@JaredBusch said in Laptop Recommendations for Ubuntu 17 w/ Cinnamon UI.:

@JaredBusch said in Laptop Recommendations for Ubuntu 17 w/ Cinnamon UI.:

Why Ubuntu?

I almost never see serious projects that run on it. Most serious things run on the Fedora/RHEL line.

Could be my perspective is skewed, it it is what I see.

I did not say it in this post, but the reason I am on Korora on my desktop and laptop now is because all the stuff I do, outside of the Unifi controller, is on Fedora/RHEL.

So I wanted my desktop & laptop on Fedora/RHEL. I tested out straight Fedora with a desktop experience, and then tried Korora. Korora Cinnamon makes the desktop experience on Fedora smooth.

Honestly I've run a KVM/centos hypervisor to virtualize ubuntu VMs and I've managed it from an ubuntu machine for something like 1 year without issues.

I do not feel the RHEL/Fedora line really adequate for my desktop needs, as I do not feel ubuntu adequate for my server. I just mix. moving ASAP to the debian/ubuntu realm where I can.

I simply dislike the management sw of RHEL/Fedora. I feel at home with debian like distros.

Once, I tested opensuse from net install and it was quite interesting. way more in line with my taste than RHEL derived stuff (well, Fedora derived actually).

@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?

Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.

OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?

Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.

And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.

This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?

Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.

again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.

It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.

No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.

Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:

• you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
• I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
• opensource is really audited by a larger audience

Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?

well I think it really boils down to what redistribution is. If you consider internal use, IMHO you do not redistribute (also souce is usually available inside the same company, at least at my scale). If you give to a third party, then yes you are redistributing.

BTW a remarcable example of user usage without redistribution is web apps: this is why FSF created the AGPL.

@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:

Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?

Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.

OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?

Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.

And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.

This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?

Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.

again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.

It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.

No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.

Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:

• you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
• I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
• opensource is really audited by a larger audience

Also rhvh has so much automation the more you customize the higher the rish of issues

sleep?! yes please!

ok this has been a beer evening. but IPA wasn't available anyway I've found a quite good local beer.

still a bit drunken (yes 1 beer = going drunk a bit)... helped my wife with cats and daughter. now going to start the fourth and last book of shadowmarch by tad williams.

...or miserably fall asleep.

@scottalanmiller I was thinking about a dedicated array not something used by esxi.
Does passthru cause all these issues? I've used it some time ago and it was really nice. Anyway it was not esxi

@Doyler3000 xfs+lvm or zfs. In any case consider an hba and passthru disks/hba to the vm making soft raid if you can manage it.

@Tim_G said in Project: Moving main laptop to Fedora 25 Cinnamon Desktop:

Yeah I know its just my hardware. Its working perfectly fine on my work computer and laptop. That's the whole reason I wanted to make the switch on my personal laptop, because it was working so damn well on those.

Turns out a Fedora distro doesn't like my hardware and I don't have the time to make it work.

I'll probably dual boot later and try straight debian or Ubuntu. Might have better luck with one of those.

If hw is an issue go ubuntu. Debian is more picky

TBH I've got relatively good experince only on high end gear with laptops: my thinkpad t440 works really smooth with debian on it - since day 0! Anyway power management still is a bit of PITA.

mid-low range: never got full system capabilities, too much windows-only-in-mind design (including non standard ACPI implementations in bios). My previous ASUS barebone was almost perfect but the previous acer was a FULL PITA.

we have issues with tape: no one wants the burder and responsibility of managing it. and company don't event provide insurrance for accidental damage of copies. tape managed by external company could be ok, but they ask -of course- lot of money for picking it . So offsite is going to be on a remote site for us (could or colo where we will place other stuff).

@aaronstuder I've not a home lab. for personal needs I use KVM as my machines run linux on bare metal.

@FATeknollogee said in Home Lab Hypervisor?:

Is oVirt a virtual appliance like XOA?

you have a number of options from installing it on dedicated machines to installing it as an OVA. here the docs

@coliver said in ubiquiti indoor wifi receiver, any?:

ooked at getting pricing on a wire (or two) run?

they are "islands" in the middle of the warehouse. 10 of them in a warehouse, paired. so 5 places.
in the second werehouse I've 1 island in the middle of nothing (just cantilevers), finally another island close to a sawing machine in the third warehouse.

we are talking about tens of meters of wiring in places where re-layout can happen on a 5 year basis. I'm quite dubious about beating the price of a wireless setup with wired setup.

giga eth with cat.6 should be ok (100 mt max), anyway the better solution would be to follow electric lines, to avoid installing/buying additional materials, therefore fiber should be actually. So @coliver is right in general but @JaredBusch suggestion would be the better option considering the additional cost of € /manhour.

But then this includes installing optic panels, switches with gbics... mmm something like 7 receivers shouldn't be beatable in price, IF I find some receiver for short distances...

APs are already in place in the warehouses so only receivers are required. Current experiments are running on these object setup as receiver: they are ok at 40 bucks but honestly it is just an off the shelf solution acquired for 40 € and delivered in 3 days. Just this. Can't rely on something similar for long...

At least I would like to rely on something supported by a community. This stuff is just sell-and-goodbye! even firmware: while really nice for the price point, I cannot say anything about security (lack of.)

@scottalanmiller , yes this is to be a sort of short radious wifi bridging.
@marcinozga , ubiquity officially do not support Station mode on unifi, just airmax. At least according to some posts in their official forum.

EDIT

some unofficial workarounds exist.

hi,

due to some limitations in our current wired cabling, I'm in need to find some good wifi receiver to plug into a switch for some pcs/printers located in our warehouses.

My mind has gone directly to ubiquiti but I have lost myself into their product list. Basically: is there anything which acts opposite to an unifi access point, sort of unifi receiver?!

this will be plugged into a switch to give connection to a pc and a couple of zebra printers. Layout should be reproduced for an small number of positions both distants and close to each other (say min. every 3 mts/10fts.)

thanx!

hell... wtf do you drink guys?!

water no one?! I think my alcohol is something like 1 beer in a quarter... (but what a beer...)

@stacksofplates seems to me you are agreat saltstack fan

8:00 am medical check w/ daughter (<- mean wake up at 6:00 on saturday :().

then tons of yardwork, as we have got 2 weeks of sun/rain/sun/rain/sun/rain...

holy shit I've a jungle not a garden.

@fuznutz04 said in What Are You Drinking:

Dihydrogen Monoxide mixed in both liquid & solid forms.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

I was not aware of this thing! I'm impressed, especially considering its involvement with younger people.
Is this localized in USA or is this already spread worldwide?!

...just informed my wife: I'm concerned about my daughter, which can be exposed to this at school when we can't control it!

help me spread this on social media, pls!

@JaredBusch said in A recommendation for Buffalo NASes (or at least their support):

I do prefer Synology over Buffalo though.

HW wise, the main argument for synology over buffalo here in Italy is if you use a NAS as a primary file server: no Terastation 5000 has redundant powersupply, nor easy maintainance is allowed on site. If power suppl. blows: byebye data, you are KO for a couple of days.

synology is really well engineered. I'm thinking specifically at TS5400r vs rs815rp+

(also buffalo do not provides units populated with 8TB disks (not yet... hell 8TB in a single disk, brrr))