201

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting

« on: August 07, 2019, 12:45:01 PM »

...
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

The fact you say you would "have no idea how to get a gun" is why it is a bad idea to convert the legal market into a black market. Just because YOU don't know how to get a gun, doesn't mean criminals won't. That is my whole point in the black market argument and relation to the prohibition of drugs - it simply won't work the way you expect. Drugs are harder and more expensive to get, but drug users seem to have no problem getting them. If guns are harder and more expensive to get, it only means law abiding citizens like you and I will have less access to them - it plays right into the hands of criminals since they will not have any problem getting guns.

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.

202

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting

« on: August 05, 2019, 09:12:31 PM »

Here is an argument against gun elimination:

Consider the drug market....

Heroin and crack are illegal and punishments for  possession of even small amounts are extreme. Does anyone who wants heroin or crack have a hard time obtaining it? .... No. Even without money people seem to find a way to get it.

Suppose you outlaw guns... Do you think it will be enforced or eliminated any better than heroin or crack? No.

In fact, what will likely happen is that it will create an underground black market in which only criminals will be able to obtain guns because law abiding citizens will of course obey the law.

So, effectively that monopolizes guns for criminals. If I were trying to start a militia, I would be in favor of gun control because that ensures my enemy will have a difficult time arming themselves.

203

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting

« on: August 05, 2019, 07:10:42 PM »

Wow folks, I'm not sure where to start with this one....

There are a lot of arguments that I agree with, on both sides.

First off, and to be clear, I am not in favor of removing guns from private citizens. I am a hunter and a "country kid" - I understand the value of guns. You do not need a so-called "assault rifle" to hunt big game, but I'm not going to get into the ambiguity of what can be considered an assault rifle because that is irrelevant. All guns kill. That is what they are designed to do. It is true that semi-auto and fully auto will kill more people more quickly, respectively.

I love shooting guns. For all you UK people out there, if you don't understand the pleasure in shooting a gun, you might never - and that is ok. It must be an American thing, but let me tell you. It is AMAZING! It is a huge stress reliever to fire off round after round and not only hear the sound of the bullet, but feel it, the recoil, the explosion, the sound of the bullet cutting the air, and as it hits the target.

This enjoyment is increased with semi-auto and fully-auto weapons. That is the number one reason I would like to have one in my home - I currently do not. I own one gun (30/30 winchester lever action, open site). It is a good brush gun for hunting deer - and oh so fun to shoot. Any other reasons for owning one of these seems superficial and moot. We are not under attack and we are not being oppressed by our government. You certainly don't need a semi for self-defense, at least not in the US.

People do not become murderers due to them owning an assault rifle. Eliminating guns will not stop the violence. The violence will adapt/evolve, and there will be other ways to mass-murder.

What's happening, and what will happen with each shooting is an attempt by some law makers to exploit the tragedy for their own agendas. This adds salt on the wound and fuel to the fire. We need to take the focus off of guns for a moment, and focus on our families. We are in the midst of a crisis, and that is called, lack of parenting. Our children are being influenced in ways that weren't imaginable 20 or 30 years ago, and parents of the previous generation suffocated by their own struggles are unaware and incapable of dealing with the social influences on their offspring.

America is indeed in crisis, but it is not a gun crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. America is lost. Let's stop fighting about whether or not we should control guns, and start worrying about why our children want to destroy each other.

204

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 05, 2019, 04:53:25 PM »

Individuals are free to build their own methods of energy supply.

Fact is, the methods advocated for national reliance, such as solar and wind, are still far below that of oil and gas in terms of efficiency and ROI.

The environment is not being destroyed either. <- Do you live under a rock?

This is true, although completely impractical. Not many people have the resources or the know-how to make their own energy. And are you talking about converting your vehicle to run of hydrogen or vegetable oil (or similar)? Do you know how to do this? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does - doesn't mean it's not out there, but get real. Most people are not auto-mechanics, let alone engineers. Are you talking about converting my electrical at home to run off-grid? Again, something that most people don't know how to do or have the means to do it. In fact, if people start getting on youtube and googling methods of power conversion, and they get it wrong, they might just end up burning down their house.

There is no such thing as hate speech.

In an effort to avoid giving an answer to likeness of, "You're wrong", I will try to provide evidence of hate speech. First off, take a look at this pdf: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf

It defines several categories of speech that are not protected by the 1st amendment. Not all of it is hate speech, but if you, for instance, threaten someone with violent actions, that is considered hate speech. So, I don't know what kind of veil you hide behind that allows you to ignore these types of defamation.

Trump is not a bigot, nor does he discriminate.

Can I get away with saying, "ya, right"?

Here is how bigotry is defined by merriam webster:

Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially
: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Would you say that Trump's efforts to prevent anyone who is "muslim" from entering the country falls into the category of "one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred and intolerance"?

Conveniently ignoring the fact the entire population of the planet could be placed in a state the size of Oregon, with 4 people each living in a 1400 sq ft home and a quarter acre yard.

Have you been to or seen the country of India? You might be able to cram a billion people in a tiny little area, but let's be honest... do you REALLY think that will work? And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that crammed people still eat, sleep, crap, and consume. Having enough space to put everyone is not the issue here... we are talking about resources. Consumables. Look what's happening in the Amazon rain forest... do you think earth will be just fine without all of those trees? Reminds me of the Lorax.... I guess come corporation will start charging for air just like they do with water.

205

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM »

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there.

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged?

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged?

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

That's quite a presumptuous statement. Do you know anyone with a serious chronic illness?

Yes.

I have a chronic illness.

Both of my sisters have a chronic illness, as does my father.

I doubt it from the way you dismiss the struggles of the average American.

What do you know about an "average American?"

Where does this high handedness arise?

Questioning what I know.

It is no wonder you are a Trump supporter. Birds of a feather flock together. It is clear that Trump has no empathy for the average American, and that is one of my concerns for giving him so much power and authority.

Yeah, right.

Someone who doesn't know what it is like to struggle to make ends meat or to make a bill payment - living paycheck to paycheck isn't a symptom of couch potatoes. It's a symptom of stratification. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. It's basic economics.

Basic economics...LOL!

Basic economics first lesson is DON'T LET EXPENDITURES EQUAL MORE THAN INCOME!!!

Spare me the economics lesson.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity

I cringe at your definition of sanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.

You, so far to this point, have failed to differentiate your message from that of any other typical politician in either party as pictured today...

Sorry, not buying...and neither are the rest of the 2020 supporters.

I think doing things differently would be to seek out alternative fuel sources - not loosen restrictions on coal and oil industries so they can monopolize, capitalize, and simultaneously destroy the environment and any chance of having a sustainable future. I think doing things differently would be to lower taxes for people who need some extra money at the end of the month for groceries, rather than lower taxes for those who need the money for an extra yacht.  I think doing things differently would be to put down the golf clubs and try visiting an impoverished neighborhood to see how little time real American's have for entertainment. I think doing things different might be to stop the hate speech, stop the bigotry, and stop the discrimination.

Doing thing differently might be to wake up and realize that there are 7.5 billion people on a planet that is dying. Can you guess why it's dying? Economics, as you so clearly pointed out is not letting expenditures exceed income. Humanity's input is by far exceeding it's output - by about 100% - meaning we consume so much that we need an entire other earth to support our current existence. People like you and other Trumpers seem to have missed the topic of conservation of resources. Trump believes there is such a thing as "clean coal".... someone who dismisses the reality of this equation can only be called, simply, a moron.

206

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM »

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there.

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged?

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged?

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

That's quite a presumptuous statement. Do you know anyone with a serious chronic illness? I doubt it from the way you dismiss the struggles of the average American. It is no wonder you are a Trump supporter. Birds of a feather flock together. It is clear that Trump has no empathy for the average American, and that is one of my concerns for giving him so much power and authority. Someone who doesn't know what it is like to struggle to make ends meat or to make a bill payment - living paycheck to paycheck isn't a symptom of couch potatoes. It's a symptom of stratification. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. It's basic economics.

Furthermore,

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity

I cringe at your definition of sanity.

207

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is government to blame for Health Care costs?

« on: August 03, 2019, 02:30:41 AM »

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that healthcare costs skyrocketed at unprecedented rates right as the Affordable Care Act was passed.

This had nothing to do with increasing healthcare costs. The costs have been steadily rising since the late 70s early 80s.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-total-health-expenditures-have-increased-substantially-over-the-past-several-decades_2017

Health care makes up roughly 80% of the GDP. That means our economy is supported by healthcare. Do you think there is any incentive to decrease costs based on these profit margins? What would happen to wallstreet if healthcare suddenly became free?

208

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM »

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there.

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

209

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 01, 2019, 07:01:45 PM »

According to Trump, here is how he is currently helping the healthcare in America:

https://www.promiseskept.com/achievement/overview/healthcare/#

1. Directs the entire Administration to address drug addiction and opioid abuse.

2. Take steps to expand access to Association Health Plans

3. Removed CSR payments to insurance companies

4. Repealed Obama's insurance mandate - requiring individuals to have insurance.

So, in summary, Trump has released insurance companies to being able to compete with each other. He has enabled individuals to no longer have health insurance, and first and foremost, he has cracked down the illegal drug trade.

I suppose this is good. Although he left the the system in a bit of a pickle without requiring insurance companies to really to any damn thing, but allowing them to compete across state lines, and he has put millions into stopping an illegal drug market, which can never really be stopped - just moved and reorganized. Meanwhile, he has made it virtually impossible for patience to get access to opioids from legit doctors, which weren't the ones prescribing them to the crisis level that America has seen. The opioid crisis was a result of the underground establishments using crooked doctors and centralized pharmacies to run a "legal" drug market. These drug rings, btw, didn't go away. In fact, the end result of the crack down is that new, stronger drugs like fentanyl have made their ways in to fill the gap. This is why more and more are overdosing.... from illegal, black market fentanyl... not prescribed pills like hydrocodone.

210

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM »

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

211

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 01, 2019, 11:57:29 AM »

Introduces topic of pharmaceutical sales.

Response to pharmaceutical sales, blaming big pharma.

The American system is silly.

Very good Rama...

The American system is silly due to the fact people think government should fix everything.

That is false. I assume you're talking specifically about the American health system, and it is silly and messed up due to capitalist corporations and the drive for profit - not government.

212

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2019, 06:30:00 PM »

I gathered that by your use of pronouns.... So?

So it seems like you didn't respond to what I actually said.  Americans getting dicked by Pharma companies has nothing to do with Canada.

I admitted that I didn't have proof. I'll try to find it later when I have more time, but I thought America did sell drugs to Canada, and at a much reduced rate compared to what the 'American-end-user' spends for the same drugs. Since we established that there is no basis for that statement at the present time, I proceeded to engage in the remainder of the initial premise, which was the article about trump supposedly helping American's afford drugs by setting up some importing of drugs from Canada (so I guess it does actually still have to do with Canada)...

But you are right that the price America pays for drugs has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. What I am saying is that American's are getting screwed by American big pharma.

213

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2019, 06:02:52 PM »

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

I cannot (at the moment) find proof that America sells drugs to Canada, but regardless, American's pay far more for prescription drugs due to the monopoly that big pharma has on the industry. We have generic drugs too, but they are still extremely expensive. If you do not have insurance in the country you might as well live on the street because that is where you will likely end up if you get sick. Even for many who HAVE insurance, the cost of premiums still burns a hole in your pocket, and the benefits might not be that great - high deductibles, high co-pays, high everything... it sucks.

And don't think for even one second that Trump will do anything to solve this problem.

Sorry, I think we may have crossed wires.  I am Canadian.

I gathered that by your use of pronouns.... So?

214

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2019, 04:26:07 PM »

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

Read the article a bit, and it sounds like a lot of red tape to import drugs. I'm sure that in itself with inflate the cost of the "cheaper" drugs, and we'll end up with another failed project that costs us more money in the long run, and adds more bureaucracy to an already broken system.

215

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2019, 04:18:11 PM »

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

I cannot (at the moment) find proof that America sells drugs to Canada, but regardless, American's pay far more for prescription drugs due to the monopoly that big pharma has on the industry. We have generic drugs too, but they are still extremely expensive. If you do not have insurance in the country you might as well live on the street because that is where you will likely end up if you get sick. Even for many who HAVE insurance, the cost of premiums still burns a hole in your pocket, and the benefits might not be that great - high deductibles, high co-pays, high everything... it sucks.

And don't think for even one second that Trump will do anything to solve this problem.

216

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM »

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US. It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

217

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: July 30, 2019, 06:38:49 PM »

We see a spherical Sun, we see a spherical Moon and when I look at the planets through my telescope I see them as spherical too.  In fact nothing else in the Universe, regardless of which direction we look is actually flat. Apart from the rings of Saturn and they are not flat in reality.

So if I can ask a simple question then, why should the Earth be flat, who was the first person to suggest it is and why?

Surely some one on the flat Earth side can answer this?  You say you believe the Earth is flat but you don't say why?  I realise that the FE Wiki page states things like the Earth looking flat etc etc but that is neither evidence or proof.  So why should the Earth be flat?

In new documentary Behind The Curve, filmmaker Daniel J Clark gets to know the people who believe the earth is flat. ‘There are continents outside of our Antarctica that are full of the elites and the rich and the powerful, and the government wants to keep that a secret.’
 
We’ve known since around the 3rd century BC that the planet on which we live is a sphere. But for just as long, and despite an abundance of photos of the globe seen from space, one baffling theory has refused to admit defeat: the idea that the Earth is flat.
If you don't believe the earth is flat,maybe you should see this article and share your ideas:  https://docsbay.net/flat-earth-inside-the-world-s-biggest-conspiracy-theory

I'm confused.... first off, you just quoted the first few lines of the document verbatim without siting it as a quote, then you ask us to read the article that you just plagiarized stating "If you don't believe the earth is flat, <do this>", implying the article will convince someone the earth is flat when in reality if you read the article, the documentary was designed to steer people away from the idea the earth is flat.... I'm lost... what is your position here?

218

Technology & Information / Re: CentOS network-based install and application management

« on: July 30, 2019, 01:06:23 PM »

I read that and all I thought of was

"Oh, SCCM does all that."

SCCM is great, but it is Microsoft only....

219

Technology & Information / Re: CentOS network-based install and application management

« on: July 29, 2019, 10:29:08 PM »

Parsifal, thank you. I think modifying the dhcp server is within the scope of what can be changed/configured in our network environment. It's a university and we have very silo'd operations. I cannot directly modify any of the infrastructure, but I can request it to be done by someone else.

As far as simplifying os installs, I want to have an image with all the necessary apps and updates that can be installed litetouch or pxe. I want to be able to install unattended. Sounds like kickstart is the way to go.

In that case, I'd just follow Red Hat's documentation on setting this up:

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/installation_guide/chap-installation-server-setup
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/installation_guide/chap-booting-installer-x86#sect-booting-from-pxe-x86
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/installation_guide/chap-kickstart-installations

This is the way that RHEL (and thus CentOS) is designed to work and the most travelled path. I wouldn't bother even looking at third-party tools unless you find that Red Hat's supported way can't do what you want for some reason.

I assumed, and planned on, having to setup a server for all of this, so that is not a problem.

I'm thinking "pull" is the way to go for app deployment, since clients can check in and get themselves up-to-date.

That seems reasonable to me. You just need to make sure your Kickstart script includes bootstrapping for whatever tool you choose (I'd probably go with Puppet here, but you can even have it just fetch and run Ansible locally if you want).

You should also ensure that you have some way to be notified of errors applying the configuration, so that you become aware of broken machines before someone notices and reports the problem.

Thanks again Parsifal. This is all really helpful!

220

Technology & Information / Re: CentOS network-based install and application management

« on: July 29, 2019, 06:11:26 PM »

What you want isn't possible because you have multiple conflicting requirements. You're going to have to decide which parts of what you want are important and which parts can be dropped.

I would like to be able to install the OS via litetouch, or PXE and have the ability to deploy applications centrally.

I have used DRBL, personally, but I'm not sure it will work in this environment without modifying the networking infrastructure - which I do not want to do.

Booting via PXE requires assistance from the DHCP server, which is part of the network infrastructure. You want to rely on the network infrastructure to do a job without needing to modify it. That isn't going to work very well.

If a new application needs to be added, I want to be able to push it out to all clients at once and not have to touch each machine.

There are, broadly speaking, three ways of accomplishing this:

• Push-based configuration management (e.g. Ansible), which you've already rejected as it can skip hosts which are offline when run.
• Pull-based configuration management (e.g. Puppet, Chef), which fetch their configuration from a central server whenever a machine is booted, or periodically. This requires you to maintain a central server.
• Centralised installation of software on a network file server. Root on NFS appears to be possible on CentOS, but unsupported by Red Hat. In any case, this requires you to maintain a network file server.
  

Since you've already narrowed it down to the latter two options, you need to set up a server of some sort. Personally, I'd suggest going with the second option, as it's more in line with what Red Hat supports and doesn't break every machine if the server goes down for a few minutes.

Note that Red Hat seems to support Puppet, so that's probably your best bet for CentOS.

Also, I want to simplify the OS installs as well and not have to run through a bare-metal install for each new client.

I don't even know what you mean here, since you mentioned Kickstart previously. (Kickstart is the correct tool for automating CentOS installation, by the way, since it is what Red Hat supports.)

Are you trying to say that you want to avoid a manual installation for each new client?

Parsifal, thank you. I think modifying the dhcp server is within the scope of what can be changed/configured in our network environment. It's a university and we have very silo'd operations. I cannot directly modify any of the infrastructure, but I can request it to be done by someone else.

As far as simplifying os installs, I want to have an image with all the necessary apps and updates that can be installed litetouch or pxe. I want to be able to install unattended. Sounds like kickstart is the way to go.

I assumed, and planned on, having to setup a server for all of this, so that is not a problem.

I'm thinking "pull" is the way to go for app deployment, since clients can check in and get themselves up-to-date.