[Bug 210741] Re: no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy
The same problem. I have a smb share on server which is public and writeable, and with fstab like this: //server/pub/media/pub smbfs guest,uid=1000,rw,iocharest=utf8,file_mode=0775,dir_mode=0777 0 0 only root can write to /media/pub (even though 1000 is uid of normal user). Files and dirs permissions seem to be ok. Moreover Hardy can't umount share properly while shutting down and hangs before power is off. I have to umount shares manually before shutdown. That's not the only problem with HH for me -- if you don't have to upgrade: DO NOT! -- no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/210741 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 225333] Re: Should use /dev/urandom instead of /dev/random
Thanks, closing main task then. ** Changed in: cyrus-sasl2 (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- Should use /dev/urandom instead of /dev/random https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/225333 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to cyrus-sasl2 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 154570] Re: package openssh-client 1:4.6p1-5build1 failed to install/upgrade:
We are closing this bug report because it lacks the information we need to investigate the problem, as described in the previous comments. Please reopen it if you can give us the missing information, and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future. To reopen the bug report you can click on the current status, under the Status column, and change the Status back to New. Thanks again! ** Changed in: openssh (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Invalid -- package openssh-client 1:4.6p1-5build1 failed to install/upgrade: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/154570 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openssh in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 210741] Re: no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy
Marcin, the unmount on shutdown problem has been noted elsewhere (bug #211631) and is probably a mis-ordering of the shtudown script. -- no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/210741 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 187473] Re: [Hardy] Update from alpha 3 to alpha 4 broke ssh connections to openbsd boxes
No - but the server I connect to is using the workround I mentioned above. -- [Hardy] Update from alpha 3 to alpha 4 broke ssh connections to openbsd boxes https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/187473 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openssh in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 210741] Re: no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = New -- no way to read and write files on mounted samba share on hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/210741 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Hi Ante, Ante Karamatic wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on server? It's not like you have some point and click application for setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-) [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361 -- Paul Elliott UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer Computing Service, University of York -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
After our border gateway hard drive crashed yesterday, we installed Hardy Alternate CLI on an old spare server which served honorably on the work bench testing hardware. We installed openssh-server and ebox* (mostly) and moved to a workstation. After dealing with network interfaces and adding one firewall rule, we were back in business. An hour or so of tweaking, mostly with Ebox, we snatched an Ebox backup and settled into a night of Java which was the original goal for the day. It is hard to imagine the utility of a desktop on this server for any purpose. I wouldn't mind some specific examples where that might be true. Ebox has a few rough spots and the documentation is general and presupposes a general understanding of server maintenance. The IRC chatroom on freenode and the wiki pages at http://trac.ebox-platform.com/wiki are a help for the unfamiliar. There is an Apache modules in the works. We plan on doing a roll up of three servers this month which will check out the utility of most of the features. Jim On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Paul Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ante, Ante Karamatic wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on server? It's not like you have some point and click application for setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-) [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361 -- Paul Elliott UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer Computing Service, University of York -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: Ante Karamatic wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on server? It's not like you have some point and click application for setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector. However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu Server users have some Canonical support subscription. I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. Thanks, Mike -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote: On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. What a shame. Can you give some examples? Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/serverguide/C/libvirt.html Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 James Dinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote: On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. I can not think of a single server application that can not be installed with apt completely from the command line on Ubuntu/Devian. Likewise, I can not think of a single server application that can not be installed with yum completely from the command line on Redhat. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would be really curious to hear an example. James -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 06:34 -0700, MJang wrote: On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: Ante Karamatic wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on server? It's not like you have some point and click application for setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector. However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu Server users have some Canonical support subscription. I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. Let me clarify a bit - by Red Hat CLI installers, I'm referring to tools like printconf and setup - yes, they are not package installers, but CLI configuration tools nevertheless. printconf is no longer there, and I think setup is deprecated. But I'm also thinking of LVM configuration - at least through RHEL 5, a custom LVM setup requires the GUI version of Anaconda. Thanks, Mike -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu servers. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu servers. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to administer is beyond ridiculous. I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole swaths of machines at once i.e. : * upgrade some package on some set of machines * revert to prior package on some set of machines * compare machines for installed package differences * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow a certain type of traffic * start/stop service on some set of machines * change config file on some set of machines * ect... The list of course is pretty much endless but you get the idea. When you have many machines it is pretty much out of the question to connect to each one and administer it individually by hand, either buy GUI or shell. I think any server GUI that is consider should be scalable. It should be able to move beyond the needs of one or 2 servers and be able to handle many servers. Proposal: I propose creating requirements for a server GUI and then see if we can find anything that meets it. So far I think I've seen the following: 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known security architecture 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines (I know there is not necessarily any consensus on this one and people might reject it as a requirement) 4) ? Shameless plug for #3: * gets xwindows off the servers which is a know security risk and resource hog * potentially can require nothing more than sshd and preshared keys on all the servers On May 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu servers. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
It looks like Landscape (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape) does some things, but it is missing an important requirement: * Open source It appears from the way that it is described that you need a support contract with Canonical to use it. I've never used Landscape but it appears that it covers the following areas: 1) Package management 2) User management 3) Security updates 4) Repository management 5) System monitoring 6) Integrates with Canonical support system Obvious major things missing: 7) Service management (starting/stopping/monitoring) 8) Service configuring - router - dhcp - web - dns - firewall - ids - snort - ect... 9) Change management - track changes - control changes - rollback changes 10) ? On May 3, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: Agreed with you. But... isn't that Canonical Landscape? Cheers, Leandro. Em Sáb, 2008-05-03 às 15:31 -0700, Martin Hess escreveu: I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to administer is beyond ridiculous. I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole swaths of machines at once i.e. : * upgrade some package on some set of machines * revert to prior package on some set of machines * compare machines for installed package differences * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow a certain type of traffic * start/stop service on some set of machines * change config file on some set of machines * ect... The list of course is pretty much endless but you get the idea. When you have many machines it is pretty much out of the question to connect to each one and administer it individually by hand, either buy GUI or shell. I think any server GUI that is consider should be scalable. It should be able to move beyond the needs of one or 2 servers and be able to handle many servers. Proposal: I propose creating requirements for a server GUI and then see if we can find anything that meets it. So far I think I've seen the following: 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known security architecture 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines (I know there is not necessarily any consensus on this one and people might reject it as a requirement) 4) ? Shameless plug for #3: * gets xwindows off the servers which is a know security risk and resource hog * potentially can require nothing more than sshd and preshared keys on all the servers On May 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu servers. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 15:31 -0700, Martin Hess wrote: I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to administer is beyond ridiculous. I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole swaths of machines at once i.e. * upgrade some package on some set of machines * revert to prior package on some set of machines * compare machines for installed package differences * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow a certain type of traffic * start/stop service on some set of machines * change config file on some set of machines * ect... Dear Martin, I think that's the reason behind Landscape - and alternatives such as the Red Hat Network and SUSE's Zenworks. (and I'm guessing Microsoft's SMS, but I've never tried that one.) I'm pretty sure all three allows automated remote actions as you suggest - on groups of machines at a time. But they're all primarily Web-based tools. While I remember working with some command line options for Zenworks a while back which accomplished some of what you suggest, I'm not aware of any such command line tools for RHN or Landscape, at least beyond registering individual systems. However, they do allow cron-style implementation of command line tools and scripts on single or groups of systems. Thanks, Mike -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
