Fedora 10

[n2ize]

Anyone upgrade to fedora 10 ? I'm about to do it. So far from the release notes it looks great. I'll be going from Fedora 6 on this machine to 10. All I need to do is backuop some config files so I can get things back to normal as soon as possible once the installation is done. I may even wait till the week after next when I have more free time to do it so I'll have more time to goggle over it and play with any new features.

[N2RJ]

I don't know of anyone using fedora. Usually when I ask about fedora I get all sorts of weird looks.

[n2ize]

I don't know of anyone using fedora. Usually when I ask about fedora I get all sorts of weird looks.

Ask about Debian and you'll get the same sort of looks from people. It depends on how long someones been kicking around the Linux scene. I've been at it since the early 90's and there are a lot of distros that were around then, that are still active today, yet lots of people using Linux today never heard of them. There are a lot of newbies aroubnd these days who are using Ubuntu who never heard of ,anything other than Ubuntu. I met one person last week who didn't even know there were any other Linux distro's. He thought Ubuntu was the one and only Linux.

While Ubuntu is very popular these days and seems to have a large user base, I also know a lot of Debian users. And the Fedora user base is quite large as well.

Everyone has a favorite , or primary, distro. For me it's Fedora because it grew out of the earlier Red Hat distro's which is pretty much where I started well over a decade ago. I'm very used to Fedora and using it is almost second nature to me. The drawback is that it has a very rapid upgrade cycle and it often contains some bleeding edge versions of software that may not always be ready for prime time. One example was the implementation of KDE 4 in fedora 9 which was not quite ready. However, it has been since updated and fixed. Fedora is more or less a proving/testing ground for stuff that goes into Red Hat. It's certainly not for everybody and I don't recommend it to everyone. For me it's great.

[W2IBC]

i have never gotten fedora to actually work on this machine.

allways have "display" issues

[n2ize]

i have never gotten fedora to actually work on this machine.

allways have "display" issues

Which Fedora were you testing and on what kind of display ? Also, were you using the standard spin or a respin ?

[N2RJ]

Ask about Debian and you'll get the same sort of looks from people.

Actually most people today are using Debian. They just call it Ubuntu.


It depends on how long someones been kicking around the Linux scene. I've been at it since the early 90's and there are a lot of distros that were around then, that are still active today, yet lots of people using Linux today never heard of them. There are a lot of newbies aroubnd these days who are using Ubuntu who never heard of ,anything other than Ubuntu. I met one person last week who didn't even know there were any other Linux distro's. He thought Ubuntu was the one and only Linux.

While Ubuntu is very popular these days and seems to have a large user base, I also know a lot of Debian users. And the Fedora user base is quite large as well.

Everyone has a favorite , or primary, distro. For me it's Fedora because it grew out of the earlier Red Hat distro's which is pretty much where I started well over a decade ago. I'm very used to Fedora and using it is almost second nature to me. The drawback is that it has a very rapid upgrade cycle and it often contains some bleeding edge versions of software that may not always be ready for prime time. One example was the implementation of KDE 4 in fedora 9 which was not quite ready. However, it has been since updated and fixed. Fedora is more or less a proving/testing ground for stuff that goes into Red Hat. It's certainly not for everybody and I don't recommend it to everyone. For me it's great.

My beef with Fedora is RedHat. They've become way too much of a commercialized entity and have used their trademarks to basically bully the small guys to pay their ridiculous subscription fee and turn Red Hat Linux into payware. The backporting also blows because it breaks a lot of things. Try installing Apache 2.2 on RHEL4 and see what I mean. You have to go compile a bunch of stuff by hand, and by the time you're done you may as well have just installed RHEL5. I could just go ahead and use 5 but there are some apps only certified on 4 and they'd refuse to support it if it were on RHEL5.

[n2ize]

Ask about Debian and you'll get the same sort of looks from people.

Actually most people today are using Debian. They just call it Ubuntu.


It depends on how long someones been kicking around the Linux scene. I've been at it since the early 90's and there are a lot of distros that were around then, that are still active today, yet lots of people using Linux today never heard of them. There are a lot of newbies aroubnd these days who are using Ubuntu who never heard of ,anything other than Ubuntu. I met one person last week who didn't even know there were any other Linux distro's. He thought Ubuntu was the one and only Linux.

While Ubuntu is very popular these days and seems to have a large user base, I also know a lot of Debian users. And the Fedora user base is quite large as well.

Everyone has a favorite , or primary, distro. For me it's Fedora because it grew out of the earlier Red Hat distro's which is pretty much where I started well over a decade ago. I'm very used to Fedora and using it is almost second nature to me. The drawback is that it has a very rapid upgrade cycle and it often contains some bleeding edge versions of software that may not always be ready for prime time. One example was the implementation of KDE 4 in fedora 9 which was not quite ready. However, it has been since updated and fixed. Fedora is more or less a proving/testing ground for stuff that goes into Red Hat. It's certainly not for everybody and I don't recommend it to everyone. For me it's great.

My beef with Fedora is RedHat. They've become way too much of a commercialized entity and have used their trademarks to basically bully the small guys to pay their ridiculous subscription fee and turn Red Hat Linux into payware. The backporting also blows because it breaks a lot of things. Try installing Apache 2.2 on RHEL4 and see what I mean. You have to go compile a bunch of stuff by hand, and by the time you're done you may as well have just installed RHEL5. I could just go ahead and use 5 but there are some apps only certified on 4 and they'd refuse to support it if it were on RHEL5.

Bear in mind however that Red Hat's primary interest in Fedora is for testing new apps that may or may not make it into RHEL. For that reason I would not recommend it to everyone. Many times new bleeding edge or latest version, apps can be great but sometimes they are not ready for prime time. Otherwise, Fedora is largely a community based effort.

I do agree that Red Hat has overly commercialized and pricey in their attempt to make RHEL into a support driven alternative to Microsoft. However, some of their tactics and prices have been a bit heavy handed to put it mildly. On the other hand Red Had was rather instrumental in getting Linux beyond the geek community and into the commercial environment. They have in many way gotten Linux the popularity and the enterprise acceptance that it so rightfully deserved. This has enabled many commercial entities to embrace Linux and propel it forwards.

I have implemented Apache 2.2.x on several Fedora distros in both the home and academic environment. However, I have not implemented it on the large, enterprise scale, thus I have not encountered many of the issues that prevail at the enterprise level. Most of my Apache implementations have involved configuring, and compiling Apache from source. Ditto for integration with MySQL, Perl and PHP which was entirely a configure, build, make and implement operation from scratch. While this suited my needs I understand that it is not readily the destination one would want to go in the enterprise.

[W2IBC]

i have never gotten fedora to actually work on this machine.

allways have "display" issues

Which Fedora were you testing and on what kind of display ? Also, were you using the standard spin or a respin ?

i have tryed fedora 6,7,8,9 and 10(when it was in beta)

allways got the "frequency out of range" error i guess they dont like generic plain ol graphic cards

[n2ize]

i have never gotten fedora to actually work on this machine.

allways have "display" issues

Which Fedora were you testing and on what kind of display ? Also, were you using the standard spin or a respin ?

i have tried fedora 6,7,8,9 and 10(when it was in beta)

allways got the "frequency out of range" error i guess they dont like generic plain ol graphic cards

It sounds like it may be related to the monitor. Were all these attempts on the same machine and same monitor ? Did the error message say "Monitor frequency out of range" or just "freq out of range" ?

Did you try booting into single user mode and running the command "system-config-display" and adjusting the screen resolution ? It sounds like Fedora is, by default, trying to use a setting that your monitor is unable to handle.

Just on a side not I was running into a similar problem on occasion when I was booting into a Linux XEN kernel.

[W2IBC]

same box, but i tryed 4 monitors and it was a "freq out of range" error. so i said the hell with it.

i did try the "system-config-display" with fed 9, didnt matter what setting, i still got Freq out of range

[n2ize]

same box, but i tryed 4 monitors and it was a "freq out of range" error. so i said the hell with it.

i did try the "system-config-display" with fed 9, didnt matter what setting, i still got Freq out of range

That sounds very strange. What type of video card is in that system ? Were you able to do a graphical install ? Or did you have to do a text based install ? While there are differences between distro's they are not all that much different with respect to the kernel and drivers. That does sound kind of odd. However, it also sounds easilly fixable.

[W2IBC]

generic on-board

graf card vesa

[n2ize]

generic on-board

graf card vesa

Sounds like your default xorg.conf file was messed up. Fedora tends to screw this up the first time around all too often. I have had trouble with the defaults in xorg.conf during the first boot right after a new fedora installation. In my cases I never got a "freq out of range" error but I did get lousy screen resolutions. The easiest fix was for me to edit the /etc/X11/xorg.conf file directly.

If you find yourself in this predicament again try editing xorg.conf and change the Modes line in the Screen section to

Modes "800x600" "1024x768" "640x480"

and see what happens.

You might also have a look at "gtf" in order to get monitor info.

[W2IBC]

well thats if i ever decide to "try it" again, i downloaded and burned so many cd's , and none working right out of the box. kinda turned me off of fedora.

my kubuntu 8.04 works perfect lol

[n2ize]

well thats if i ever decide to "try it" again, i downloaded and burned so many cd's , and none working right out of the box. kinda turned me off of fedora.

my kubuntu 8.04 works perfect lol

Were you downloading and installing off the "Live CD" versions ? I have experiencedf a few "issues" with the Live CD" Fedora versions.

When I install Fedora I always download the full DVD installation version rather than the live CD. I then perform a full installation rather than an upgrade. I can get away with upgrading that way because I have directories such as /home, /usr/local residing on their own separate disc partition. Yeah, some extra packages dop wind up getting over written in the process but I maintain a database of those packages and I re-install them via "yum" or "rpm" during the post installation process. Thus far no major problems.

In your case if Ubuntu is working for you then there's no real need to switch to Fedora. They are both Linux and not really all that much different. Ubuntu comes wirth some stuff not bundled with Fedora and vice versa. But in either case packages can be added/removed as needed so, for all intent and purpose Linux is Linux.

[N2RJ]

well thats if i ever decide to "try it" again, i downloaded and burned so many cd's , and none working right out of the box. kinda turned me off of fedora.

my kubuntu 8.04 works perfect lol

I have kubuntu on one of my work PCs. I hate it. Not that I hate KDE or ubuntu, but kubuntu is so stripped down. I'm going to put regular ubuntu on my PC then install KDE on top of it.

I also have kubuntu on my personal laptop. Again, I'm going to put back XP on it because there is so much software I need on my laptop that needs windows that won't run under WINE.

[W2IBC]

actually i dont have a DVD rom/write device so im stuck with cd-r and beleve me burning 6 cds for fedora is a pain. lol

[ad4mg]

well thats if i ever decide to "try it" again, i downloaded and burned so many cd's , and none working right out of the box. kinda turned me off of fedora.

my kubuntu 8.04 works perfect lol

I have kubuntu on one of my work PCs. I hate it. Not that I hate KDE or ubuntu, but kubuntu is so stripped down. I'm going to put regular ubuntu on my PC then install KDE on top of it.

I also have kubuntu on my personal laptop. Again, I'm going to put back XP on it because there is so much software I need on my laptop that needs windows that won't run under WINE.

I found the dual boot option useful in this regards, Ryan. Now that I'm beginning to understand it, I like Linux quite a bit, but kept XP on the laptop too. Best of both worlds!

[n2ize]

well thats if i ever decide to "try it" again, i downloaded and burned so many cd's , and none working right out of the box. kinda turned me off of fedora.

my kubuntu 8.04 works perfect lol

Arte you reasonably good at diagnosing X related issues ? If you decidfe to give it another go and if it still doesn't work post a message here along with a compy of your xorg.conf file. I'm pretty sure we can talk you though the problem and into a working configuration.

The way I see it , it's got to be something simple. If kubuntu works then Fedora simply HAS to work.

[N2RJ]

I found the dual boot option useful in this regards, Ryan. Now that I'm beginning to understand it, I like Linux quite a bit, but kept XP on the laptop too. Best of both worlds!

Dual boot is fine, but I find that I really don't need Linux on my laptop.

In fact I don't even need to use Linux at all. With CygWin I can get a Unix environment in windows and it does everything I need honestly.

But on my desktop at work I use it because it makes a whole lot of things easier such as mounting NFS shares and SCPing stuff with a few keystrokes. That's why I use ubuntu there. I have Windows in VMWare in order to use the corporate apps (MS Exchange).

[M0GLO]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

[n2ize]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

From what I've seen CYGWIN is just a means of making Windows appear to function in a Unix/Linux-like way. When you develop under CYGWIN you're really developing Windows applications.

I had a friend who build a small app to process large quantities of data using Fourier transform and then pass the results to several client machines afterwards. He developed it under Cygwin. But when I tried to compile and run it under Linux all the signals and socket stuff was messed up. I had to pretty much gut the whole thing and rewrite it. :(

[M0GLO]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

From what I've seen CYGWIN is just a means of making Windows appear to function in a Unix/Linux-like way. When you develop under CYGWIN you're really developing Windows applications.

I had a friend who build a small app to process large quantities of data using Fourier transform and then pass the results to several client machines afterwards. He developed it under Cygwin. But when I tried to compile and run it under Linux all the signals and socket stuff was messed up. I had to pretty much gut the whole thing and rewrite it. :(

That's pretty much it, but if you want the Unix toolset in Win it's the only way to fly.
Bash, KSH, SH, AWK, SED, grep, NFS, cron, in fact nearly all of the servers and utilities including gcc.

Your friend could have easily written apps for Linux if he had setup a working cross compiler environment.
Otherwise he would be building for the native platform like always with gcc. In Cygwins case that is Cygwin.

[N2RJ]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

I do that in cygwin too, but it's much easier to use Linux, plus it's easier to prototype stuff when you have a real Linux desktop. All of the files are in the right place and I don't have to deal with Windows except in the VM to access e-mail. I use the VM because there's no real Exchange client in Linux, and Evolution doesn't work all that well.

I could do like the developers and ask for a Mac and use Entourage for email, but I'm fine for now.

At home I use my PC mostly for ham radio, and most of the ham radio programs are in Windows.

[N2RJ]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

From what I've seen CYGWIN is just a means of making Windows appear to function in a Unix/Linux-like way. When you develop under CYGWIN you're really developing Windows applications.

I had a friend who build a small app to process large quantities of data using Fourier transform and then pass the results to several client machines afterwards. He developed it under Cygwin. But when I tried to compile and run it under Linux all the signals and socket stuff was messed up. I had to pretty much gut the whole thing and rewrite it. :(

That's kinda true. Cygwin is the reverse of WINE. It's the API and tools. It's not a complete Unix environment, but works well for most of my purposes at home.

[M0GLO]

Really? I SCP, NFS mount and web develop all in Cygwin. Works fine and I don't need to dual boot, waste machine resources on VMWare or use another machine.

I do that in cygwin too, but it's much easier to use Linux, plus it's easier to prototype stuff when you have a real Linux desktop. All of the files are in the right place and I don't have to deal with Windows except in the VM to access e-mail. I use the VM because there's no real Exchange client in Linux, and Evolution doesn't work all that well.



I had the same problem over at State Street. We ran Linux desktops in our team because we were working an exclusively Unix environment but had to use VMWare because the Linux Notes app really was very bad.

I used CXOffice for a bit, it had some better app support than straight WINE but it still didn't run a lot of the admin tools we used.

[N2RJ]

What I found out was that Evolution scrapes OWA. Kind of neat the way they do it, but unfortunately our IT department has messed up Exchange to the point where Evolution doesn't work all that well anymore.

[kf6rdn]

Fedora guy here, but haven't upgraded to it yet. 8 is running our interenal DNS and some proxy stuff.


I also like cygwin on windows. If nothing else when you accidently type "ls -l" it actually works. :)

Also nice to have shell scripting, rsync and other stuff I'm used to doing in *nix.

[n6hcm]

for my production stuff i just completed a switchover from fedora to centos ... centos is more stable and easier wrt third-party software (especially with stuff intended for rhel, which is essentially the same as centos).

[N2RJ]

for my production stuff i just completed a switchover from fedora to centos ... centos is more stable and easier wrt third-party software (especially with stuff intended for rhel, which is essentially the same as centos).

CentOS is the red hat enterprise linux product, minus the redhat branding and uses yum instead of up2date.

It is stable but installing packages that are not in the repos can be problematic. For example, I had a whale of a time installing apache 2.2 on Centos 4 (the vendor of the app that needed apache only certified their app on CentOS/RHEL4). I had to install a whole bunch of other packages manually before I could install apache 2.2.

[W2IBC]

for my production stuff i just completed a switchover from fedora to centos ... centos is more stable and easier wrt third-party software (especially with stuff intended for rhel, which is essentially the same as centos).

CentOS is the red hat enterprise linux product, minus the redhat branding and uses yum instead of up2date.

It is stable but installing packages that are not in the repos can be problematic. For example, I had a whale of a time installing apache 2.2 on Centos 4 (the vendor of the app that needed apache only certified their app on CentOS/RHEL4). I had to install a whole bunch of other packages manually before I could install apache 2.2.

our webserver uses centos think apache is a pain, try lightspeed webserver it was a nightmare for us.

[N2RJ]

for my production stuff i just completed a switchover from fedora to centos ... centos is more stable and easier wrt third-party software (especially with stuff intended for rhel, which is essentially the same as centos).

CentOS is the red hat enterprise linux product, minus the redhat branding and uses yum instead of up2date.

It is stable but installing packages that are not in the repos can be problematic. For example, I had a whale of a time installing apache 2.2 on Centos 4 (the vendor of the app that needed apache only certified their app on CentOS/RHEL4). I had to install a whole bunch of other packages manually before I could install apache 2.2.

our webserver uses centos think apache is a pain, try lightspeed webserver it was a nightmare for us.

Apache is actually ok for most of my uses. The problem is with resolving dependencies if you're not using packages specifically designed for that release of RHEL.

[n2ize]

Most of my Apache installations are done out of tarballs. Yes, I'm talking about configuring and compiling from scratch ... adding support for Perl, PhP, and you name it.

[M0GLO]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

[N2RJ]

Most of my Apache installations are done out of tarballs. Yes, I'm talking about configuring and compiling from scratch ... adding support for Perl, PhP, and you name it.

You make it seem as though compiling from scratch is difficult and will make you 1337 or something...

./configure
make all install

that's it.

By the way with prebuilt packages you don't need to compile in all of that stuff, just load modules and you're good to go.

Modular is the way to go. Saves you time and allows you to quickly upgrade whatever you want whenever you want.

After all... if you install a distro (unless it's gentoo), you're not installing from source.

[N2RJ]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

As far as security is concerned, it makes no difference whether you get a binary from a trusted source or compile from source. They are usually hashed anyway so a tainted binary would be easily detected.

In fact when OpenSSL was compromised it was in the source, not in the binaries.

Furthermore, most people who compile from source just accept the defaults, which used to be full of security holes, but also leaves in a lot of bloat.

Prebuilt binaries from redhat or canonical are pretty lean and if you want support for what you want, you load modules. Updating is also streamlined, easy and automatic.

But if you enjoy babysitting your systems and compiling dependencies be my guest...

[n2ize]

Most of my Apache installations are done out of tarballs. Yes, I'm talking about configuring and compiling from scratch ... adding support for Perl, PhP, and you name it.

You make it seem as though compiling from scratch is difficult and will make you 1337 or something...

./configure
make all install

that's it.


That's right. Compiling it myself makes me feel like ultra cool pot smoking, acid dropping, smack shooting pro drug anti gun Joe Hippie the Hacker. Oooh God I am so cool and so superior to all. Plus all the really good looking and ultra cool chicks really dig me when they hear I compile it myself. Girls really dig awesome cool ultra-liberal anti-establishment Apache compiling dudes like me.

[W2IBC]

That's right. Compiling it myself makes me feel like ultra cool pot smoking, acid dropping, smack shooting pro drug anti gun Joe Hippie the Hacker. Oooh God I am so cool and so superior to all. Plus all the really good looking and ultra cool chicks really dig me when they hear I compile it myself. Girls really dig awesome cool ultra-liberal anti-establishment Apache compiling dudes like me.

why so serious?

[kd6nig]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

As far as security is concerned, it makes no difference whether you get a binary from a trusted source or compile from source. They are usually hashed anyway so a tainted binary would be easily detected.

In fact when OpenSSL was compromised it was in the source, not in the binaries.

Furthermore, most people who compile from source just accept the defaults, which used to be full of security holes, but also leaves in a lot of bloat.

Prebuilt binaries from redhat or canonical are pretty lean and if you want support for what you want, you load modules. Updating is also streamlined, easy and automatic.

But if you enjoy babysitting your systems and compiling dependencies be my guest...

The same thing happened with routers. Thankfully now you have to configure them before using them-and security is defaulted on, though many people disable it for ease of use.....

But at least it has a CHANCE to be enabled...

[n2ize]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

As far as security is concerned, it makes no difference whether you get a binary from a trusted source or compile from source. They are usually hashed anyway so a tainted binary would be easily detected.

In fact when OpenSSL was compromised it was in the source, not in the binaries.

Furthermore, most people who compile from source just accept the defaults, which used to be full of security holes, but also leaves in a lot of bloat.

Prebuilt binaries from redhat or canonical are pretty lean and if you want support for what you want, you load modules. Updating is also streamlined, easy and automatic.

But if you enjoy babysitting your systems and compiling dependencies be my guest...

Apache was designed to be user configured and compiled. Those of us who compile are not babysitting or are simply accepting the defaults. We are compiling it to our specific needs which includes a great deal of modification including modified source. Plus we are compiling and linking in some of our own features. What we end up with is an apache that is light, robust, modular, full featured, tailored to our desires and needs, and may contain nonstandard features.

[M0GLO]

Most of my Apache installations are done out of tarballs. Yes, I'm talking about configuring and compiling from scratch ... adding support for Perl, PhP, and you name it.

You make it seem as though compiling from scratch is difficult and will make you 1337 or something...

./configure
make all install

that's it.


And you get a server that doesn't have DSO support, has default built in modules most of which I wouldn't run on a production system if you asked me to and won't work with a myriad of applications or databases.

There's more to it than that Ryan.

Fail.

[M0GLO]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

As far as security is concerned, it makes no difference whether you get a binary from a trusted source or compile from source. They are usually hashed anyway so a tainted binary would be easily detected.

In fact when OpenSSL was compromised it was in the source, not in the binaries.

Furthermore, most people who compile from source just accept the defaults, which used to be full of security holes, but also leaves in a lot of bloat.

Prebuilt binaries from redhat or canonical are pretty lean and if you want support for what you want, you load modules. Updating is also streamlined, easy and automatic.

But if you enjoy babysitting your systems and compiling dependencies be my guest...

You really don't know anything about this do you?
DSO support is not compiled in out of the box. No DSO support, no loadable modules.
Please take some time to check out what IS in a stock precompiled binary, it's not something you would put on a corporate system without recompiling.
http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/rhel- ... tmods.html (http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/rhel-rg-en-4/s1-apache-defaultmods.html)

In particular the following:
mod_dav
mod_dav_fs
mod_deflate
mod_dir
mod_env
mod_imap
mod_include
mod_info
mod_ldap
mod_proxy
mod_proxy_connect
mod_proxy_ftp
mod_proxy_http
mod_rewrite
mod_speling
mod_status
mod_suexec
mod_userdir

A few of these are DEFINITELY security holes if left running.

Fail again.

[N2RJ]

Apache was designed to be user configured and compiled. Those of us who compile are not babysitting or are simply accepting the defaults. We are compiling it to our specific needs which includes a great deal of modification including modified source. Plus we are compiling and linking in some of our own features. What we end up with is an apache that is light, robust, modular, full featured, tailored to our desires and needs, and may contain nonstandard features.

All software was designed to be compiled.

But you don't have to compile it yourself for it to work properly and/or add/remove functionality.

The reason they have loadable modules is because you don't want to recompile the whole thing everytime you want to add or remove functionality.

Maybe for a small home user you could put up with compiling to make your changes, but when you deal with hundreds of machines (including hundreds of webservers), using precompiled binaries from a repository makes things much cleaner and allows for faster deployment and changes when necessary.

[n2ize]

Apache was designed to be user configured and compiled. Those of us who compile are not babysitting or are simply accepting the defaults. We are compiling it to our specific needs which includes a great deal of modification including modified source. Plus we are compiling and linking in some of our own features. What we end up with is an apache that is light, robust, modular, full featured, tailored to our desires and needs, and may contain nonstandard features.

All software was designed to be compiled.

But you don't have to compile it yourself for it to work properly and/or add/remove functionality.

The reason they have loadable modules is because you don't want to recompile the whole thing everytime you want to add or remove functionality.

Maybe for a small home user you could put up with compiling to make your changes, but when you deal with hundreds of machines (including hundreds of webservers), using precompiled binaries from a repository makes things much cleaner and allows for faster deployment and changes when necessary.

Did you read what I wrote above ? We are adding features and functionalty that are not available as dynamically loaded modules that MUST be compiled in, or, we need to write and build the module that will later be loaded dynamically. Or as Todd pointed out above, not every security dfeature is available by default or as a loaded module..

[N2RJ]

That's the only way to do it, no other way to get what you want without the extraneous security holes.

As far as security is concerned, it makes no difference whether you get a binary from a trusted source or compile from source. They are usually hashed anyway so a tainted binary would be easily detected.

In fact when OpenSSL was compromised it was in the source, not in the binaries.

Furthermore, most people who compile from source just accept the defaults, which used to be full of security holes, but also leaves in a lot of bloat.

Prebuilt binaries from redhat or canonical are pretty lean and if you want support for what you want, you load modules. Updating is also streamlined, easy and automatic.

But if you enjoy babysitting your systems and compiling dependencies be my guest...

You really don't know anything about this do you?
DSO support is not compiled in out of the box. No DSO support, no loadable modules.

DSO support has been available by default in Red Hat and many other distributions for quite some time. It's certainly available in RHEL4 and RHEL5. It would be kind of silly not to, since quite a lot of people use loadable modules these days to enable all sorts of functionality on their webservers. Not to mention, not including DSO support would kinda break RedHat's HTTP Configuration Tool for configuring Apache, don'tcha think?

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/D ... dmods.html (http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Deployment_Guide/s1-apache-addmods.html)


"The Apache HTTP Server supports Dynamically Shared Objects (DSOs), or modules, which can easily be loaded at runtime as necessary. "



Please take some time to check out what IS in a stock precompiled binary, it's not something you would put on a corporate system without recompiling.
http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/rhel- ... tmods.html (http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/rhel-rg-en-4/s1-apache-defaultmods.html)

In particular the following:
mod_dav
mod_dav_fs
mod_deflate
mod_dir
mod_env
mod_imap
mod_include
mod_info
mod_ldap
mod_proxy
mod_proxy_connect
mod_proxy_ftp
mod_proxy_http
mod_rewrite
mod_speling
mod_status
mod_suexec
mod_userdir

A few of these are DEFINITELY security holes if left running.

Fail again.

In the httpd precompiled binary included with RHEL 4 and 5 distros (or most other distros for that matter), these aren't compiled into the main httpd binary. These are loadable modules stored in shared object (.so) files.

You can easily remove them by commenting the LoadModule directives out in httpd.conf and restarting apache. No recompilation is necessary.

But if compiling makes you feel like a "real" unix admin, by all means be my guest.

[N2RJ]

Apache was designed to be user configured and compiled. Those of us who compile are not babysitting or are simply accepting the defaults. We are compiling it to our specific needs which includes a great deal of modification including modified source. Plus we are compiling and linking in some of our own features. What we end up with is an apache that is light, robust, modular, full featured, tailored to our desires and needs, and may contain nonstandard features.

All software was designed to be compiled.

But you don't have to compile it yourself for it to work properly and/or add/remove functionality.

The reason they have loadable modules is because you don't want to recompile the whole thing everytime you want to add or remove functionality.

Maybe for a small home user you could put up with compiling to make your changes, but when you deal with hundreds of machines (including hundreds of webservers), using precompiled binaries from a repository makes things much cleaner and allows for faster deployment and changes when necessary.

Did you read what I wrote above ? We are adding features and functionalty that are not available as dynamically loaded modules that MUST be compiled in, or, we need to write and build the module that will later be loaded dynamically. Or as Todd pointed out above, not every security dfeature is available by default or as a loaded module..

I read exactly what you wrote, including your current backpedaling.


So here's the play by play:


Apache was designed to be user configured and compiled. Those of us who compile are not babysitting or are simply accepting the defaults.

Locking down apache from the default doesn't have to involve recompilation. Just comment out what modules you don't want in httpd.conf and restart apache.

I also said that most people will simply configure and accept the defaults, which includes a lot of insecure functionality and configuration options. If you take the time to edit the configuration files before you configure and make, and know what you're doing, hey more power to you.

I am saying that I can get the same result in less time and have the benefit of the quality checks by all of Red Hat's developers, plus the ability to tweak my configuration without doing a whole recompile, by using a binary from the repository. In our environment we have to pretty much be able to load and unload functionality at will.


Plus we are compiling and linking in some of our own features. What we end up with is an apache that is light, robust, modular, full featured, tailored to our desires and needs, and may contain nonstandard features.

There are cases where you'd have to compile modules, but I try not to do that as far as possible. In fact with RHEL it's mostly obscure and cutting edge modules that really need compilation by hand. That's on purpose because they've not been tested and tried. Recompiling httpd isn't done that much, except where I want to use a more recent version instead of a backported one in a RedHat OS. But if given the choice I would actually try to use ubuntu before I use RedHat in that case.

[n2ize]

There are cases where you'd have to compile modules, but I try not to do that as far as possible. In fact with RHEL it's mostly obscure and cutting edge modules that really need compilation by hand. That's on purpose because they've not been tested and tried. Recompiling httpd isn't done that much, except where I want to use a more recent version instead of a backported one in a RedHat OS. But if given the choice I would actually try to use ubuntu before I use RedHat in that case.

Thats EXACTLY what we're doing. Some/most of the modules were applying have been developed by us and are extremely obscure and cutting edge.

[M0GLO]

DSO support has been available by default in Red Hat and many other distributions for quite some time. It's certainly available in RHEL4 and RHEL5. It would be kind of silly not to, since quite a lot of people use loadable modules these days to enable all sorts of functionality on their webservers. Not to mention, not including DSO support would kinda break RedHat's HTTP Configuration Tool for configuring Apache, don'tcha think?

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/D ... dmods.html (http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Deployment_Guide/s1-apache-addmods.html)


"The Apache HTTP Server supports Dynamically Shared Objects (DSOs), or modules, which can easily be loaded at runtime as necessary. "

It's NOT default Ryan it has to be compiled in, note that mod_so is not part of the default module list. I in fact HAD to do just this last month in order to get Nagios working.
Without mod_so there is no dynamic loading of modules so the modules listed are compiled into the Apache binary and cannot be unloaded as they are part of the binary at run time.

And RH is just a minor subset of the corporate web server platforms out there, Solaris is still the king.
So even if RH decided to change it's precompiled binary to include mod_so as a default (which it isn't right now) it would STILL need to be compiled for other OE's.

As you are proving you really don't know much about this.

This is almost becoming an EPIC FAIL.

[N2RJ]

mod_so.c isn't loaded by LoadModule directives. It is statically compiled in, and Apache included with any recent version of RHEL and other distros already has it compiled in. It pretty much has to be that way for RedHat's config tools to work and unless you're serving only static pages, you need at least one of the loadable modules.

300+ of my production webservers running everything from mod_rewrite to mod_jk without recompilation of httpd from the stock package from the repos can't be wrong, Todd. But keep it up. My team and my friends are enjoying the laughs. Maybe one day you'll be a contender, but right now you're just a joke.

By the way, nice deflection to Solaris, we were talking about RedHat/Fedora, and last I checked the netcraft survey, Linux and Microsoft were the leaders of the web world, not Sun Solaris.

[M0GLO]

mod_so.c isn't loaded by LoadModule directives. It is statically compiled in, and Apache included with any recent version of RHEL and other distros already has it compiled in. It pretty much has to be that way for RedHat's config tools to work and unless you're serving only static pages, you need at least one of the loadable modules.

300+ of my production webservers running everything from mod_rewrite to mod_jk without recompilation of httpd from the stock package from the repos can't be wrong, Todd. But keep it up. My team and my friends are enjoying the laughs. Maybe one day you'll be a contender, but right now you're just a joke.

Sure thing Ryan, sure thing. Keep on lying, it's what you seem to be good at.

[N2RJ]

We were talking about RedHat, not Sun.

I do agree that on Sun Solaris you will have to recompile httpd to get DSO support probably because Sun wants to discourage the use of apache and encourage people to use iPlanet.

But Red Hat Linux (what we were talking about) has DSO support already built in and the httpd included with RHEL is modular.

But most web shops don't really use Solaris anyway except for the backend (we use it for Oracle and a legacy CMS). Linux and Microsoft are the OSes of choice for the web.

[M0GLO]

We were talking about RedHat, not Sun.

I do agree that on Sun Solaris you will have to recompile httpd to get DSO support probably because Sun wants to discourage the use of apache and encourage people to use iPlanet.

But Red Hat Linux (what we were talking about) has DSO support already built in and the httpd included with RHEL is modular.

But most web shops don't really use Solaris anyway except for the backend (we use it for Oracle and a legacy CMS). Linux and Microsoft are the OSes of choice for the web.

Not for the big corporations there guy, you media types may be using Linux on the web but we only use that internally. Solaris servers are the rule for corporations. That is changing, but not as fast as even I would like.

And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.

If you guys are so security unconscious that you'd just throw a precompiled server binary on your box and run it on the web all I can say is I am so glad I don't work for your shop.
And that doesn't even address the performance issues of running dynamically loaded modules.
So your team doesn't tune either I take it.

I hope for your sake that your OS teams actually do at least some rudimentary hardening of the systems before they go live, if you are telling the truth about their mirth at the idea of compiling server software for security and performance then I wouldn't bet too much on that being the case.

[W4GPL]

And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.That's either a typo, or you're really more clueless than you appear.

[root@jebediah ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release ; rpm -ql php
CentOS release 5.2 (Final)
/etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf
/usr/lib/httpd/modules/libphp5.so
/var/lib/php/session
/var/www/icons/php.gif

You haven't had to recompile anything for PHP support in Apache for years (when using RHEL), as far as I can recall.

[n2ize]

We were talking about RedHat, not Sun.

I do agree that on Sun Solaris you will have to recompile httpd to get DSO support probably because Sun wants to discourage the use of apache and encourage people to use iPlanet.

But Red Hat Linux (what we were talking about) has DSO support already built in and the httpd included with RHEL is modular.

But most web shops don't really use Solaris anyway except for the backend (we use it for Oracle and a legacy CMS). Linux and Microsoft are the OSes of choice for the web.

Not for the big corporations there guy, you media types may be using Linux on the web but we only use that internally. Solaris servers are the rule for corporations. That is changing, but not as fast as even I would like.

And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.


That is not nessesarilly true.

In my case when I decided to put Apache/PhP/MySQL on my server I configured and built everythinfg from scratch. I compiled PHP, MySQL and Apache. naturally when I built php I made sure the build produced the correct module for apache and when I built apache I compiled it with support for dynamically loadable modules. So, loading/unloading php is simply a matter of loading/unloading the module.

However, when I decided to put apache and PHP on my local desktop machine I simply included the precompiled apache and php during the Fedora installation process and getting PHP to work was simply a matter of loading the proper module. At least that's how I remember it to be but I was able to get Apache and PHP to work without compiling anything.
However, when I installed Fedora on my

[M0GLO]

And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.That's either a typo, or you're really more clueless than you appear.

[root@jebediah ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release ; rpm -ql php
CentOS release 5.2 (Final)
/etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf
/usr/lib/httpd/modules/libphp5.so
/var/lib/php/session
/var/www/icons/php.gif

You haven't had to recompile anything for PHP support in Apache for years (when using RHEL), as far as I can recall.
Refer to the link I provided earlier, where they state that for PHP support you must compile.
As for clueless you're the republican here.

[W4GPL]

And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.That's either a typo, or you're really more clueless than you appear.

[root@jebediah ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release ; rpm -ql php
CentOS release 5.2 (Final)
/etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf
/usr/lib/httpd/modules/libphp5.so
/var/lib/php/session
/var/www/icons/php.gif

You haven't had to recompile anything for PHP support in Apache for years (when using RHEL), as far as I can recall.
Refer to the link I provided earlier, where they state that for PHP support you must compile.
As for clueless you're the republican here.Looking at the link now, I see no such thing -- care to clarify? Argue with me all you want, you're 100% wrong here.

I just showed you where the PHP package that comes DEFAULT with RHEL has the Apache module, look for yourself.

[M0GLO]

That's either a typo, or you're really more clueless than you appear.

[root@jebediah ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release ; rpm -ql php
CentOS release 5.2 (Final)
/etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf
/usr/lib/httpd/modules/libphp5.so
/var/lib/php/session
/var/www/icons/php.gif

You haven't had to recompile anything for PHP support in Apache for years (when using RHEL), as far as I can recall.
Refer to the link I provided earlier, where they state that for PHP support you must compile.
As for clueless you're the republican here.Looking at the link now, I see no such thing -- care to clarify? Argue with me all you want, you're 100% wrong here.

I just showed you where the PHP package that comes DEFAULT with RHEL has the Apache module, look for yourself.
What, you blind as well?


Additionally, the following modules are available by installing additional packages:

mod_auth_kerb
mod_auth_mysql
mod_auth_pgsql
mod_authz_ldap
mod_dav_svn
mod_jkz
mod_perl
mod_python
mod_ssl
php

[W4GPL]

Edit: Duplicate thoughts. See below.

[W4GPL]

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/P ... 01s03.html (http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Package_Manifest/ar01s03.html)

php-5.1.6-15.el5 - php-5.1.6-20.el5

Group: Development/Languages
Summary: The PHP HTML-embedded scripting language. (PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor)
Description:

PHP is an HTML-embedded scripting language. PHP attempts to make it
easy for developers to write dynamically generated webpages. PHP also
offers built-in database integration for several commercial and
non-commercial database management systems, so writing a
database-enabled webpage with PHP is fairly simple. The most common
use of PHP coding is probably as a replacement for CGI scripts.

The php package contains the module which adds support for the PHP
language to Apache HTTP Server.


And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.You install the binary, you recompile nothing.

In your very mature words: EPIC FAIL.

[N2RJ]

Not for the big corporations there guy, you media types may be using Linux on the web but we only use that internally. Solaris servers are the rule for corporations. That is changing, but not as fast as even I would like.

We only own all of the Fox properties, Dow Jones (they're mostly a MSFT shop by the way), several newspapers, MySpace and others.

But of course we're just small fish compared to you, Todd. :lol: :lol:


And if you want PHP support you are going to have to recompile anyway, Red Hat or not.

ROFLOL! :lol: :lol: :lol:


If you guys are so security unconscious that you'd just throw a precompiled server binary on your box and run it on the web all I can say is I am so glad I don't work for your shop.

If RedHat was throwing insecure code to paying subscription customers, they'd be out of business. Not just from the lawsuits, but no one would even buy their software.


And that doesn't even address the performance issues of running dynamically loaded modules. So your team doesn't tune either I take it.

The performance hit is minimal, Todd, but the benefits are immense. I can add or remove a module in a few seconds versus who knows how much time recompiling, testing etc.

It's called a tradeoff, and most people find that the (debatable) performance hit when using DSO versus using statically compiled modules is minimal.

Besides, it's not like you will ever see the kind of traffic with internal users where it will even make a difference, so why do you even care?


I hope for your sake that your OS teams actually do at least some rudimentary hardening of the systems before they go live, if you are telling the truth about their mirth at the idea of compiling server software for security and performance then I wouldn't bet too much on that being the case.

Yes, we do a lot of hardening, and I personally have taken a lot of initiative in securing the systems.

Performance wise, we can do as much as 1 billion page views per month without breaking a sweat, doing more than 5gbps sustained on 01/20.

Of course with your internal users I doubt you'll ever see that kind of traffic... :lol: :lol:

[M0GLO]

Damn, you must be a hackers dream if it's you securing the boxes! :lol:

[N2RJ]

Damn, you must be a hackers dream if it's you securing the boxes! :lol:

Not likely. The last one they took down was OReilly's site, and we had warned them (we don't maintain OReilly's site. He has his own team.)

You're more than welcome to try though.

[M0GLO]

Damn, you must be a hackers dream if it's you securing the boxes! :lol:

Not likely. The last one they took down was OReilly's site, and we had warned them (we don't maintain OReilly's site. He has his own team.)

You're more than welcome to try though.
Not without a contract from News Corpse to black hat you. :naughty

[n2ize]

O like the idea of dynamically loadable modules. It allows me to enable unanticipated functionality quickly and painlessly. Thats why when I compile Apache I make sure I compile in support for loadable modules.

I think dynamically loadable modules are a pretty good deal.

[M0GLO]

O like the idea of dynamically loadable modules. It allows me to enable unanticipated functionality quickly and painlessly. Thats why when I compile Apache I make sure I compile in support for loadable modules.

I think dynamically loadable modules are a pretty good deal.
They are really cool as long as you aren't worried about security or you are the only one able to configure the server.

On the other hand if you have a team of people in 2 or more different dept's that can change the httpd.conf file best to compile what you want straight in to the binary (faster server as well) and not have to worry (or at least worry a little less) about the fact that 70% of all hacks are internal.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threa ... 85161.html (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/785161.html)

Tripwire and it's ilk are good, but root can get around those easily enough.

[N2RJ]

Damn, you must be a hackers dream if it's you securing the boxes! :lol:

Not likely. The last one they took down was OReilly's site, and we had warned them (we don't maintain OReilly's site. He has his own team.)

You're more than welcome to try though.
Not without a contract from News Corpse to black hat you. :naughty

To qualify for that you'd have to at least know something about security. You obviously do not.

HAND.

[M0GLO]

Not without a contract from News Corpse to black hat you. :naughty

To qualify for that you'd have to at least know something about security. You obviously do not.

HAND.
OOOH!, That woulda hurt if you were any good at what you do. :lol:

[W4GPL]

How would you know if he's good at what he does? Because it appears you sure as hell don't. I've shown both this thread and the "firecalling" thread to several friend of mine who are also admins. Needless to say, you've been a great source of amusement for us.

Not a single one of them has defended or agreed with your painfully archaic logic. I always assumed you were probably good at what you do, because usually people who have massive egos and treat people the way you do can back it up. Though you are clearly a grand exception to that rule, which leads me to believe that your general nasty disposition is a result of self loathing and a subconscious acknowledgement that are a failure at life in general. Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.

[M0GLO]

How would you know if he's good at what he does? Because it appears you sure as hell don't. I've shown both this thread and the "firecalling" thread to several friend of mine who are also admins. Needless to say, you've been a great source of amusement for us.

Not a single one of them has defended or agreed with your painfully archaic logic. I always assumed you were probably good at what you do, because usually people who have massive egos and treat people the way you do can back it up. You're clearly a grand exception to that rule, which leads me to believe that your general nasty disposition is a result of self loathing and a subconscious acknowledgement that are a failure at life in general. Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.
Really? I have? Keep on trying republican.

BTW, you still flying the stupid flag or are you a Libertarian now?

[N2RJ]

How would you know if he's good at what he does? Because it appears you sure as hell don't. I've shown both this thread and the "firecalling" thread to several friend of mine who are also admins. Needless to say, you've been a great source of amusement for us.

Not a single one of them has defended or agreed with your painfully archaic logic. I always assumed you were probably good at what you do, because usually people who have massive egos and treat people the way you do can back it up. Though you are clearly a grand exception to that rule, which leads me to believe that your general nasty disposition is a result of self loathing and a subconscious acknowledgement that are a failure at life in general. Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.

Ouch. That must sting.

[M0GLO]

How would you know if he's good at what he does? Because it appears you sure as hell don't. I've shown both this thread and the "firecalling" thread to several friend of mine who are also admins. Needless to say, you've been a great source of amusement for us.

Not a single one of them has defended or agreed with your painfully archaic logic. I always assumed you were probably good at what you do, because usually people who have massive egos and treat people the way you do can back it up. Though you are clearly a grand exception to that rule, which leads me to believe that your general nasty disposition is a result of self loathing and a subconscious acknowledgement that are a failure at life in general. Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.

Ouch. That must sting.
Woulda if he wasn't such an idiot. :lol:

[W2IBC]

Woulda if he wasn't such an idiot. :lol:

that wasnt very nice.

[M0GLO]

Woulda if he wasn't such an idiot. :lol:

that wasnt very nice.
Nope, wasn't meant to be.

[W4GPL]

Woulda if he wasn't such an idiot. :lol:
Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.Thanks for making my case. When your argument doesn't hold up and you've shown that you really have no authority on the subject at hand, you resort to personal attacks and ignore the fact that you were wrong in the first place.

[M0GLO]

Woulda if he wasn't such an idiot. :lol:
Not to mention the almost pathological ability to cling to an argument even when you've been shown you're wrong.Thanks for making my case. When your argument doesn't hold up and you've shown that you really have no authority on the subject at hand, you resort to personal attacks and ignore the fact that you were wrong in the first place.
You still talking republican? :lol:
I actually just got bored with jabbering with you.
BTW - I just ran a module check on the RHES servers here and guess what? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[W4GPL]

What? You discovered that PHP is a binary module that requires no recompiling? Because if you didn't, you're just making crap up, again.

Speaking of making crap up, just who was the fourth Republican in Obama's cabinet? :p

[N2RJ]

BTW - I just ran a module check on the RHES servers here and guess what? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You tell us.

[M0GLO]

BTW - I just ran a module check on the RHES servers here and guess what? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You tell us.
No mod_so on our box's. But you already knew that.

[ad4mg]

May we return the thread to some level of civility, and try to use bigger words?

Our storage closet is slam full of padlocks. I can hang one here on this thread without batting an eye.

I'd really prefer to just hang out and be invisible. My coolness factor is higher when I'm invisible.

Thank you for the consideration. :wall

[N2RJ]

Be my guest, Luke. "Wrong and Strong (tm)" just has to be right. The sky is yellow, even though it's blue.

[W4GPL]

You tell us.Based on his several :lol: 's ... He found a package full of emoticons?

Again Todd..

http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Ha ... 01s03.html (http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Release_Manifest/ar01s03.html)

php-5.1.6-15.el5 - php-5.1.6-23.el5

Group: Development/Languages

Summary: The PHP HTML-embedded scripting language. (PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor)

Description:
PHP is an HTML-embedded scripting language. PHP attempts to make it
easy for developers to write dynamically generated webpages. PHP also
offers built-in database integration for several commercial and
non-commercial database management systems, so writing a
database-enabled webpage with PHP is fairly simple. The most common
use of PHP coding is probably as a replacement for CGI scripts.

The php package contains the module which adds support for the PHP
language to Apache HTTP Server.

Again to use your own words against you, "are you blind?".

[N2RJ]

BTW - I just ran a module check on the RHES servers here and guess what? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You tell us.
No mod_so on our box's. But you already knew that.

Mod_so.c isn't a loadable module.

[M0GLO]

What? You discovered that PHP is a binary module that requires no recompiling? Because if you didn't, you're just making crap up, again.

Speaking of making crap up, just who was the fourth Republican in Obama's cabinet? :p
Hey sonny boy, he doesn't just appoint cabinet you know.

And no, there was no PHP module either pleeb.

[M0GLO]

Mod_so.c isn't a loadable module.
No kidding Ryan, httpd -l.

[W4GPL]

What? You discovered that PHP is a binary module that requires no recompiling? Because if you didn't, you're just making crap up, again.

Speaking of making crap up, just who was the fourth Republican in Obama's cabinet? :p
Hey sonny boy, he doesn't just appoint cabinet you know.

And no, there was no PHP module either pleeb.Yes, but you're claim in the SCOTUS thread was he had 4 Republican cabinet members. And despite all evidence to the contrary you still hang onto that argument.

And I guess Redhat.com's package manifest is one giant typo then, eh? And the fact that I had the loadable module installed on most of my web servers is just a figment of my imagination?

[M0GLO]

What? You discovered that PHP is a binary module that requires no recompiling? Because if you didn't, you're just making crap up, again.

Speaking of making crap up, just who was the fourth Republican in Obama's cabinet? :p
Hey sonny boy, he doesn't just appoint cabinet you know.

And no, there was no PHP module either pleeb.Yes, but you're claim in the SCOTUS thread was he had 4 Republican cabinet members. And despite all evidence to the contrary you still hang onto that argument.

And I guess Redhat.com's package manifest is one giant typo then, eh? And the fact that I had the loaded module installed on most of my web servers is just a figment of my imagination?
You running RHES?

[W4GPL]

You running RHES?RHEL 4 & 5 in many locations.

[M0GLO]

You running RHES?RHEL 4 & 5 in many locations.
Sure ya are.

[N2RJ]

I know for certain I am running RHEL4 and 5. But I didn't have to tell you that. You can find that out quite easily yourself.

[W4GPL]

You running RHES?RHEL 4 & 5 in many locations.
Sure ya are. :lol:

Wow. Fine, believe whatever you want.

But regardless of what you believe, look at that link Todd, are you denying that PHP is a binary module that comes with RHEL 5?

[M0GLO]

Wow. Fine, believe whatever you want.

But regardless of what you believe, look at that link Todd, are you denying that PHP is a binary module that comes with RHEL 5?
I believe it's fun as hell watching you dumb ass clowns jumping up and down for so damn long! :lol: :lol:

Thanks for the entertainment!

Hey Ryan, nice hooves. You been trimming them?:lol: :lol:

[W4GPL]

Wow. Fine, believe whatever you want.

But regardless of what you believe, look at that link Todd, are you denying that PHP is a binary module that comes with RHEL 5?
I believe it's fun as hell watching you dumb ass clowns jumping up and down for so damn long! :lol: :lol:Ok Todd, you win. You're clearly the superior person, you know everything, I know nothing. :liar:

I'll let you spew your erroneous information. I've provided clear evidence and yet you deny the sky is blue.

[M0GLO]

Ok Todd, you win. You're clearly the superior person, you know everything, I know nothing. :liar:
I'll let you spew your erroneous information. I've provided clear evidence and yet you deny the sky is blue.
Still hopping? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You've provided pretty much nothing, you've been asking me to provide.

Jump little republican, jump higher!

You just keep hoppin there republican, I gotta go home and it warms my heart to know you'll be jumping through them hoops while I'm on the train. :mrgreen:

[N2RJ]

Really, this is getting silly.