Magyar érettségi Linux kialakítása
•
1 gostou•272 visualizações
Hogyan készült a magyar érettségi Linux openSUSE 11.3 alapokon a SUSEstudio felhasználásával.
![SUSE érettségi Linux bemutató Kovács Lajos Rendszermérnök [email_address]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/erettsegilinux-101018015156-phpapp02/85/magyar-rettsgi-linux-kialaktsa-1-320.jpg)
![Miről lesz szó? ,[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Magyar érettségi Linux kialakítása
Semelhante a Magyar érettségi Linux kialakítása (20)
Magyar érettségi Linux kialakítása
- 1. SUSE érettségi Linux bemutató Kovács Lajos Rendszermérnök [email_address]
- 3. KIWI
- 4. SUSE Studio
- 6. SUSE Gallery
- 7. SUSE Érettségi Linux disztribúció, bemutatása
- 9. Transzparens infrastruktúra biztosítása a fejlesztőknek és felhasználóknak
- 10. Fejlesztőeszközök biztosítása szoftverek készítéséhez openSUSE és egyéb Linux disztribúciókra
- 11. Build környezet különböző hardver architektúrákra (i586, x86_64, ppc)
- 13. Nyílt interface a különböző szolgáltatások és kliensek összekapcsolásához
- 14. Közös csoportmunka biztosítása a fejlesztőknek
- 17. 100,984 csomag
- 20. 21 disztribúció
- 27. University of British Columbia
- 32. Full virtualizált rendszer: Vmware, Qemu
- 39. Logical extend elkészítése, operációs rendszer image “telepítése”
- 41. Csomagok egyenkénti telepítése a rendszer elkészültéig
- 43. Nem szükséges csomagok telepítése, a bulid eredménye egy fileba csomagolt, telepített rendszer
- 44. Felhasználói beavatkozás nem szükséges
- 46. 2008-ben indult SUSE Appliance program része
- 47. KIWI-vel megegyező funkcionalitást nyújt
- 48. 15 GB felhasználható tárterület
- 49. Template alapú disztribúció készítés
- 50. Szerver funkciók támogatása (mysql, postgresql)
- 52. Elkészült appliance tesztelése testdriveban
- 57. Helybe telepíthető SUSE studio változat
- 58. Software Appliance, nincs szükség telepítésre
- 59. KVM virtualizáció használata a testdrive futtatásához
- 60. Processzor szintű virtualizáció támogatása szükséges
- 61. Onsite szerverek terheléses monitorozásának lehetősége
- 62. Felhasználók, repositorik kezelésének lehetősége
- 63. SUSE Studio
- 65. SUSE Studioval elkészített saját disztribúciók megosztásának lehetősége
- 68. Több mint 82,000 regisztrált felhasználó
- 69. Több mint 3 millió Appliance letöltés
- 70. 10.000$ értékű díjazás a leginnovatívabb appliance elkészítőjének
- 72. szabad szoftverekkel történő érettségi vizsgázásra
- 76. Cél operációs rendszer kialakítása
- 77. 700Mb limit
- 80. Képszerkesztő
- 82. Grafikus eszköz adatbázis kezeléshez
- 83. Fordító és futtató környezet programozáshoz
- 87. Elkészítés saját scriptek segítségével
- 89. SUSE Studio LiveCD image
- 91. Weblap szerkesztő: KompoZer 0.7.10
- 93. Adatbázis-kezelő szoftver: mysql 5.0.67, postgresql 8.4.4
- 94. Grafikus eszköz adatbázis kezeléshez: knoda 0.8.3
- 96. Perl: 5.10.0
- 97. Java 1.6.0_20
- 100. SLE 11 SDK
- 103. Kompozer beállításai
- 104. Ikonok feltöltése
- 107. Nem szükséges csomagok törlése
- 111. Adatbázis felhasználók felvitele, jogosultságok kiosztása
- 118. SUSE Studió és SUSE érettségi Linux – Demo Bemutató
- 119. Kérdések?
- 121. Unpublished Work of Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This work is an unpublished work and contains confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of Novell, Inc. Access to this work is restricted to Novell employees who have a need to know to perform tasks within the scope of their assignments. No part of this work may be practiced, performed, copied, distributed, revised, modified, translated, abridged, condensed, expanded, collected, or adapted without the prior written consent of Novell, Inc. Any use or exploitation of this work without authorization could subject the perpetrator to criminal and civil liability. General Disclaimer This document is not to be construed as a promise by any participating company to develop, deliver, or market a product. It is not a commitment to deliver any material, code, or functionality, and should not be relied upon in making purchasing decisions. Novell, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to the contents of this document, and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. The development, release, and timing of features or functionality described for Novell products remains at the sole discretion of Novell. Further, Novell, Inc. reserves the right to revise this document and to make changes to its content, at any time, without obligation to notify any person or entity of such revisions or changes. All Novell marks referenced in this presentation are trademarks or registered trademarks of Novell, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Notas do Editor
- . We have identified four major trends in 2007: * Market consolidation: For the most part, larger platform vendors extended their positions significantly in 2006, while smaller vendors exhibited limited growth, and this trend is continuing in 2007. Large-vendor WAM solutions offer reasonable or even extensive functionality at competitive price points and are backed by large, diverse organizations that often have highly capable professional service organizations. For these reasons, the value propositions of best-of-breed vendors are becoming much less compelling, and many smaller vendors are suffering as a result. * Compliance focus: Compliance and audit requirements are driving enterprises to separate security — or at least authentication and authorization — from applications wherever possible. Security is increasingly seen as an "envelope" around business logic that should be managed and controlled separately, and this is resulting in more interest in heterogeneous access management and specifically in WAM solutions. This approach is also pushing WAM vendors to look for ways to easily extend their offerings to more enforcement points. One example: Several WAM solutions now offer capabilities that allow access control rules to be extended "behind" the application, to the database. * Pricing: Downward pricing pressure and tough competition continue in the WAM market, and vendors continue to try out different kinds of pricing options for different customer situations. Average per-user list pricing has continued to drop, with 5,000-user costs averaging less than $11.00 per user and 100,000-user costs averaging about $3.50 per user. One million-user pricing is approaching $1.00 per user, but deployments of that size are more likely to use site licensing. Processor-based pricing continues to be attractive to some Gartner clients. In 2007, some vendors have experimented with subscription-based pricing, which replaces a larger upfront licensing cost with a smaller periodic (monthly or annual) cost. Subscription pricing is a potential prelude to outsourced service offerings for WAM and greater IAM. Perhaps the most appealing pricing model is concurrent-user pricing, in which the buyer is charged based on the largest number of concurrent authentications or user sessions supported. This model appeals especially to enterprises running larger external customer or partner portals, because it does not penalize them for having dormant or rare users in their user repositories. Concurrent-user pricing would seem — along with per-authentication pricing, which is currently unknown — to be the fairest way to measure WAM solution use. These results indicate a growing interest in identity federation, especially given that half of the WAM products do not bundle federation capabilities.
- . We have identified four major trends in 2007: * Market consolidation: For the most part, larger platform vendors extended their positions significantly in 2006, while smaller vendors exhibited limited growth, and this trend is continuing in 2007. Large-vendor WAM solutions offer reasonable or even extensive functionality at competitive price points and are backed by large, diverse organizations that often have highly capable professional service organizations. For these reasons, the value propositions of best-of-breed vendors are becoming much less compelling, and many smaller vendors are suffering as a result. * Compliance focus: Compliance and audit requirements are driving enterprises to separate security — or at least authentication and authorization — from applications wherever possible. Security is increasingly seen as an "envelope" around business logic that should be managed and controlled separately, and this is resulting in more interest in heterogeneous access management and specifically in WAM solutions. This approach is also pushing WAM vendors to look for ways to easily extend their offerings to more enforcement points. One example: Several WAM solutions now offer capabilities that allow access control rules to be extended "behind" the application, to the database. * Pricing: Downward pricing pressure and tough competition continue in the WAM market, and vendors continue to try out different kinds of pricing options for different customer situations. Average per-user list pricing has continued to drop, with 5,000-user costs averaging less than $11.00 per user and 100,000-user costs averaging about $3.50 per user. One million-user pricing is approaching $1.00 per user, but deployments of that size are more likely to use site licensing. Processor-based pricing continues to be attractive to some Gartner clients. In 2007, some vendors have experimented with subscription-based pricing, which replaces a larger upfront licensing cost with a smaller periodic (monthly or annual) cost. Subscription pricing is a potential prelude to outsourced service offerings for WAM and greater IAM. Perhaps the most appealing pricing model is concurrent-user pricing, in which the buyer is charged based on the largest number of concurrent authentications or user sessions supported. This model appeals especially to enterprises running larger external customer or partner portals, because it does not penalize them for having dormant or rare users in their user repositories. Concurrent-user pricing would seem — along with per-authentication pricing, which is currently unknown — to be the fairest way to measure WAM solution use. These results indicate a growing interest in identity federation, especially given that half of the WAM products do not bundle federation capabilities.