM, wrote:
> > We don't have enoug
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 17:32 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> My problem with Evolution is that it's not a mail tool, it's "a
> personal information management application" (their words). I don't
> want a calendar and I only barely want an address book; I do want
> something that operates without a
On 01/18/2014 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM, wrote:
We don't have enough arguments here
I see that thunderbird's deprecated for RHEL 7, and they recommend
evolution. I've certainly had some annoyances in the last couple-three
years with t-bird. So, what ar
On 01/17/2014 03:59 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I will be using thunderbird from somewhere .. even if I have to build it
> myself
My suggestion is the Remi repo (http://rpms.famillecollet.com/):. He
provides the latest Firefox and Thunderbird among some other useful
stuff such php. I often have Fi
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
>>
>> Gmail's web interface is very low-maintenance...
>
> Have to take exception to this comment - the interface changes at the whim
> of google and I have to relearn - recently the changes have come with
> increasing frequency and major impact
60 matches
Mail list logo
