Just a heads-up in case you haven't found this yet.

ntpd is another victim of hibernate/suspend since Fedora 9: at hibernate/
suspend it gets shut down and isn't restarted when the machine wakes up. 
This is in Bugzilla.

I'm using a cron.hourly script to restart it - this is easier to do than 
forcing anacron to run after waking up since ntpd should always be 
running. You just check to see if ntpd is running and restart if it isn't:

test=$(ps -ef | grep '^ntp')
if [ -z "$test" ]
	service ntpd restart
fi


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Just a heads-up in case you haven't found this yet.
> 
> ntpd is another victim of hibernate/suspend since Fedora 9: at hibernate/
> suspend it gets shut down and isn't restarted when the machine wakes up. 
> This is in Bugzilla.

I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio 
stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know 
if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.

I know that there will be lots of things that aren't included in Centos 
that i use regularly - amarok, for example - and it may well prove too 
much hassle to change. I haven't used Centos for a few years, but i'm 
going to have a look at it in virtualbox and see what it looks like 
nowadays...



-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Will Kemp wrote:
 
> I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio
> stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know
> if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.
> 
Is centos likely to be any better?

IIRC its effectively a rebadged RHEL without the maintenance contract. 
IOW, if the F9 problems aren't fixed soon they're likely to find their 
way into Centos.
 
So far I'm fairly happy with F9. I have workrounds for the cron and ntp 
hibernation problems. My only outstanding issue is the Java 6/JTable 
chinese writing problem which has reappeared: it doesn't seem to be an 
ssh X11 forwarding issue as I initially thought (but it may possibly be 
something I did wrong when coding the underlying data model).
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

On 07/09/2008 19:22, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Will Kemp wrote:
>  
>> I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio
>> stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know
>> if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.
>
> Is centos likely to be any better?

If the audio problems are a result of PulseAudio configuration issues, 
then yes, because PA isn't in RHEL5/CentOS5.  Don't take this as 
"pulseaudio bashing" there's too much of that about, but it is an extra 
configuration that has to right.

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Will Kemp wrote:
>  
>> I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio
>> stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know
>> if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.
>>
> Is centos likely to be any better?
> 
> IIRC its effectively a rebadged RHEL without the maintenance contract.

I think there's more to Centos than just that. It's certainly based on 
RHEL, but i think there's a bit of Centos in there too.

> IOW, if the F9 problems aren't fixed soon they're likely to find their 
> way into Centos.

Well, maybe. But the point of Fedora is to find the problems so RH can 
fix them before they're incorporated into EL.




-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 07/09/2008 19:22, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Will Kemp wrote:
>>  
>>> I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio
>>> stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know
>>> if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.
>> Is centos likely to be any better?
> 
> If the audio problems are a result of PulseAudio configuration issues, 
> then yes, because PA isn't in RHEL5/CentOS5.  Don't take this as 
> "pulseaudio bashing" there's too much of that about, but it is an extra 
> configuration that has to right.

No, it's nothing to do with PA - i struggled with that for long enough 
with F8 before i uninstalled it. When i installed F9, i uninstalled PA 
straight away, without even giving it a chance.

No, my problems are with jack - it's stuck on 48kHz sample rate, which 
is a pain in the arse. And Audacity - it records at the wrong speed. 
There are one or two other things, which i can't think of off the top of 
my head.

I discovered yesterday that PlanetCCRMA is doing packages for Centos 5.1 
now, rather than going from F8 to F9, so i'm thinking maybe it's time to 
move to Centos - as i reckon CCRMA's packages for the above items are 
likely to work better than F9's. Also, they package Cinelerra - which is 
broken in F9 (well, it's broken full stop, really, but allegedly works 
with some version of Centos, and is patchable) and it's likely not to be 
broken in the CCRMA build.

The problem with Centos is it doesn't include bluefish or amarok (and no 
doubt other packages that i haven't thought about checking for yet). I 
can probably install these using the F9 packages, but then i won't get 
the updates for them

I dunno. I"m still thinking about it. I'll probably have to download the 
installation DVD and install it on a spare partition and try it out.



-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

On 07/09/2008 21:26, Will Kemp wrote:

> No, it's nothing to do with PA 

ok.

> The problem with Centos is it doesn't include bluefish or amarok

No, but they both seem to be in EPEL (The equivalent of the old Fedora 
Extras packages, but built for CentOS)

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 07/09/2008 21:26, Will Kemp wrote:
> 
>> No, it's nothing to do with PA 
> 
> ok.
> 
>> The problem with Centos is it doesn't include bluefish or amarok
> 
> No, but they both seem to be in EPEL (The equivalent of the old Fedora 
> Extras packages, but built for CentOS)

Ah, really? That's good to know. Thanks for pointing that out.



-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

On 07/09/2008 21:47, Will Kemp wrote:

> Ah, really? That's good to know. Thanks for pointing that out.

Browse what's in the repo

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/

I've never had problems with EPEL clashing or replacing any centOS base 
packages, I've also used it in conjunction with ATRPMS when required, 
mix-in any other repos and you might hit probems

Will Kemp wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Just a heads-up in case you haven't found this yet.
>>
>> ntpd is another victim of hibernate/suspend since Fedora 9: at hibernate/
>> suspend it gets shut down and isn't restarted when the machine wakes up. 
>> This is in Bugzilla.
> 
> I'm contemplating moving to Centos - as i'm a bit sick of lots of audio 
> stuff that worked ok years ago not working now in Fedora. I don't know 
> if it's the apps themselves or Fedora's builds of them though.
> 
> I know that there will be lots of things that aren't included in Centos 
> that i use regularly - amarok, for example - and it may well prove too 
> much hassle to change.

Having just moved to CentOS from Mandriva, you'll find many apps that
are only available in 3rd party repositories. Amarok is a perfect
example, and rather ironic too, as it is only available in the EPEL
repos which are fedora packages rebuilt for RHEL/CentOS. It seems that
F6 packages are the most compatible with CentOS 5.2, which gives you an
idea of the 'progress' done in the fedora project.

I feel slightly uncomfortable using 3rd party repos as the whole point
of CentOS is stability, but by adding in these extra packages you're
undermining it.

Proprietary drivers (read 'nvidia') are also a pain. I ended up having
to use the nVidia installer as nothing else would work in setting up
TwinView correctly.

I still haven't got compiz working... :(

chris wrote:

> Having just moved to CentOS from Mandriva, you'll find many apps that
> are only available in 3rd party repositories. Amarok is a perfect
> example, and rather ironic too, as it is only available in the EPEL
> repos which are fedora packages rebuilt for RHEL/CentOS. It seems that
> F6 packages are the most compatible with CentOS 5.2, which gives you an
> idea of the 'progress' done in the fedora project.

Hmm... That's a bit of a worry. I'm not sure i really want to go 
backwards. One thing that i was wondering about is bluetooth. I use it 
quite a lot and in F9 it's seamless and works well. In F8 it wasn't 
nearly as good. In F6, it was pretty much non-existent!

Anyway, i've just installed it on a spare partition and i'm about to try 
it out...



-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

Will Kemp wrote:
> chris wrote:
> 
>> Having just moved to CentOS from Mandriva, you'll find many apps that
>> are only available in 3rd party repositories. Amarok is a perfect
>> example, and rather ironic too, as it is only available in the EPEL
>> repos which are fedora packages rebuilt for RHEL/CentOS. It seems that
>> F6 packages are the most compatible with CentOS 5.2, which gives you an
>> idea of the 'progress' done in the fedora project.
> 
> Hmm... That's a bit of a worry. I'm not sure i really want to go 
> backwards. One thing that i was wondering about is bluetooth. I use it 
> quite a lot and in F9 it's seamless and works well. In F8 it wasn't 
> nearly as good. In F6, it was pretty much non-existent!
> 
> Anyway, i've just installed it on a spare partition and i'm about to try 
> it out...

Well, it ain't looking too good so far! It didn't manage to make my 
iwl4965 wireless interface work out of the box - which isn't a good 
start, as it worked fine with F9. The gnome network config tool is 
rather ancient too - and isn't actually any use for configuring wireless 
anyway.

I don't think i can be bothered going through all that nonsense again! ;-)



-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

On 08/09/2008 17:20, chris wrote:

> I feel slightly uncomfortable using 3rd party repos as the whole point
> of CentOS is stability, but by adding in these extra packages you're
> undermining it.

If you're using different kernels (or just modules) or replacing 
"critical" services I'd agree, but adding a few apps shouldn't undermine 
any distro ...

On 2008-09-08, Andy Burns  wrote:
> On 08/09/2008 17:20, chris wrote:
>
>> I feel slightly uncomfortable using 3rd party repos as the whole point
>> of CentOS is stability, but by adding in these extra packages you're
>> undermining it.
>
> If you're using different kernels (or just modules) or replacing 
> "critical" services I'd agree, but adding a few apps shouldn't undermine 
> any distro ...

... as long as you don't use binaries compiled for a different distro or a 
different version of the same distro.  Installing from source (perhaps 
vial 'checkinstall' or some such thing to create a suitable binary package 
for yourself) should be fine - but 'unofficial' installations probably 
won't appear automatially in any GUI menu your distro provides.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers wrote:
> On 2008-09-08, Andy Burns  wrote:
>> On 08/09/2008 17:20, chris wrote:
>>
>>> I feel slightly uncomfortable using 3rd party repos as the whole point
>>> of CentOS is stability, but by adding in these extra packages you're
>>> undermining it.
>> If you're using different kernels (or just modules) or replacing 
>> "critical" services I'd agree, but adding a few apps shouldn't undermine 
>> any distro ...
> 
> ... as long as you don't use binaries compiled for a different distro or a 
> different version of the same distro.  Installing from source (perhaps 
> vial 'checkinstall' or some such thing to create a suitable binary package 
> for yourself) should be fine - but 'unofficial' installations probably 
> won't appear automatially in any GUI menu your distro provides.

I've tried installing amarok from source, but the checkinstall step
fails and I couldn't find the appropriate header/devel package to solve
the dependency. This is where I was informed of the EPEL repo at the
CentOS forum.

Also, the wiki states that installing from source is not recommended.

On 2008-09-09, chris  wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2008-09-08, Andy Burns  wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2008 17:20, chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel slightly uncomfortable using 3rd party repos as the whole point
>>>> of CentOS is stability, but by adding in these extra packages you're
>>>> undermining it.
>>> If you're using different kernels (or just modules) or replacing 
>>> "critical" services I'd agree, but adding a few apps shouldn't undermine 
>>> any distro ...
>> 
>> ... as long as you don't use binaries compiled for a different distro or a 
>> different version of the same distro.  Installing from source (perhaps 
>> vial 'checkinstall' or some such thing to create a suitable binary package 
>> for yourself) should be fine - but 'unofficial' installations probably 
>> won't appear automatially in any GUI menu your distro provides.
>
> I've tried installing amarok from source, but the checkinstall step
> fails and I couldn't find the appropriate header/devel package to solve
> the dependency. This is where I was informed of the EPEL repo at the
> CentOS forum.
>
> Also, the wiki states that installing from source is not recommended.

There are certainly potential pitfalls; if you by-pass your distro's normal 
package management system then you might need to become your own package 
manager for the whole system, to manage 'dependencies' which clash between 
the 'official' packages and your own 'do it yourself' installations.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~