8:03 a.m.
I am using FC4, and I just came across a
reason to update. How long before FC7?
Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice.
Mike.
5:28 p.m.
I always update to the latest version to come out. AFAIK FC6 is very stable
- probably more so than the development version of FC7.
On 28/02/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED <m_d_berger_1900(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a
reason to update. How long before FC7?
Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice.
Mike.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
David Hunter
8:02 p.m.
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a
reason to update. How long before FC7?
Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice.
Mike.
You can view the schedule for dates and decide if going with FC6 or
waiting is best for you.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/7/Schedule
--
I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see of it the more
it looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find
anything technically interesting there. In my opinion MS is a lot better
at making money than it is at making good operating systems.
-- Linus Torvalds
12:12 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:02:37PM -0500, Jim Cornette wrote:
>I am using FC4, and I just came across a
>reason to update. How long before FC7?
>Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
>like to do it very often.
You can view the schedule for dates and decide if going with FC6 or
waiting is best for you.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/7/Schedule
But be aware that if you don't like to upgrade very often, Fedora is not the
distribution for you. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release
due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for
almost a decade.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
4:30 p.m.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:12:45 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
[...]
But be aware that if you don't like to upgrade very often, Fedora
is not the
distribution for you. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release
due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for
almost a decade.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused
by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American
Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it?
I suppose I should ask them.
I am happy to know there is an alternative in case of unforeseen
changes in policy by the "the prominent ...", but at this point I
see no reason to switch.
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
Thanks for your comments.
Mike.
4:47 p.m.
Around 10:30pm on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 (UK time), Mike - EMAIL IGNORED scrawled:
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
In my experience the updates to a new version are too frequent for
servers, which take to much effort to reinstall that often. So I run
CentOS on my servers, but FC on workstations, which are easier to
reinstall.
I would also argue that if the servers are of critical importance, FC is
to risky as inevitably its cutting edge means more chance of failure,
and a more stable platform is safer.
Steve
Thanks for your comments.
Mike.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?
22:43:56 up 14 days, 1:07, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00
5:53 p.m.
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused
by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American
Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it?
I suppose I should ask them.
From what I remember, there were some trademark problems with them
using the name,
and they were asked to remove the references on the
website and in the distribution as well. One downside of trademarks
is that is you don't defend them, they can become generic terms
instead of trademarks. You run into problems if you try to
selectively protect your trademark.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
6:43 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:30:56PM -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused
by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American
Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it?
I suppose I should ask them.
They don't say it because they're extra-careful about not referencing Red
Hat trademarks.
I am happy to know there is an alternative in case of unforeseen
changes in policy by the "the prominent ...", but at this point I
see no reason to switch.
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
You won't get any bugfixes. Any problems you have won't really be
considered.
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get
hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
pretty much an inevitability.
What you want to do is outside the design goals of Fedora. If you don't want
to update frequently, but want to stay in the Fedora "family", CentOS is
exactly for you.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
6:51 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 19:43:02 -0500,
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get
hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
pretty much an inevitability.
It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your
own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't
have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going
to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work
to be worthwhile.
7 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:51:23PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine
will get
> hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
> pretty much an inevitability.
It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your
own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't
have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going
to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work
to be worthwhile.
You also have to not ever use network client software. For example, the
mozilla package in FC4, and everything linked against it, is high risk.
It may not happen immediately, and I'm sure we'll get a half-dozen anecdotes
of the "hasn't happen to me" variety, but overall, it's a
near-certainty.
If you wanted Fedora to be something else, you should have worked on Fedora
Legacy. As it is, that's dead. So, if you want to not update frequently, use
a distribution that's designed with a long lifespan.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
8 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 20:00:26 -0500,
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:51:23PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get
> > hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
> > pretty much an inevitability.
> It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your
> own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't
> have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going
> to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work
> to be worthwhile.
You also have to not ever use network client software. For example, the
mozilla package in FC4, and everything linked against it, is high risk.
Yes, I should have mentioned you need to watch your web browser, email and
news clients. However, since people generally only use one client in each
category this doesn't add a lot of work.
It may not happen immediately, and I'm sure we'll get a
half-dozen anecdotes
of the "hasn't happen to me" variety, but overall, it's a
near-certainty.
I don't think the risk is that much different than getting updates from
Fedora. The key packages are getting updated either way.
If you wanted Fedora to be something else, you should have worked on
Fedora
Legacy. As it is, that's dead. So, if you want to not update frequently, use
a distribution that's designed with a long lifespan.
That's good general advice. However, that doesn't mean there are exceptional
cases where people could use Fedora out of support without a lot of
effort and without a big difference in risk of getting their machine hacked.
7:37 p.m.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:43:02 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
[...]
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will
get
hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
pretty much an inevitability.
[...]
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very
tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote.
I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything,
gets through.
Mike.
9:22 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 20:37 -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very
tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote.
I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything,
gets through.
It only takes one to give you nightmares.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:40 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:52:54 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 20:37 -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
> I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very
> tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote.
> I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything,
> gets through.
It only takes one to give you nightmares.
[...]
top: up 374 days
Mike.
1:35 a.m.
Mike:
>> I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very
>> tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote.
>> I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything,
>> gets through.
Tim:
> It only takes one to give you nightmares.
Mike:
top: up 374 days
Though what does that prove? Getting compromised doesn't have to change
your uptime. You could be owned for any amount of that time, but never
know it. I wouldn't tout an uptime, in itself, as an indication of
okayness. If anything, an uptime of that length on Linux indicates that
you haven't updated a kernel in a long time, which *may* not be a good
thing.
You said you didn't think much or anything had got through (i.e. you
don't know, for sure), which was my point (that just one breakthrough is
a problem).
--
(This PC runs FC4, my others FC5 & FC6, in case that's important
to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
8:26 a.m.
Matthew Miller wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will
get
hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
pretty much an inevitability.
I don't think the danger is that great.
In any case, are you saying this is less likely to occur
if you are running CentOS than Fedora?
Why?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
8:40 a.m.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
> If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get
> hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is
> pretty much an inevitability.
I don't think the danger is that great.
In any case, are you saying this is less likely to occur
if you are running CentOS than Fedora?
On CentOS, security and bug fixes are suppled for many years for each
release. Yum update continues to be all you need to do as long as you
are happy with the application versions that release supplies.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
6:45 p.m.
. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release
due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for
almost a decade.
Hmm, it's not based on FC6 but rather RHEL5.
As for the seemingly suspicious view of CentOS, they would argue they
are actually helping.
For instance, in the new RHEL5 beta, redhat is said to "take .fc6 stuff
as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their el5 builder" (quote
from the centos list). CentOS is trying to put a beta together with
everything compiled on the el5 builder and of course finding things that
need to be done to do that.
I can't say in actuality if the information they are turning up is
working it's way back to RH (in bug reports or whatever), but some
people suggest it is and that such info will be eventually needed to
turn out a final RHEL5.
6:50 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:45:48AM +0900, javajunkie wrote:
> . Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release
> due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for
> almost a decade.
Hmm, it's not based on FC6 but rather RHEL5.
Yes, and RHEL5 is based on FC6. Judging from the beta, *very* based-on.
As for the seemingly suspicious view of CentOS, they would argue
they
are actually helping.
Definitely.
For instance, in the new RHEL5 beta, redhat is said to "take
.fc6 stuff
as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their el5 builder" (quote
from the centos list). CentOS is trying to put a beta together with
everything compiled on the el5 builder and of course finding things that
need to be done to do that.
Exactly.
I can't say in actuality if the information they are turning up
is
working it's way back to RH (in bug reports or whatever), but some
people suggest it is and that such info will be eventually needed to
turn out a final RHEL5.
Yes, there are bugs filed with Red Hat's bugzilla.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
1:47 a.m.
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5 than FC5->FC6. I
did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it
very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and
didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
Just my 2c.
On 2/27/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED <m_d_berger_1900(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a
reason to update. How long before FC7?
Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice.
Mike.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241
Skype: valent.turkovic
1:50 a.m.
If you think I'm a newbie and don't know that I'm doing then please prove me
wrong.
I used vmware image with FC4:
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/390
Please try and upload to vmare appliances page working updated FC6 version
of Collaboration appliance.
On 3/3/07, Valent Turkovic <valent.turkovic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5 than FC5->FC6.
I did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it
very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and
didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
Just my 2c.
On 2/27/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED <m_d_berger_1900(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I am using FC4, and I just came across a
> reason to update. How long before FC7?
> Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't
> like to do it very often.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
> Mike.
>
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list(a)redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241
Skype: valent.turkovic
--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241
Skype: valent.turkovic
7:43 a.m.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:47:31 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5
than FC5->FC6. I
did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it
very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and
didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
[...]
That depends on your technique. Mine starts with
downloading the new version, writing it to CDs,
and then reformatting the hard-drive.
Mike.
1:41 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 19:02 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> That depends on your technique. Mine starts with
> downloading the new version, writing it to CDs,
> and then reformatting the hard-drive.
> I call that clean install not an upgrade.
I would that call a clean install not an upgrade.
yeah, that's not an update. I tried updating from FC4 to FC% and it blew
to smithereens. I only do clean installs now. I just back up critical
data and re-install it after the clean install is complete. :) Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net
================================================
6269
days inactive
6277
days old
23 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Bruno Wolff III -
David Hunter -
javajunkie -
Jim Cornette -
Les Mikesell -
Matthew Miller -
Michael D. Berger -
Mikkel -
Ric Moore -
Steve Searle -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Valent Turkovic