Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #158154 > unrolled thread

Deleting i386 packages

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Deleting i386 packages Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-09-22 05:40 +0200
    Re: Deleting i386 packages Himanshu Shekhar <irm2015006@iiita.ac.in> - 2015-09-22 06:30 +0200
    Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 08:50 +0200
      Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 09:50 +0200
        Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200
          Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:10 +0200
            Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:20 +0200
              Re: Deleting i386 packages Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-09-30 01:20 +0200
          Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-22 15:30 +0200
            Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:10 +0200
              Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:30 +0200
                  Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-25 12:00 +0200
                    Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 14:30 +0200
                      Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 09:20 +0200
                        Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-27 10:50 +0200
                          Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 12:30 +0200
                            Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-29 07:00 +0200
                              Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:40 +0200
                                Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-30 14:00 +0200
                                  Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 14:20 +0200
                        Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again (was: Deleting  i386 packages) Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 12:50 +0200
                          Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 14:00 +0200
                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 22:20 +0200
                              Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-27 23:30 +0200
                                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:10 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-09-29 21:00 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:50 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 06:30 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Heracles <heracles@iprimus.com.au> - 2015-09-30 07:50 +0200
                                        Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-10-01 05:00 +0200
                                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 20:20 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 08:30 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:40 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 13:30 +0200
                                        Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 13:40 +0200
                                          Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 17:00 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
                                          Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-30 19:30 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-30 19:40 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 19:50 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:50 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 22:00 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 01:00 +0200
                                            Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again tomas@tuxteam.de - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
                                              Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 00:10 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 10:30 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:50 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:00 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 14:40 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-10-01 06:40 +0200
                                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 23:00 +0200
    Re: Deleting i386 packages Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#158461

On 30/09/2015 14:53, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Please don't top post on the debian-users mailing list

It was unintentional.

My main point stays.
An admin and IT manager needs to evaluate their goals and decide on the 
right approach.
Sometimes it can be frustrating to navigate between the drops and decide 
that a product that will survive for 3 years worth it.

I am working with both linux and windows, open-source and non-open 
source software.
I myself wrote a free software(3 clause BSD) but I have not published 
the actual code, and instead I have published the algorithm pesudo.(if 
you have the skills it's like copy and paste)
I have proved that my code is much more efficient then other software 
and which my software(SquidBlocker) gives more then others but still I 
have not seen a dime of it from anyone.
Not even one human contacted me and said "I want to try it".
And more then just that, admins prefer to use a very old product and 
which they say "it just works" when there is no support what so ever to 
the product and it doesn't utilize the resources of the system well 
leaving aside this product doesn't meet basic production systems goals.
And it's amazing that admins still prefer to use a software that was 
designed to be used in a very low load systems on a very high load 
system vs a system that was designed for 99% uptime and very high load.

So well, it's their choice and they will decide whatever they want.

All The Bests,
Eliezer

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:33:52PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> Hey Chris,
>>
>> It doesn't matter if some would like them to just vanish.
>> They do commit to the client but the scale of things might not be understood
>> by all in the same level\manner.
>> MS doesn't and cannot commit to software maintenance in certain levels.
>> I do not know how much money they have and indeed if they are committed to
>> PROFIT only with nothing else it would make them something else then what
>> they are.
>
> I do know that:
>
> 1) They have (had?) a considerable amount of money put aside for
> lawsuits against their business practices and their borg like behaviour
> to small business where they liked a product of theirs.
<SNIP>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158341 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again (was: Deleting i386 packages)

 Hi.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:06:37 +0300
Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> wrote:

> Hey Reco,
> 
> I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a 
> trolling creature.

For the record - I did not 'confuse' you as a troll and did not call
you one. I could not care less about it, actually.


> And responding to the above mentioned arguments\ideas\thoughts.
> I know some might disagree with me about my point of view and I do not 
> have any obligations to change my mind but I can clarify my thoughts.
> 
> You have asked if I am a windows user and the answer is that I do use 
> windows and I find it a very nice piece of software.

Dear Eliezer. I don't *need* to ask you whenever you're using Windows
or not. E-mail headers 'User-Agent' and 'Content-Type' from your e-mails
leave me absolutely no doubt about you use Windows.

Also I must apologize in advance if I mistook your last name for the
first one. No offense meant.


> But I will need to clarify couple things since I am almost sure you 
> misinterpreted what I was writing.
> 
> There are couple things to consider with software.
> Like any other job the programmers need money and software authors are 
> not obligated  to publish their work to be available to all humanity(or 
> at-least these parts of humanity that are connected to the WWW).

True. To reduce free software concept to the availability of the source
code is gross oversimplification (and misses the point almost
completely btw), but we'll leave it here for a moment.


> The above is something I think is right and it is right especially for 
> security and health related software.

False. Please take your time to research 'Bugtraq' and
'Full-Disclosure' maillists to observe the falsehood of this statement.
Security by obscurity never works, and to promote such point of view
means to deny the truth.


> As opposed to what some think that software should be available for all 
> I am on the side which thinks that secrecy or confidentiality is a value 
> which is either required or wanted by people.

Here you've got it all wrong. You do not attach 'confidentiality' (let
along 'secrecy') labels to the software itself. You need to attach said
labels to the data which the software in question deals with.


> So the above doesn't implies that anyone should use any software. And 
> also in any case of software usage there is a great need to consider the 
> pros and cos and to see if it matches the requirements and needs.
> I am not writing and talking about debian specifically since this is not 
> the question(at-least from my side of the glass).
> 
> If some vendors supply compiled software that was audited by their 
> programmers, QA team and security personnel it is OK for me.

... And in real life that's not enough at all. Internal security audit
is a must, I agree. But unless the software in question is only used
internally by completely trusted personel - good, secure software
should be audited externally.
Inability to access the source code of said software is a serious
disadvantage in such a case.
Inability to *change* the source of said software equals inability to
use security-fixed software for large amounts of time (can be
sometimes remedied with assorted klugdes, true).
Inability to *deploy* the changed software (aka tivoized software) means
the same.


> If I pay for the software then it's fine from my side to get a packaged 
> product.

Ok. No arguments here. Note that free software does not equals zero
cost or lack of said 'packaged product'. Case study - Red Hat.


> I had a talk with a friend about the dangerous things on the Internet 
> and the conclusion was that some might not understand that the Internet 
> is just a "reflection" of the real world and there is no magic there.
> The same crooks can be found both in the real world and the Internet.

Ok. No arguments here too.


> In a case that a software vendor is suspected to be violating basic 
> security requirements intentionally it would black list the name brand 
> and the software.

False. There are numerous examples of the contrary. Starting with the
Microsoft, but not ending here.


> If we are talking about a complex piece of software then it is possible 
> that flaws do exist and it is also applies to any Linux and open source 
> software the same way(statistically) as non open source.

Oh, do I see 'They are bad too' argument here, right?


> Since I do have some experience with health care related programming 
> subjects and I do also have couple medical facilities that runs a 
> software with critical code I wrote and designed I can give a scenario.
> When a sysadmin decides on what software to use for these mission 
> critical human life related systems he needs to fully understand the 
> weight of using software(open source and non open source, free or non-free).
> He needs to be able to run a command such as "apt-get install squid" 
> without any fear that human life's would be affected by it.
> It means that he will have someone that he can trust to test it 
> externally and verify it fits the purpose or that the software was 
> tested enough by the developers and by the distribution team.
> Free and non Free, open source or non open source is not the question at 
> all in this case.

False. See above.


> For some, when looking at a non-free software in banking or health care 
> the question is not if it is more dangerous since the main question and 
> almost only question is "is this piece of software fit for this role I 
> requrie?" and it contains kind of "recursively" security and operations 
> sides.

That only means that said 'some' are unfit to do their role.


> The only dangerous software is a "dangerous" software!
> The definition of dangerous is not by free or non free, open source or 
> none open source.
> It's a subject by itself that requires a new definition in any software 
> adoption steps.
> Would a bug in exim, a fatal one, makes exim a dangerous piece of 
> software? The answer is that in some cases it would indeed do that but 
> in other cases it would be dangerous the same way as postfix or MS exchange.

By itself - no, such bug does not make exim bad or good.
The amount of such bugs for period of time, the amount of time which
took fix said bugs, and last, but not least - the ability to check
software for a similar bugs, and correctness of the fix - these things
do make the software good or bad.

And (see above) - free software clearly wins here. With some inevitable
exceptions sadly (PHP anyone?).

As for that parody for MTA called Exchange - no sane human being should
use that human-powered blackbox. As a side note - you clearly did the
right thing by choosing Postfix :)


> You can have arguments about a specific vendor\provider\programmer 
> software or a repository based on it's characteristics and statistically 
> it might fit debian non-free repo but it cannot make all non-free 
> software out-there to be dangerous and it's not an argument from debian 
> non-free to other software or from other software to debian non-free.

On the contrary - it can. Every time a person installs (or gets
installed, it's no different here) a non-free software - a person
inevitably lowers overall security of installation. And it brings a
certain amount of suffering, the way it should.


> A part of the health care facility sysadmin duties is to make sure that 
> he can maintain the software or at-least to make sure that there are 
> out-there developers, testers and others who can answer the facility 
> requirements.

Hint one. Here it's considered *very rude* to imply that all sysadmins
are male only. Political correctness and stuff ;)
Hint two. By such statement you imply that sysadmin in question should
willingly give up the control of administered software, just because. A
controversial point of view, to say the least.



> The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use 
> RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be 
> aware of very critical bugs.

Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
May I ask why you did so?


> This is not what makes these companies and their software dangerous.
> 
> If you do feel that this is what makes software dangerous indeed it's an 
> argument but it might not meet reality or reality requirements in many 
> facilities.
> 
> Then, what do you mean by dangerous? it was not really clear from your 
> words.

Lack of control is dangerous.
Undeclared capabilities of the software are dangerous.
Unknown quality of code (without the ability to evaluate it at least)
is dangerous.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158344 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
>
>> >The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
>> >RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
>> >aware of very critical bugs.
> Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
> May I ask why you did so?

Answer: Can I get a copy of this 
[http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without paying 
and with all the benefits?


>> >This is not what makes these companies and their software dangerous.
>> >
>> >If you do feel that this is what makes software dangerous indeed it's an
>> >argument but it might not meet reality or reality requirements in many
>> >facilities.
>> >
>> >Then, what do you mean by dangerous? it was not really clear from your
>> >words.
> Lack of control is dangerous.
> Undeclared capabilities of the software are dangerous.
> Unknown quality of code (without the ability to evaluate it at least)
> is dangerous.
>
> Reco

Thanks Reco for the clarification!
About the sysadmins males.. females.. really? I am talking in male.. if 
anyone get offended by that then well I cannot guaranty that any word I 
am writing will be right for everyone and I will not blame my bad 
English for that.

I will not say that lack of control is not dangerous but there are many 
software vendors out there which gives great products which are packaged 
and you can test them on your own.
If a company such as Juniper(as an example) would not test their 
products I would consider them reckless and I do not consider them as such.
I still believe that software vendors invest a lot of money and efforts 
into making their products good in terms of code quality in many aspects.
Just as much as I do not like couple things in MS products I do not like 
things in RedHat, Juniper or F5 and many others.
On some products I am lacking full control since this is how they are 
built and packaged and I do not think that full control is good in all 
cases.
In some cases lack of control is to the benefit of the admin as a part 
of the product. There are cases that it's understandable and in others 
it not.
The bottom line is that we do agree on the basic principals and we do 
agree that someone needs to consider the pros vs cons and to decide if 
it fits the purpose and if it is not dangerous before using the software.

* juniper gives up to 90 days of evaluation max
* MS gives up to 180 days of evaluation(else then their free Hyper-v)
* RedHat gives evaluation options
And I know that many others do give evaluation period which can be 
considered good.

Eliezer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158353 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >
> >>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
> >>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
> >>>aware of very critical bugs.
> >Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
> >May I ask why you did so?
> 
> Answer: Can I get a copy of this
> [http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without
> paying and with all the benefits?

You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary
software. I suggest you read up on open source software.

         .........snip........

-- 

Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158355 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
>>>>> RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
>>>>> aware of very critical bugs.
>>> Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
>>> May I ask why you did so?
>>
>> Answer: Can I get a copy of this
>> [http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without
>> paying and with all the benefits?
>
> You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary
> software. I suggest you read up on open source software.
>
>           .........snip........
>
There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because that's the
case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal. One must decide what
the software will do, and if it is worth the price. Let us remember that many--
perhaps most--users of the Linux os are not programmers, and cannot take advantage
of software being open-source. Among programs which are not open and not free are
several CAD programs and at least one office suite. I'm sure there are others.

--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158415 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

+1

* And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a 
programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.

Eliezer

On 27/09/2015 20:22, Doug wrote:
> There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because
> that's the
> case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal. One must
> decide what
> the software will do, and if it is worth the price. Let us remember that
> many--
> perhaps most--users of the Linux os are not programmers, and cannot take
> advantage
> of software being open-source. Among programs which are not open and not
> free are
> several CAD programs and at least one office suite. I'm sure there are
> others.
>
> --doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158418 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> +1
> 
> * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a
> programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.

-1.

Being a sysadmin requires task automation (among other things), and
that inevitably boils down to some programming skills at least.

Inability to grasp basics of programming can produce only a helpdesk
drone, not a real specialist.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158422 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:38:33 +0300
Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > +1
> > 
> > * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would
> > be "a programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
> 
> -1.
> 
> Being a sysadmin requires task automation (among other things), and
> that inevitably boils down to some programming skills at least.
> 
> Inability to grasp basics of programming can produce only a helpdesk
> drone, not a real specialist.
> 
>

There's programming and programming. Altering a modern multi-tasking
GUI-based application is *not* the same thing as stringing together a
grep with a cut or two in a three-line text file.

Neither are we suggesting, I hope, that the only Linux users are
sysadmins. A typical Linux user might be an engineer or other small
businessman, or a child web surfing on Ubuntu.

I might be willing to have a go at making a small, well-defined change
in an application if the need were great enough, but I'm under no
illusion as to the hours or days it might take me to even locate the
correct source file to do it in. I'm not scared of it, almost the first
thing I did with Linux was to recompile a kernel for something like Red
Hat 5.2 (and I don't mean Fedora), but I have some idea of the
magnitude of the task. I occasionally need to revisit one of the PIC
projects I've done over the last seven or eight years, and I know how
long it takes me to get comfortable with *my* *own* *code* written more
than a year ago, for a few kilobytes of object code.

Altering part of the operating system ('if you don't like my systemd,
write your own...') would be orders of magnitude more time-consuming,
unless you already happen to be fairly familiar with the operation of
the OS, which is unlikely unless you're a professional in that area.

I like the *idea* that you can alter things, but I'm aware that in
practice it doesn't make much difference to the average user. Far more
important, it seems to me, is that it is free as in beer. I don't mean
the issue of actually paying for it, I mean that paid-for software needs
to be protected against theft, and this weighs heavily on both the
design and implementation of the software, and particularly on how well
it plays with other software. You are very conscious that the primary
objective of the programmer(s) is not to produce the best software, but
the most profitable software.

Naming no names, but I recently spent about eight hours trying to
install a database application on an operating system made by the same
company, on a business desktop linked to a corporate VPN, fitted with
unknown web filtering and proxying. Despite installing from DVD, this
wretched program needed to talk to its mothership during installation,
and was not at all happy with the networking facilities it had to use.
I eventually had to completely remove the anti-virus software, drop the
VPN, and install it using a local Internet connection, completely
contrary to corporate policy. It worked, but what a waste of time... I
could have downloaded and installed a free integrated LAMP system in
about fifteen minutes, but of course that wouldn't have done the job in
hand.

And the other really big difference between the free and non-free
worlds is that writers of free software are (so far, mostly) not under
the impression that they own your computer and are free to do as they
like with your Internet connection and your personal data...

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158428 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On 09/29/2015 02:52 PM, Joe wrote:

/very large snip/
>
> And the other really big difference between the free and non-free
> worlds is that writers of free software are (so far, mostly) not under
> the impression that they own your computer and are free to do as they
> like with your Internet connection and your personal data...

Oh? Systemd. I rest my case.

--doug
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158440 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

Hey Reco,

I want to verify couple things to make sure we do understand couple basics.
What certifies a sysadmin? is there any requirement else then knowledge 
and experience? is there an alternative to understanding the 
fundamentals of computers?
And I would try to clear the question in couple directions.
Leaving debian, ubuntu, redhat, ms and all the others aside for a sec, 
what a company expects from a sysadmin is not to be programmer.
System administrator is required to know the fundamentals of the 
machinery and software he operates.
It would not be sane for any company to take a janitor or a plumber to 
handle their IT infrastructure, but, and couple of them:
- What if a plumber could operate an IT infrastructure or even a single 
system? why not? because his title is a plumber?
- What if a sysadmin took the exams and have the background and 
knowledge in IT and other areas but keeps taking the wrong turns?
- Why by definition a sysadmin should be a programmer?
- Why are there so many IT systems that requires the admin to know so 
many things?

I would not imagine what would happen to a company that builds 
microwaves or AC that requires the user\operator to know a shelf of 
handbooks just to touch the power button.
In reality there are devices which requires background and understanding 
but this is what many companies are trying is to prevent.

There are many companies that builds products that by definition require 
to fit a non-programmer operator.
There are a lot of products which are designed to give the sysadmin a 
product he can simply use and operate.

A sysadmin is not a debugger, QA tester or a programmer!!!
The basic task of a sysadmin is to take a piece of computerized 
machinery and operate it.

It is not a common sense that a sysadmin would be required to know the 
internals of the system he operates in the programming level.
The industry in general do tend to create products that passed a proper 
QA and was designed for simple operation.
This is how it was for many years and many still do their best in it. 
But there are products in the industry which are built in the wrong 
way(which might still fit some clients)
I would not argue that there are products which requires more knowledge 
and more background and experience due to their complexity.

I argue that a sysadmin is not an engineer and they are both not 
programmers by definition while in some cases these roles will require 
them to have a really good programming background and experience.
I have heard more then once something like "CISCO and MS are the worst" 
or something similar but in in their products they do separate the role 
of the operations admin and operations engineer from the software 
architect and implementer as a part of their idea of a product.
There is a good reason for that!

It is a fact that the RHEV product doesn't require the sysadmin to know 
how to program in C to operate the system.
If some company requires their sysadmin to know C programming to operate 
this kind of a system it's their decision, it doesn't make it a 
requirement for the definition of the job.

And yes it really helps the employer to have a sysadmin that knows how 
to debug and program in C when they have troubles but it is a bad 
practice to operate IT systems this way.

There is a big difference between software operations engineer to a 
software design engineer, and while it is very common to confuse between 
them it is a fact that these are two different roles.

Helpdesk should basically just cover on the gap of knowledge that the 
end user have for software basic operation, if you call it drone it 
doesn't change the role definition.
I think that sometimes for a linux sysadmin the difference between an 
operator role to a programmer one is being lost due to non other then 
bad industry habits.

It is a very very bad habit to create products that your commitment to 
the perfection of the product tend to be low.

I think that a computerized system administrator role is one while a 
Linux\unix system administrator can be under this category.
Once you switch off the assumption that all computerized systems are 
Linux alike and also switch off the assumption that a product should not 
be simple to operate and config you might see that a basic understanding 
of programming doesn't mean that it is a requirement for daily operations.

And I will finish with a question:
Why companies wants their sysadmin to know c\c++\java\ruby\python\others 
? Why IT roles in many cases have a requirement that tends to stretch 
the employee to extreme knowledge?

I will not answer that and will leave you to maybe answer that, but I 
will add that a Cisco network engineer is not required to know C but to 
just learn how to program a Cisco device using a shell, and by the way 
it is the same for traffic lights systems, as an operator and engineer 
you are not required to know C.

All The Bests,
Eliezer

On 29/09/2015 20:38, Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a
>> programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
>
> -1.
>
> Being a sysadmin requires task automation (among other things), and
> that inevitably boils down to some programming skills at least.
>
> Inability to grasp basics of programming can produce only a helpdesk
> drone, not a real specialist.
>
> Reco
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158443 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On 30/09/15 14:20, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Leaving debian, ubuntu, redhat, ms and all the others aside for a sec, 
> what a company expects from a sysadmin is not to be programmer.
>
<snip>
<Rant>
Can we keep religious wars off the list. They fill up the inbox and 
achieve nothing.
Sysadmins administer whatever they are asked to administer; they often 
don't have the luxury of choosing the OS.
</Rant>

Heracles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158492 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

+1.
But as a part of their job they might be required to be qualified enough 
to manage these systems.

Eliezer

On 30/09/2015 08:45, Heracles wrote:
>>
> <snip>
> <Rant>
> Can we keep religious wars off the list. They fill up the inbox and
> achieve nothing.
> Sysadmins administer whatever they are asked to administer; they often
> don't have the luxury of choosing the OS.
> </Rant>
>
> Heracles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158417 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

	Hi.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
> >>>>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
> >>>>>aware of very critical bugs.
> >>>Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
> >>>May I ask why you did so?
> >>
> >>Answer: Can I get a copy of this
> >>[http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without
> >>paying and with all the benefits?
> >
> >You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary
> >software. I suggest you read up on open source software.
> >
> >          .........snip........
> >
> There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because that's the
> case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal.

No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false
dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow.
Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice.


> One must decide what the software will do, and if it is worth the price.

Please define 'price' in this context.


> Let us remember that many-- perhaps most--users of the Linux os are
> not programmers, and cannot take advantage of software being
> open-source.

Probably. But any free software user can take advantage of the ability
to run free software any way for any purpose. And it does not require
one to be a programmer :)

Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.


> Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs

That's hardly everyone's necessity.


> and at least one office suite.

That Chineese one, or M$ one?


> I'm sure there are others.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158419 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On Tuesday 29 September 2015 18:33:41 Reco wrote:
> Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.

No, Reco.  _You_ are confusing the language.  In English English "free 
software" measn BOTH "open source" and "costs nothing".   He is confusing 
nothing, though he certainly didn't make himself clear. 

When I say free software I always say either "as in speech" or "as in beer" to 
make it clear which I mean.  But "free software" MEANS BOTH.

If I am speaking to a linguist I simply use the French: gratuit or libre.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158447 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Do I beg to disagree, or do I simply want to beef?

Well, I've done a bit of beefing, and when I get a few free moments, this
thread may result in another post on a certain blog of mine. Probably not
today. Anyone interested in wasting a few more moments reading about
free-is-not-free is welcome to look at that blog:

http://free-is-not-free.blogspot.jp/

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158453 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

	Hi.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:16:30PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 September 2015 18:33:41 Reco wrote:
> > Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.
> 
> No, Reco.  _You_ are confusing the language. 

I beg to differ, Lisi.

> In English English "free 
> software" measn BOTH "open source" and "costs nothing". 

That's something I'm aware of, but there's a subtle difference I believe
you might be missing.

'Open-source' by itself does not imply that the software is free (as in
libre).

A fine example of such software is RAR archiver.
They give you the source - https://packages.debian.org/stretch/rar
They forbid you to change it. They require you to buy the software after
a certain time of usage, or uninstall it.
They rightfully put RAR into non-free in Debian, because the software is
'non-free' indeed. But - it's definitely 'open-source'.


> He is confusing 
> nothing, though he certainly didn't make himself clear. 

As I probably did too.


> When I say free software I always say either "as in speech" or "as in beer" to 
> make it clear which I mean.  But "free software" MEANS BOTH.
> 
> If I am speaking to a linguist I simply use the French: gratuit or libre.

That's something I totally agree with.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158458 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Reco a écrit :
> 'Open-source' by itself does not imply that the software is free (as in
> libre).
> 
> A fine example of such software is RAR archiver.
> They give you the source - https://packages.debian.org/stretch/rar
> They forbid you to change it. They require you to buy the software after
> a certain time of usage, or uninstall it.
> They rightfully put RAR into non-free in Debian, because the software is
> 'non-free' indeed. But - it's definitely 'open-source'.

Apparently, you are mistaken about what "Open Source" means. "Open Source"
is a trademark, it corresponds to a precise definition published by the Open
Source Initiative. The difference between Open Source and Libre software is
very minute, almost as minute as the difference between the various
definitions of Libre software (four essential freedoms according to the FSF,
DFSG, etc.).

In practice, you can find licenses that are Open Source but not Libre, but
you have to search carefully. I seem to remember that one of the licenses
from apple was in that case due to an obligation to publish modifications in
a certain way, but I do not remember the specifics.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158459 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:09:03PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Reco a écrit :
> > 'Open-source' by itself does not imply that the software is free (as in
> > libre).
> > 
> > A fine example of such software is RAR archiver.
> > They give you the source - https://packages.debian.org/stretch/rar
> > They forbid you to change it. They require you to buy the software after
> > a certain time of usage, or uninstall it.
> > They rightfully put RAR into non-free in Debian, because the software is
> > 'non-free' indeed. But - it's definitely 'open-source'.
> 
> Apparently, you are mistaken about what "Open Source" means. "Open Source"
> is a trademark, it corresponds to a precise definition published by the Open
> Source Initiative. The difference between Open Source and Libre software is
> very minute, almost as minute as the difference between the various
> definitions of Libre software (four essential freedoms according to the FSF,
> DFSG, etc.).

The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.

But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other
about the user's rights.

But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-)

In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all
Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate
environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one
of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have
been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are
quite different.

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYLyZYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYyDQCfUOA55aLpNqITKghISC3tucxr
0aIAnROHXcUZjcGWTa5kl20urijq4lgG
=4rMe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158469 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

On Wednesday 30 September 2015 12:37:58 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>  all
> Free Software is Open Source.

Semantics again.  So you would say that Freeware is not Free Software?  It is 
certainly free software.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158495 — Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 12:37:58 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >  all
> > Free Software is Open Source.
> 
> Semantics again.  So you would say that Freeware is not Free Software?  It is 
> certainly free software.

Note the Capital Free. We're case sensitive here :-)

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYM5JsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaB7wCfQ+UifsncJFOsD2bZZoJKjunX
lDUAn2gbEmNtnuRbwhQ/qdGOs77/OX+T
=QHEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web