On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 21:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
email message attachment ([Fwd: About Fedora Directory Server Project (directory)])
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Gary Croke gcroke@cachelogic.com To: sundaram@fedoraproject.org Subject: [Fwd: About Fedora Directory Server Project (directory)] Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:07:58 -0800
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
-sv
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
close-source software, buzzword, marketing-speak
Perhaps we should write a policy and get it board approved. "We will not run any software that does not meet the approval of one of our licenses" Are we currently breaking that rule anywhere in our infrastructure?
It'd be nice to just point him to the policy so they know. We've had people ask us in the past to install stuff. -Mike
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:27 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
close-source software, buzzword, marketing-speak
Perhaps we should write a policy and get it board approved. "We will not run any software that does not meet the approval of one of our licenses" Are we currently breaking that rule anywhere in our infrastructure?
cisco switches and LB.
It'd be nice to just point him to the policy so they know. We've had people ask us in the past to install stuff.
My only problem with a policy is someone else trying to hold our feet to the fire in a completely unreasonable place. Like bios firmware or some such thing.
-sv
On 1/17/07, seth vidal skvidal@linux.duke.edu wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:27 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
cisco switches and LB.
The LB is easy to replace if we want to. But what to do about the cisco switches (and pix in front of that I guess)
-Mike
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:35 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, seth vidal skvidal@linux.duke.edu wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:27 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
cisco switches and LB.
The LB is easy to replace if we want to. But what to do about the cisco switches (and pix in front of that I guess)
I'm inclined not to sweat them overly much. It's a niche we cannot easily provide for ourselves. Moreover, we just don't have the time right now to sort that out. At least not that I can tell.
-sv
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:35 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, seth vidal skvidal@linux.duke.edu wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:27 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
cisco switches and LB.
The LB is easy to replace if we want to. But what to do about the cisco switches
While it's possible to stick a bunch of 4 port ethernet cards into a Linux box and bridge them, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it.
(and pix in front of that I guess)
What's the PIX used for? Unless you have some odd interfaces plugged into them I'm sure a properly configured Fedora/RHEL box will do pretty much anything a PIX will do.
Jeff
On 1/17/07, Jeffrey C. Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
While it's possible to stick a bunch of 4 port ethernet cards into a Linux box and bridge them, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it.
(and pix in front of that I guess)
What's the PIX used for? Unless you have some odd interfaces plugged into them I'm sure a properly configured Fedora/RHEL box will do pretty much anything a PIX will do.
Jeff
We use the pix as a firewall, I'm sure a Fedora/RHEL box would do great.
-Mike
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:27, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 1/17/07, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 11:17, seth vidal wrote:
Buzzword, buzzword, marketing-speak, buzzword buzzword.
close-source software, buzzword, marketing-speak
Perhaps we should write a policy and get it board approved. "We will not run any software that does not meet the approval of one of our licenses" Are we currently breaking that rule anywhere in our infrastructure?
If you consider internal Red Hat stuff, like Brew for core, distill for composing core (at least FC6), the update tool currently used, those are all closed source, but replacements or opensourceing of all of these are in progress.
It'd be nice to just point him to the policy so they know. We've had people ask us in the past to install stuff. -Mike
yeah...
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org