up2date update

jlasman said:
I haven't called back, but I will, and I'll try to get to the bottom of this.
Click to expand...
As of this morning's telephone call things are getting a bit more interesting.

According to salesrep John, the product remains open source and they can't stop me from using it on multiple machines if I purchase one, and then create new binaries from the source I'm entitled to as a buyer. But the distributed binaries, he says, are still only usable on one system.

(And that makes sense if you read the open source license under which Linux is distributed.)

He says that if I have multiple systems running from the source I can still get updates for the single machine licensed, but I can't use the binaries of these updates on additional machines.

He suggested I write [email protected] for further information.

Frankly, I think his answer just adds more FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to the entire Red Hat product line. When they first announced this new distribution method I felt they had finally done what Microsoft couldn't do: sow the seeds of their eventual destruction.

I don't think this discussion with their salesrep did anything to make me feel any better. I won't be betting my future on Red Hat Linux.

Whether or not I end up using any Fedora products on webservers will depend on their quality, value to me, and support available for them from DirectAdmin specifically, and from Control Panel vendors in general.

I've already decided that Red Hat is not the best desktop; I shall continue to experiment with the Knoppix install of Debian for the desktop. This discussion doesn't belong on this board, but we do now use Linux desktops almost exclusively and I'll be happy to discuss this with others, either privately (please email rather than send a private message on the board) or perhaps on another forum.

Here, in case it's important to you, are the server-level packages that are NOT included in their low-priced WS solution (taken from their website):

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1: dhcp, dns, ftp, gated, imap, iscsi, pxe, tux, uucp, amanda, anonftp, ypserv, inews, isicom, squid, routed, sliplogin, mailman, wu-ftpd, bootparamd

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3: amanda-server, arptables_jf, bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp, freeradius, inews, inn, krb5-server, netdump-server, openldap-servers, pxe, quagga, radvd, rarpd, redhat-config-bind, redhat-config-netboot, tftp-server, tux, vsftpd, ypserv

Jeff
 
Originally posted by chuckd There are just too many people interested in Red Hat for it to fail to create a large enough community for support to be continued. For example there's already a project called Fedora Legacy which aims to maintain support for EOL'd Red Hat products.
Click to expand...
But as of today there isn't any support :( .

I see no reason to stick with RH at this point; I'm busy experimenting with FreeBSD.

Jeff
 
Fedora

Looking at the new fedora pages at fedora.redhat.com, it looks like it's going to be a long time before there's an easily-installable, working release of Fedora on which to install DA or any other control panel, for that matter.

Jeff
 
What makes you say that?

http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/

They've already made 3 test releases, the first "production" release is set for November 3. I haven't run the test releases myself, but from my reading there doesn't seem to have been any more problems than Rawhide releases have had in the past.

It's got exactly the same installer as Red Hat 9 plus it's already got extra features like a simplified firewall configurator & VNC based install (pop the CD into your new server, specify VNC, then complete the install from the comfort of your desktop PC).

I still don't see why such pessimism is called for. Sure, it could all go sour, but at the moment things are looking on track to me.
 
I should have said:

"Looking at posts on the fedora mailing list at:

http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

it looks as if there are still a lot of problems with Fedora."

My error. I urge anyone interested in Fedora to subscribe to the list, and decide for yourself whether you think it's stable enough for your use.

I will defend my pessimism by pointing out our data center has in excess of 50 servers, probably 40 of them still running secure implementations of RHL 6.2, most of the rest running secure implementations of RHL 7.3.

Pessimism is an important part of our operation when I want to make sure our servers continue to run and support websites without failure.

For example, one of our clients was looking at installing RHL 9 on a new system running Plesk Server Administrator. It took a few days of research to determine that:

1) some of his clients were dependent on Apache modules not yet available in Apache 2, which is the version installed by default with RHL 9.

2) some of his clients were dependent on GD library version 2, which we've already successfully installed on RHL 7.3, but with which we have no experience on RHL 9 (RHL by defult still uses GD library 1.x on all current shipping versions).

3) Some of his clients are dependent on a version of Cold Fusion (CF 5) that we know runs on RHL 7.3, but we have no experience with his clients' websites running on later versions of Cold Fusion nor do we have experience with CF 5 running on later versions of RHL.

4) RHL 9 runs on a completely different set of system libraries than does RHL 7.3, which may cause either failures or instabilities in lots of other software.

Red Hat has a reputation for "bleeding edge" Linux development, which isn't always the best place to be when you're hosting thousands of websites.

Your mileage may certainly vary, but once we build a server we expect it to last approximately four years, and we don't expect to change the operating system it runs on (except for security patches). Ideally we'd rather not reboot it for the entire four years, though in practice we seldom get more than 3 - 6 months between reboots.

We've been hosting since late 1995, and so far this model has been quite successful for us.

If it were me creating DA (and it's certainly NOT me), I'd look for platforms with long-term stability.

When Red Hat numbered versions ran for several years and were supported (for seucrity issues) for several years after that, Red Hat was the best choice. If that happens again with Fedora, Fedora could again become the best choice. However Fedora (imho) is NOT a continuation of the old Red Hat; it's a redefinition of the new one. And from my point of view the jury is still out.

There's nothing I'd like better than a stability in RH, so I could stick with it for the forseeable future (I'm only six years away from retirement :) ), but I don't see that happening.

Jeff
 
RHN_register error when registering

I want to use up2date but before i can use that i have to use rhn_register when trying to register i get the message
A socket error occured: host not found, attempt #1
A socket error occured: host not found, attempt #2
etc
Does anyone know what the problem can be
 
What version of RHL are you running?

Did you get the new version of up2date ? (See posts on this board, on Red Hat, and on Fedora sites and lists, or perhaps someone else can help you since I don't use up2date.)

Red Hat may have stopped taking free registrations to RHN, since their model now is to only support RHEL, and to charge lots of money per year for the memberships.

Jeff
 
I use RH 7.3
What is the best option to choose since RH is charging money for there OS.
 
I don't believe you can use up2date or RHN anymore on for RHL 7.3.

RHN is now only available for their distributions under the name RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux).

Because neither DA nor any of the other server administration companies appear to have made clear direction statements for future distributions of various linux distributors, and because DA is NOT YET supporting RHEL, I'm currently investigating using FreeBSD for future hosting systems. FreeBSD appears to be supported strongly both by DA and by other hosting platforms.

I can't consider Fedora Linux (the new community-supported and free linux distribution that has grown from Red Hat roots) because the developers plan a complete upgrade schedule of twice a year and security support of a new version for only one year; we need more longevity than that and more support, and more stability.

Certifying a new OS here, for our own use takes time, so as recently as today I'm still installing DA on RHL 7.3.

Here's how I keep it up-to-date:

First, immediately after installation I use apt-get (modified for RHL and to handle RPMs) to update the server to the latest software packages before Red Hat dropped support at the end of last year.

Using apt-get for RPM is really quite simple, especially using the program I use.

I use the apt--get program now kept at:

https://moin.conectiva.com.br/AptRpm

and at

http://freshmeat.net/projects/apt-rpm/?branch_id=38558&release_id=155182

but there's a complete different program at:

http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/

Once that's done, you still need to get more recent updates. I use two sources to make sure I get all the updates:

One is The Fedora Legacy Project; you can join the Federal-legacy-announce mailing list here:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-announce

You can also get information about the Fedora Legacy project, and information on using apt-get here:

http://www.fedoralegacy.org/download

I also buy a commercial service from Progeny, which requires manual installation of all the updates.

See:

http://transition.progeny.com/

If all this sounds a bit daunting, you can buy an update service from us and we'll do all the work for you :) . I'm not allowed to mention prices here, but since just yesterday I got an email from Mark mentioning I could offer my services, I'll say that my offerings page isn't completed yet but I'll be happy to send anyone information.

Jeff
 
apt-get configuration file

I have been using apt-get for quite a long time now. I would like to make a standard conf file for all of our directadmin servers here at work. If someone could post one I would appreciate it. Has any tried yum to do this yet? That is pretty much what I use on all of my redhat based oses. Anyways any help would be appreciated.

Thank you
Barry
 
done

I went ahead and figured this out on my own. I am updating a redhat 9 box so I first downloaded apt-get and installed it from here http://apt.freshrpms.net/ then I edited the /etc/apt/apt.conf file to look like this

// $Id: apt.conf,v 1.10 2003/06/16 10:22:32 dude Exp $
// See the apt.conf(5) man page for syntax and all available options

APT {
Clean-Installed "false";
Get {
Assume-Yes "false";
Download-Only "false";
Show-Upgraded "true";
Fix-Broken "false";
Ignore-Missing "false";
Compile "false";
};
};

Acquire {
Retries "0";
Http {
Proxy ""; // http://user:pass@host:port/
}
};

RPM {
Ignore { "php*"; "sendmail*"; "exim*"; "proftp*"; "da_*"; "MySQL*"; "mysql*"; "mod_*"; "httpd*"; "apache*"; "kernel*"; "w
ebalizer"; "apache*" };
Hold { "php*"; "sendmail*"; "exim*"; "proftp*"; "da_*"; "MySQL*"; "mysql*"; "mod_*"; "httpd*"; "apache*"; "kernel*"; "web
alizer"; "apache*" };
Allow-Duplicated { "^kernel$"; "^kernel-"; "^gpg-pubkey$" };
Options { };
Install-Options "";
Erase-Options "";
Source {
Build-Command "rpmbuild --rebuild";
};
};


The only part you have to change is
Ignore { }
to
Ignore { "php*"; "sendmail*"; "exim*"; "proftp*"; "da_*"; "MySQL*"; "mysql*"; "mod_*"; "httpd*"; "apache*"; "kernel*"; "w
ebalizer"; "apache*" };

and
Hold { }
Hold { "php*"; "sendmail*"; "exim*"; "proftp*"; "da_*"; "MySQL*"; "mysql*"; "mod_*"; "httpd*"; "apache*"; "kernel*"; "web
alizer"; "apache*" };


This should work on any redhat based os so download and install the pat-get version for your redhat distro! Always edit the conf file before running apt-get update or you will have to uninstall and reinstall to get it not to exclude packages.

If you need any help shot me an email!
Thank you
 
Jeff

ayo.freshrpms.net
is the default mirror if you get apt-get from freshrpms.net I just left that repository I have used it for awhile now. Here is a link to all the apt rpms http://ayo.freshrpms.net/

Here is a list of repositories listed on freshrpms.net

http://freshrpms.net/apt/repositories.html

A few known public apt repositories for entire Red Hat Linux releases (and eventually add-on packages) :

* http://apt.freshrpms.net/ - Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7.x, 8.0 and 9 (with freshrpms)
* http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/ - Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7.x, 8.0 and 9 (with freshrpms) provided by Planetmirror
* http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/apt/ - Red Hat Linux 7.x, 8.0, 9 and Rawhide (with freshrpms)
* http://ftp.uninett.no/pub/linux/apt/ - Red Hat Linux 5.x to 9 and Rawhide (with freshrpms)
* http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/ - Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9
* http://redhat.usu.edu/ - Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9
* ftp://mirror.pa.msu.edu/apt/ - Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9
* http://apt.42h.de/ - Red Hat Linux 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9
* http://apt-rpm.codefactory.se/ - Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and a few extras

A few known apt repositories carrying only custom packages :

* http://people.ecsc.co.uk/~matt/repository.html - Lots of custom Red Hat Linux 9 GNOME 2 and related packages

Many more custom packages available through apt can be found on the general links page.

General information and misc. links :

* http://moin.conectiva.com.br/AptRpm - Conectiva's AptRpm port page
* http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/ - General server-side information and perl scripts to create repositories
* http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/ - Synaptic (apt graphical frontend) homepage

Let me know if you have any other questions!
 
I *always* get:

rpmdb: unable to join the environment
error: db4 error(11) from dbenv->open: Resource temporarily unavailable
error: cannot open Packages index using db3 - Resource temporarily unavailable (11)
error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm

On all servers. And that sucks. :)
 
Woah! I provide server administration if you would like me too look at it. Sounds like you have something going on bad! I can't be sure what it is till I look at the server. Maybe try uninstalling and reinstall ing rpm.
 
Well, every new installed (offline) server also has this problem. I have it on all different hardware, fedora core and redhat. So I guess it not my fault. :)
 
Thats always a plus are you just doing like rpm -ivh package.rpm or rpm -Uvh package.rpm when this happens ? Let me know what exactly you are doing and I will try to help.
 
It happens on rpm -i and rpm -u. A reboot helps, but Linux shouldn't reboot.

When I google on this issue, I find a lot of people having this problems with RPM.
 
I have had it happen before but I dont remember what the problem wasit was so long ago. I haven't had it happen recently and I work on a lot of servers with rpm. I dont ever do installs with just rpm -i I always do rpm -ivh or rpm -Uvh. I dont know if that has something to do with it or not. I guess I would have to look at the servers to find the issues answer!
 
Well, we manage about 100 of them. So I have people who can have a look. I was just grmbl'ing. :)

Thanks anyway..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top