On 8 January 2015 at 15:19, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> > Am 08.01.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > >> In most of the cases, we end up requiring someone to go to the system >> physically and doing some initial work if we run into any of 0-3. Of >> course that works great if you have a physical server. We virtualize >> most of our servers which ends up with even more weird problems of >> trying to get working >> > > than you do something wrong > > Of course I do Harald. Very few of us are perfect. Thank you for reminding me of my failures. It has made me a better person. > especially om virtualized systems remote management is far easier because > you have *one* remote console and if it is regular tested and all clients > have the needed access you reach 100,1000,10000 virtual servers without any > exception > > Another thread, but it would be useful if you explained how this is accomplished. > but back to topic: yes it is *way* too optimistic assume KVM or similar > everywhere - for a small business you typically have a *server* as > router/firewall *because* you want to avoid the security problems of make > crap without regular updates directly reachable from the internet and that > includes: > > * SOHO routers > * KVM devices > * any embedded device > * VMware consoles > > so guess what there is running: a ordinary Linux setup (in my case) Fedora > and the only way to access some of them hundrets of kilometers away is just > SSH > this we agree on. -- Stephen J Smoogen.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
