[CentOS-es] Off Topic ayuda Postgress
Hola amigos esperando que todos se encuentren bien, tengo un peque problema que ya llevó algunos días investigando en google y no logro resolver paso a explicar el problema. Tengo un servidor centos 5.8 funcionando con postgress 3.4 la misma que instale via yum agregando los repos de postgress para que no se instale la última versión porque hay un sistema contable que corre en esta versión exclusivamente, cuando instale nunca me pidió la clave de root o administrador para acceder a la base de datos, como suele pasar cuando uno instala Mysql, actualmente todas las conexiones a la bdd entran sin clave, aún cuando creo un usuario y a este le asigno una clave. Por temas de seguridad necesito que todas las conexiones sean validadas por un usuario y clave, ojalá alguien me pueda echar una mano con este problema. De antemano gracias a todos y felices fiestas Saludos César ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS] Help Getting Postfix relaying via Gmail
Am 28.12.2012 08:37, schrieb Clint Dilks: Sorry was doing this at 2am in the morning and didn't realise I mis-copied alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix data_directory = /var/lib/postfix debug_peer_level = 3 html_directory = no inet_interfaces = localhost inet_protocols = all mail_owner = postfix mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq.postfix manpage_directory = /usr/share/man mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases.postfix queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.6.6/README_FILES relayhost = [smtp.gmail.com]:587 sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.6.6/samples sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix setgid_group = postdrop smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd smtp_sasl_type = cyrus smtp_tls_CAfile = /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt smtp_tls_mandatory_ciphers = high smtp_tls_mandatory_protocols = TLSv1 smtp_tls_secure_cert_match = nexthop smtp_tls_security_level = secure smtp_use_tls = yes smtpd_sasl_path = smtpd unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 yum install cyrus-sasl-plain Alexander ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Samba vs. Firewall and/or SELinux
Daniel J Walsh wrote: Not a great idea since every user will be allowed to read/write/execute in this directory. I ran chown with root:users for data public in recursive mode and added nobody to the group users, but via samba created files will own by nobody:nobody instead of nobody:users, so it is not allowed for my local user to write and read the files added via samba. So I decided to access rwx to all. what is the trick in the smb.conf that the files will owned by the group users? I'm working with the parameter create mask = 777. I would rather work with 770 and the files should be owned by the user nobody and the group users. I would just check if it works in permissive mode then we can blame this on SELinux, if not, then it is not SELinux problem. Works on permissive mode with activated firewall, but i changed security=share to security=user in the smb.conf as well. So the access to the samba-share works now on enforcing mode, too. -- Ibrahim Arastirmacilar Yurtseven 2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.i686 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Help Getting Postfix relaying via Gmail
2012/12/28 Clint Dilks clint.di...@gmail.com: Sorry was doing this at 2am in the morning and didn't realise I mis-copied alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix data_directory = /var/lib/postfix debug_peer_level = 3 html_directory = no inet_interfaces = localhost inet_protocols = all mail_owner = postfix mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq.postfix manpage_directory = /usr/share/man mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases.postfix queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.6.6/README_FILES relayhost = [smtp.gmail.com]:587 sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.6.6/samples sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix setgid_group = postdrop smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd smtp_sasl_type = cyrus smtp_tls_CAfile = /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt smtp_tls_mandatory_ciphers = high smtp_tls_mandatory_protocols = TLSv1 smtp_tls_secure_cert_match = nexthop smtp_tls_security_level = secure smtp_use_tls = yes smtpd_sasl_path = smtpd unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 remember to postmap /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd and then restart the postfix. then provide log entries from postfix after trying to send mail.. -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Samba vs. Firewall and/or SELinux
On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Ibrahim Yurtseven wrote: Daniel J Walsh wrote: Not a great idea since every user will be allowed to read/write/execute in this directory. I ran chown with root:users for data public in recursive mode and added nobody to the group users, but via samba created files will own by nobody:nobody instead of nobody:users, so it is not allowed for my local user to write and read the files added via samba. So I decided to access rwx to all. what is the trick in the smb.conf that the files will owned by the group users? I'm working with the parameter create mask = 777. I would rather work with 770 and the files should be owned by the user nobody and the group users. I guess I'm not sure what the point is by having files owned by 'nobody' and then adding nobody 'user' to the 'users' group - that seems to be some rather twisted logic that has security implications far beyond the simple samba share configuration but hey… it's your box. chirp users /data/public -R chmod g+s /data/public -R will ensure that all files/folders in /data/public are owned by the group 'users' and any new files/folders created within (whether by samba or not) belong to that group. if you add 'inherit permissions = yes' to the 'share' definition in smb.conf, that also will impact. Yes, you could also add: force security mode = 770 #or 775 force directory security mode = 770 #or 775 within the share definition too. I would just check if it works in permissive mode then we can blame this on SELinux, if not, then it is not SELinux problem. Works on permissive mode with activated firewall, but i changed security=share to security=user in the smb.conf as well. So the access to the samba-share works now on enforcing mode, too. in my opinion, security=user is always the better solution. Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Samba vs. Firewall and/or SELinux
You need to open the service in the firewall Type setup and go to the firewall and mark samba Then you will see all folders in the windows pc On Dec 28, 2012 10:11 AM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Ibrahim Yurtseven wrote: Daniel J Walsh wrote: Not a great idea since every user will be allowed to read/write/execute in this directory. I ran chown with root:users for data public in recursive mode and added nobody to the group users, but via samba created files will own by nobody:nobody instead of nobody:users, so it is not allowed for my local user to write and read the files added via samba. So I decided to access rwx to all. what is the trick in the smb.conf that the files will owned by the group users? I'm working with the parameter create mask = 777. I would rather work with 770 and the files should be owned by the user nobody and the group users. I guess I'm not sure what the point is by having files owned by 'nobody' and then adding nobody 'user' to the 'users' group - that seems to be some rather twisted logic that has security implications far beyond the simple samba share configuration but hey… it's your box. chirp users /data/public -R chmod g+s /data/public -R will ensure that all files/folders in /data/public are owned by the group 'users' and any new files/folders created within (whether by samba or not) belong to that group. if you add 'inherit permissions = yes' to the 'share' definition in smb.conf, that also will impact. Yes, you could also add: force security mode = 770 #or 775 force directory security mode = 770 #or 775 within the share definition too. I would just check if it works in permissive mode then we can blame this on SELinux, if not, then it is not SELinux problem. Works on permissive mode with activated firewall, but i changed security=share to security=user in the smb.conf as well. So the access to the samba-share works now on enforcing mode, too. in my opinion, security=user is always the better solution. Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
So I just finished doing a fresh install of CentOS 6.3. The
machine has three ethernet ports in it: one on the motherboard (VIA
Rhine), and two add-on cards, an Intel Pro100 and an old SMC1255TX. When
CentOS comes up, this is what I see in the dmesg output:
# dmesg | grep eth
e100 :00:08.0: eth0: addr 0xf6043000, irq 16, MAC addr
00:02:b3:be:02:87
eth1: ADMtek Comet rev 17 at MMIO 0xf604, 00:4c:69:6e:75:79,
IRQ 17.
udev: renamed network interface eth0 to rename2
udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth3
udev: renamed network interface rename2 to eth1
eth0: VIA Rhine II at 0xf6042000, 00:16:17:17:22:8e, IRQ 23.
eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1
Link 45e1.
eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x45E1
eth0: no IPv6 routers present
So, according to the musical playing going on there, the result is:
eth0: VIA Rhine
eth1: IntelPro 100 (originally comes up as eth0 but gets renamed eth1)
eth3: SMC1255TX (originally comes up as eth1 but gets renamed eth3)
Here's my issue:
In udev rules (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I see:
# PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:4c:68:6e:ff:ff, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth2
# PCI device 0x8086:0x1229 (e100)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:02:b3:be:02:87, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth1
# PCI device 0x1106:0x3065 (via-rhine)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:16:17:17:22:8e, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth0
# PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:4c:69:6e:75:79, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth3
Question is, where did the first tulip interface come from? That's
not any of the interfaces on the machine, it doesn't match the MAC
address of any of the interfaces, so where'd it come from?
Furthermore, when I look in
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth2, the HWADDR there is the same
as the first interface listed above. But again, it's not in dmesg's
output. As far as I can tell, it's a ghost interface ...
What gives, and how can I get rid of it so that the proper
interface gets the eth2 spot?
A
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
By the way, I know that the tulip drives is what is driving the SMC1255TX
... in case anyone was wondering if that's what I'm asking. It's not.
It's the hardware MAC address that's puzzling to me as it doesn't exist on
this machine anywhere. At least not that I can tell.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Ashley M. Kirchner ash...@pcraft.comwrote:
So I just finished doing a fresh install of CentOS 6.3. The
machine has three ethernet ports in it: one on the motherboard (VIA
Rhine), and two add-on cards, an Intel Pro100 and an old SMC1255TX. When
CentOS comes up, this is what I see in the dmesg output:
# dmesg | grep eth
e100 :00:08.0: eth0: addr 0xf6043000, irq 16, MAC addr
00:02:b3:be:02:87
eth1: ADMtek Comet rev 17 at MMIO 0xf604, 00:4c:69:6e:75:79,
IRQ 17.
udev: renamed network interface eth0 to rename2
udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth3
udev: renamed network interface rename2 to eth1
eth0: VIA Rhine II at 0xf6042000, 00:16:17:17:22:8e, IRQ 23.
eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1
Link 45e1.
eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x45E1
eth0: no IPv6 routers present
So, according to the musical playing going on there, the result is:
eth0: VIA Rhine
eth1: IntelPro 100 (originally comes up as eth0 but gets renamed eth1)
eth3: SMC1255TX (originally comes up as eth1 but gets renamed eth3)
Here's my issue:
In udev rules (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I see:
# PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:4c:68:6e:ff:ff, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth2
# PCI device 0x8086:0x1229 (e100)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:02:b3:be:02:87, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth1
# PCI device 0x1106:0x3065 (via-rhine)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:16:17:17:22:8e, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth0
# PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip)
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:4c:69:6e:75:79, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth3
Question is, where did the first tulip interface come from? That's
not any of the interfaces on the machine, it doesn't match the MAC
address of any of the interfaces, so where'd it come from?
Furthermore, when I look in
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth2, the HWADDR there is the same
as the first interface listed above. But again, it's not in dmesg's
output. As far as I can tell, it's a ghost interface ...
What gives, and how can I get rid of it so that the proper
interface gets the eth2 spot?
A
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:55:05 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: It's the hardware MAC address that's puzzling to me as it doesn't exist on this machine anywhere. At least not that I can tell. lshw -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
On 12/28/2012 01:05 PM, Frank Cox wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:55:05 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: It's the hardware MAC address that's puzzling to me as it doesn't exist on this machine anywhere. At least not that I can tell. lshw There is no lshw on my CentOS 6.3 system and it is not found in the add/remove software tool. Where did you find lshw? -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:16:10 -0500 Mark LaPierre wrote: There is no lshw on my CentOS 6.3 system and it is not found in the add/remove software tool. Where did you find lshw? rpmforge -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). lspci lists the other two, and all of those MAC addresses are correct. The one that doesn't match ONLY appears in the udev rules file. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Frank Cox thea...@melvilletheatre.comwrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:16:10 -0500 Mark LaPierre wrote: There is no lshw on my CentOS 6.3 system and it is not found in the add/remove software tool. Where did you find lshw? rpmforge -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:21:22 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). That's what you're looking for. Now you know that the mysterious device isn't something that you didn't know aobout on the motherboard. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
But it is. The MAC address on the motherboard port is NOT the same as the mystery device. And it DOES match one of the entries in udev's rules, and it's operational right now as eth0 (as it should be.) However, the mystery MAC address that's listed in udev's rules matches nothing in either lshw or lspci. Remember, udev's rules lists FOUR devices. There are only THREE. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Frank Cox thea...@melvilletheatre.comwrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:21:22 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). That's what you're looking for. Now you know that the mysterious device isn't something that you didn't know aobout on the motherboard. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner ash...@pcraft.com wrote: But it is. The MAC address on the motherboard port is NOT the same as the mystery device. And it DOES match one of the entries in udev's rules, and it's operational right now as eth0 (as it should be.) However, the mystery MAC address that's listed in udev's rules matches nothing in either lshw or lspci. Remember, udev's rules lists FOUR devices. There are only THREE. What does the BIOS say about ethernet devices? Does the motherboard have a management interface card with its own ethernet port, perhaps potential but not actually installed? Is there a fiber-optics connector on the system which is coming up as an ethernet port? Is one of the cards old enough to still have a separate BNC connector? On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Frank Cox thea...@melvilletheatre.comwrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:21:22 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). That's what you're looking for. Now you know that the mysterious device isn't something that you didn't know aobout on the motherboard. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Dale Dellutri ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
Remember, udev's rules lists FOUR devices. There are only THREE. What does the BIOS say about ethernet devices? Does the motherboard have a management interface card with its own ethernet port, perhaps potential but not actually installed? An IPMI may have its own MAC, but share a physical port with the main NIC. If you are using this as a firewall, make sure to not have an IPMI port facing the internet. You may have a MAC address in one of your ifcfg-eth* files that does not _exactly_ match the hardware. Sometimes, it can be case-sensitive. pushd /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ mkdir BACKUP mv ifcfg-eth* ./BACKUP/ I would take out all the add-on cards and see if this extra MAC stays around. Put the other cards in one-by-one till found. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
BIOS lists one device. Motherboard does not have an interface card. No fiber optic. No BNC connector. I commented out the ghost MAC address from udev's rules file and rebooted. It has not reappeared. However, the problem I have is that the ethernet ports don't stick in the same order. They came up in a completely different order. I now have eth0, 1, and 4. What was eth0 prior to the reboot is now ... uh ... 'rename4' according to the udev messages: udev: renamed network interface eth0 to rename2 (this is the Intel Pro 100 add-in card [e100 module]) udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth0 (this is the SMC1255TX add-in card [tulip module]) udev: renamed network interface rename2 to eth1 udev: renamed network interface eth2 to rename4 (this is the motherboard ethernet port [VIA Rhine module]) What gives?? How can I tell it to either stop mucking with them, or to do it in the order I want it to: on-board: eth0 Intel: eth1 SMC: eth2 On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dale Dellutri daledellu...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner ash...@pcraft.com wrote: But it is. The MAC address on the motherboard port is NOT the same as the mystery device. And it DOES match one of the entries in udev's rules, and it's operational right now as eth0 (as it should be.) However, the mystery MAC address that's listed in udev's rules matches nothing in either lshw or lspci. Remember, udev's rules lists FOUR devices. There are only THREE. What does the BIOS say about ethernet devices? Does the motherboard have a management interface card with its own ethernet port, perhaps potential but not actually installed? Is there a fiber-optics connector on the system which is coming up as an ethernet port? Is one of the cards old enough to still have a separate BNC connector? On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Frank Cox thea...@melvilletheatre.com wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:21:22 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). That's what you're looking for. Now you know that the mysterious device isn't something that you didn't know aobout on the motherboard. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Dale Dellutri ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Live CD iso
Hi folks I'm just about to start using Centos again. I used it briefly a couple of years ago but found the switch to rpm a bit much after using deb for 5 years. Now there seem to be a lot of changes on the deb front so i'm going to try again with rpm. I noticed that there is now a live CD (as well as the DVD) instead of the six CDs that i used before (iirc). I would just be grateful if someone could confirm that... i've been an xfce user so i was thinking that i've either got to go back to gnome and load the xfce desktop or use the DVD (and install xfce straight). thanks james ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Live CD iso
On 12/28/2012 08:28 PM, James Freer wrote: Hi folks I'm just about to start using Centos again. I used it briefly a couple of years ago but found the switch to rpm a bit much after using deb for 5 years. Now there seem to be a lot of changes on the deb front so i'm going to try again with rpm. I noticed that there is now a live CD (as well as the DVD) instead of the six CDs that i used before (iirc). I would just be grateful if someone could confirm that... i've been an xfce user so i was thinking that i've either got to go back to gnome and load the xfce desktop or use the DVD (and install xfce straight). Download the netinstall choose your window manager. Save you a lot of time. Cheers, Phil... -- currently (ab)using CentOS 5.8 6.3, Debian Squeeze Wheezy, Fedora Beefy Spherical, Lubuntu 12.10, OS X Snow Leopard Ubuntu Precise Quantal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ethernet puzzle
I decided to completely delete everything out of udev's rules file and restart the system. This brought up the devices in whatever discovered order. Then I modified the rules file to set them in the correct order (simply by changing the NAME= key) and rebooted again. Now they're all coming up in the order in which I set them. The mystery MAC hasn't reappeared either. It seems to only be present immediately after the install. I've now rebooted three times to make sure the definitions stick. So far so good. While this has solved the problem, it still doesn't explain the mystery MAC. but, I'm willing to concede that we will never find out where it came from. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner ash...@pcraft.comwrote: BIOS lists one device. Motherboard does not have an interface card. No fiber optic. No BNC connector. I commented out the ghost MAC address from udev's rules file and rebooted. It has not reappeared. However, the problem I have is that the ethernet ports don't stick in the same order. They came up in a completely different order. I now have eth0, 1, and 4. What was eth0 prior to the reboot is now ... uh ... 'rename4' according to the udev messages: udev: renamed network interface eth0 to rename2 (this is the Intel Pro 100 add-in card [e100 module]) udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth0 (this is the SMC1255TX add-in card [tulip module]) udev: renamed network interface rename2 to eth1 udev: renamed network interface eth2 to rename4 (this is the motherboard ethernet port [VIA Rhine module]) What gives?? How can I tell it to either stop mucking with them, or to do it in the order I want it to: on-board: eth0 Intel: eth1 SMC: eth2 On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dale Dellutri daledellu...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner ash...@pcraft.com wrote: But it is. The MAC address on the motherboard port is NOT the same as the mystery device. And it DOES match one of the entries in udev's rules, and it's operational right now as eth0 (as it should be.) However, the mystery MAC address that's listed in udev's rules matches nothing in either lshw or lspci. Remember, udev's rules lists FOUR devices. There are only THREE. What does the BIOS say about ethernet devices? Does the motherboard have a management interface card with its own ethernet port, perhaps potential but not actually installed? Is there a fiber-optics connector on the system which is coming up as an ethernet port? Is one of the cards old enough to still have a separate BNC connector? On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Frank Cox thea...@melvilletheatre.comwrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:21:22 -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: Yeah, rpmforge or repoforge. But, I'm looking for what exactly? It only lists a single ethernet port (the built-in one). That's what you're looking for. Now you know that the mysterious device isn't something that you didn't know aobout on the motherboard. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Dale Dellutri ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Live CD iso
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012, Phil Dobbin wrote: On 12/28/2012 08:28 PM, James Freer wrote: Hi folks I'm just about to start using Centos again. I used it briefly a couple of years ago but found the switch to rpm a bit much after using deb for 5 years. Now there seem to be a lot of changes on the deb front so i'm going to try again with rpm. I noticed that there is now a live CD (as well as the DVD) instead of the six CDs that i used before (iirc). I would just be grateful if someone could confirm that... i've been an xfce user so i was thinking that i've either got to go back to gnome and load the xfce desktop or use the DVD (and install xfce straight). Download the netinstall choose your window manager. Save you a lot of time. Cheers, Phil... Ah many thanks. I read about the minimal install and thought that's what i could use - thought better of it and chose the liveCD. I wasn't sure about the netinstall... but i've found since receiving your email a how-to and it seems quite clear. Seems Centos has changed quite a bit from what i remember. There wasn't a liveCD and i installed from 6 CDs... which was a lot of downloading (easier to buy the DVD really). james ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Live CD iso
Phil Dobbin wrote: Download the netinstall choose your window manager. Save you a lot of time. My advice is different: download the regular DVD (not the live DVD) and use it to install. The first disk is sufficient. The reason I have a different opinion is because netinstall is too minimal, especially if you're not familiar with CentOS, and installing with the live CD or DVD is too inflexible. Use the regular DVD instead. Yves Bellefeuille ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Live CD iso
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Yves Bellefeuille y...@storm.ca wrote: Phil Dobbin wrote: Download the netinstall choose your window manager. Save you a lot of time. My advice is different: download the regular DVD (not the live DVD) and use it to install. The first disk is sufficient. The reason I have a different opinion is because netinstall is too minimal, especially if you're not familiar with CentOS, and installing with the live CD or DVD is too inflexible. Use the regular DVD instead. Yves Bellefeuille You mean the bin DVD. Thing is with the DVD they are big for broadband download. I think i'd buy one. But i appreciate your advice. One thing i did learn with linux when i first started is that it's essential to have a spare PC to test a distro on first - then one can use the main PC to email on if in trouble! I'll explore and test things out over the next few days. I had a good look at many distros 3 years ago and the only one's i liked were *buntu family and Centos. james ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Live CD iso
On 12/28/2012 3:21 PM, James Freer wrote: You mean the bin DVD. Thing is with the DVD they are big for broadband download. I think i'd buy one. But i appreciate your advice. unless your broadband is metered, or really slow (and then should it be called broadband?), 4GB or whatever is really not that big of a deal. a few hours, perhaps. One thing i did learn with linux when i first started is that it's essential to have a spare PC to test a distro on first - then one can... or install it as a VM under VirtualBox or whatever. Thats certainly how *I* test stuff, and indeed, I put 16GB ram into my latest desktop PC just so I can run several substantial VMs as needed. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
