I will have much homework to do on this issue.
I still have a radius server running 4.2, has not missed a beat in
years, Dual P133 SPC machine
Kind regards
Kevin
Yikes! Have you run any security scans against it lately?
I have just built a new Radius server on FreeBSD and it works great.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:54:38AM +1000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Myth. Did you upgrade from NT4 to Win2K for free? How about from 2K to
> > XP? Lucky you - they gave you that for free too?
> So, updates from one Enterpri
This one time, at band camp,
Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Myth. Did you upgrade from NT4 to Win2K for free? How about from 2K to
> XP? Lucky you - they gave you that for free too?
So, updates from one Enterprise release to the next will be free?
>
> Did you get your office suite f
> To that extent, yes, 9 is ok for the receptionist's desk, or the sales
guy, or
> pretty much anybody that just uses it for a web/email/office kiosk. For
> developers, or engineers or those such, then the RHEL is a better choice.
The receptionists, sales, and other administrative functions are
OK then Ed and Jessey.
What target is RH targetted for?
If it isn't sutable for a corporate desktop and it doesn't support off
the shelf software that home users want where does it belong?
By the way, I can read and know the difference between depeciated and
removed. Usualy when somthing is de
On Saturday 29 March 2003 12:06, Gerald Henriksen uttered:
> The Red Hat sales dept. disagrees with you.
>
> Red Hat sales has stated that Red Hat 9 is enough for the corporate
> desktop and that RHEL WS is meant for more technical users. See
> https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phoebe-list/2003-
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:34:40 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:28:52AM -0800, Eric Burke wrote:
>> The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
>> longer serves the purpose.
>
>The bottom line is that RH9 is not targetted for the corporate desktop.
>That's what Red Hat Linux Ente
> I think you're mistaken here. Release notes for 8.0 were different than that
> of the last beta before it, same with juts about every beta -> full release
> I've ever seen.
>
I have been wrong before and will be again. I hope I am wrong here :)
> --
> Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
> http://geek
Edward S. Marshall wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:01:09AM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
Do you know for sure that it breaks things? I'm about to install
it today ...
I can verify some PHP breakage (phpwiki's use of gdbm seems to do a number
on the glibc upgrade, while other dba_XX(
Because there market share seems to be more important to them than their
long time supporters.
Doug B wrote:
If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
OK... that makes sense.
Why then would RedHat introduce a new
On Saturday 29 March 2003 00:28, Eric Burke uttered:
> Well, the release notes should not be that different than the release
> notes from the beta. The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
> longer serves the purpose. Once compatibility is broken by adding
> something no one else is doing,
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 04:06, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> We admin a network with approx 600 workstations and I feel redhat may not
> be the solution for this purpose also. The cost of upgrades is way above
> that of Microsoft, who do updates for free. But I would not be going with
> a MS solution but
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:06:55PM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> We admin a network with approx 600 workstations and I feel redhat may not
> be the solution for this purpose also.
Red Hat Linux 9 is not targetted for you. That's what Enterprise Linux
AW is for.
> The cost of upgrades is way ab
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:28:52AM -0800, Eric Burke wrote:
> The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
> longer serves the purpose.
The bottom line is that RH9 is not targetted for the corporate desktop.
That's what Red Hat Linux Enterprise AW is for. If you're trying to use
a product t
Eric Burke wrote:
Sorry, but
the whole NPTL gains nothing...no speed...nothing.No other Linux distro
is using it or planning on it. That in itself breaks compatibility and
the products usefulness.
What makes you think other distro's won't use it? It's in glibc, and
AFAIK, the changes have been ac
This one time, at band camp,
Eric Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the release notes should not be that different than the release
> notes from the beta. The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
> longer serves the purpose.
We admin a network with approx 600 workstations and I f
Hiya,
> Why don't you just wait for the release notes, when it's actually released.
> Or sign up for RHN and get it a week early.
>
Well, the release notes should not be that different than the release
notes from the beta. The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
longer serves the pur
On Friday 28 March 2003 20:23, Daevid Vincent uttered:
> Maybe it would be helpful to know or get some idea of what will not work
> anymore? I mean, for the most part, my servers are pretty stock RH8. I use
> PHP, Apache 1.3.27, mySQL (but the newer RPMS from mysql.com since RH is
> pure failure in
o: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RH 9 - new glibc
>
>
> On Friday 28 March 2003 17:37, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> > Yeah, this baffles me too. It's not like they were close to
> a 9.0 release
> > anyways, as if they were on like RH 8.7 or something and
&
On Friday 28 March 2003 17:37, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> Yeah, this baffles me too. It's not like they were close to a 9.0 release
> anyways, as if they were on like RH 8.7 or something and just took a small
> leap. They went from 8.0 to 9.0 with no intermediate steps. If this is such
> a huge jump a
Yeah, this baffles me too. It's not like they were close to a 9.0 release
anyways, as if they were on like RH 8.7 or something and just took a small
leap. They went from 8.0 to 9.0 with no intermediate steps. If this is such
a huge jump and so much is going to break, then it seems mighty foolish to
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Bart SCHELSTRAETE wrote:
> Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:20:42PM -0600, Doug B wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
> >>is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
> >>
> >>OK... that mak
There is a WINE workaround...
http://www.winehq.org/index.php?issue=163#Making%20Wine%20Run%20With%20glibc%202.3
-Michael
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 13:39, Bart SCHELSTRAETE wrote:
> Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:20:42PM -0600, Doug B wrote:
> >
> > > If I understand correc
Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:20:42PM -0600, Doug B wrote:
If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
OK... that makes sense.
Why then would RedHat introduce a new glibc into R
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:01:09AM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> Do you know for sure that it breaks things? I'm about to install
> it today ...
I can verify some PHP breakage (phpwiki's use of gdbm seems to do a number
on the glibc upgrade, while other dba_XX() backends seem to be unaffected
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:20:42PM -0600, Doug B wrote:
> If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
> is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
>
> OK... that makes sense.
>
> Why then would RedHat introduce a new glibc into RH 8 that breaks
> compatabilty
>
> It's a *whine* about breaking RH 8.0 The version of glibc that came as an
> update for RH 8.0 breaks compatability with some programs.
Oh, sorry, misread...been reading too much rubbish about RH taking over the
world.
>
> Doug
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 23:27, Christopher Chan wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
> > is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
> >
> > OK... that makes sense.
> >
> > Why then would RedHat introduce a new glibc into RH 8 that breaks
> > com
> If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
> is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
>
> OK... that makes sense.
>
> Why then would RedHat introduce a new glibc into RH 8 that breaks
> compatabilty with some programs (wine comes to mind and apparently
>
If I understand correctly, it seems the reason to jump a major version
is because the new glibc breaks binary compatability.
OK... that makes sense.
Why then would RedHat introduce a new glibc into RH 8 that breaks
compatabilty with some programs (wine comes to mind and apparently
VMWare)? Shoul
30 matches
Mail list logo
