[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux

On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 04:25 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:32 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> >   
> >> Gilboa Davara wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry to snip so much....but one thing struck me....
> >>
> >> You said:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking
> >>> about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and
> >>> SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention.
> >>> When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking
> >>> about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x
> >>> deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company
> >>> line - we only support RHEL and SLES....
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> I wonder how you could find their response annoying..
> >>
> >> They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit
> >> host Linux OS they support.  They also state very clearly what 32-bit
> >> and 64-bit host Windows OS they support.  They also state the
> >> requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers
> >> are supported.
> >>
> >> So I don't understand.  Are you saying that VMware has no right to
> >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support?   Are
> >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free
> >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS?   Or, are you saying
> >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for
> >> free?  And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support?
> >>     
> >
> > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued
> > otherwise.
> >   
> Then you should not be getting "annoyed".   Maybe disappointed...but
> certainly not annoyed.
> > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support
> > their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream
> > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only.
> > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on
> > qemu-kvm and virt-*.
> >
> >   
> What do you mean "should Fedora go along with their decision"?   Fedora
> isn't supporting anything with regards to VMware and VMware isn't giving
> any consideration to Fedora.  I think you have created a relationship
> where none exists.

...Well, FWIW, VMware has announced there will be a Linux VI client in
their next major release.

VMware is not anti-Fedora either. They are willing to help in the
community lists on an as available basis, and they are certainly willing
to capture fixes. Because it isn't "officially" supported, that means
you can't call VMware support for help with it like you would RHEL or
SLES. But you can get VMware resources to help if you know where to ask,
because many of them use Fedora too.

Even though I don't really like the .bundle installer they are moving
to, it does now at least check for the presence of required components
(like kernel-headers) and tells you in plain English if it isn't there
and should be installed. It also automates the old vmware-config.pl
program in Workstation 6.5 and automatically re-compiles required
modules on the fly if a new kernel is detected.

So there is some improvement happening as new versions are released. I
have yet to need any kind of kernel patch for VMware products on F10.
Oh, and VMware Server 2.0 does work with PAM nicely in the newest build.
If the selinux problem could just get fixed once and for all, it would
be quite livable for most folks.

"Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former."

-- Albert Einstein

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]