supporters was so sensitive to
delays that they would complain about developers spending 30 minutes every
now and then to write a status update. Their time must be precious ...
What happened to the It comes when it comes mantra?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
reduced with more transparency in
the development process.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
without knowing what to expect when, that is a frustration
amplifier, especially for those having project deadlines.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
], as this is a Fedora issue not a CentOS issue. You know, two
different distributions ;-)
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
[1] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d -nostdinc
-isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include
though.
A fourth approach is to use pvmove, to move data off /dev/sda ... do the
fdisk stuff then pvcreate and add the PV into your VG again. This however
requires that the existing PVs can hold all the data which was in the
/dev/sda device.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On 03/04/11 20:45, Fidel Dominguez-Valero wrote:
ok, could you help me to do that?
[root@server ~]# man reposync
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 21:36 +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:
2011/4/3 Fidel Dominguez-Valero fdval...@gmail.com:
Yes, I know that, but I want
back one minute to check if it could find a hit. So if the attacker tries
to connect again after 2 minutes or even 61 seconds, it won't trigger this
rule. Try increasing this value to 3600 (1 hour). Maybe you want even longer.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
down, as it needs to re-establish the SSH connection again.
Moving over to disallowing password authentication and only use pubkey with
~/.ssh/authorized_keys is probably going to do a better job securing the
server.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On 29/03/11 21:13, Kenni Lund wrote:
Den 29/03/2011 15.41 skrev David Sommerseth d...@users.sourceforge.net:
[...snip...]
Thanks a lot for good information!
The main problem is Windows guests, which easily chokes on hardware
changes (forced reactivation of Windows or unbootable with BSOD
. So when CentOS6 is released, scratch SL6
and install CentOS6, put back the SL6 libvirt configs ... would there be
any issues in such an approach? And what about other KVM based host OSes?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS
this said, RHEL supports up to 16GB with PAE on 32bit, thus
CentOS will do the same. However, if can avoid it and install 64-bit, I
recommend you to do that instead. PAE is really dying, and you'll likely
have more issues with PAE than 64-bit in the long run.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
, I recommend you to get familiar with what's called netiquette,
like this one: http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
Also look at the bottom of the web page from the link above as well.
(Hint: top-posting)
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On 3/4/11 12:14 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote
CPUs as well? And if it does, is the java process running on more CPUs?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
is legit, in my mind.
We all need to relax. :)
+1
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
the virtual guests are qemu-kvm user space processes.
And KSM will merge same pages for user space processes, no matter if it
is KVM guests or other applications.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http
regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
, the standard is settled, and it has been available for over 15
years ... it's too late to change it in IPv6.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
. That should
slowly begin to be useful in RHEL5, RHEL6 and Fedora 14, if I'm not much
mistaken. Not sure how much is implemented in RHEL5/CentOS5 though.
However, for SPICE to work, you need to use KVM. And you need the qemu-kvm
part to initialise the SPICE display properly as well.
kind regards,
David
On 02/03/11 21:12, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, David Sommerseth wrote:
Other than that, SPICE is probably the future [1] on Linux. That should
slowly begin to be useful in RHEL5, RHEL6 and Fedora 14, if I'm not much
mistaken. Not sure how much is implemented in RHEL5/CentOS5
is persistent. 5.3 has not
received much love since 5.4 and 5.5 is released. Now all the focus is on
getting 5.6 out the door too.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
device, hardware wise (except lacking IPv6
support, even though the Canon support claims it has that). But I do
expect decent Linux support nowadays, or else I'll call it crap. So no
more Canon for me. At least until Canon does a real open source effort.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
[1] http
16 bytes (16 bytes * 8 bits per byte = 128
bits). Organised into 8 groups separated by colon. Each group contains
of 2 bytes, where user interfaces uses hexadecimal notation, with values
0x to 0x.
That's basically it.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
to one adapter, you may do so
very easily. Just use 'ip -6 addr add ipv6 addr dev eth0'
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
talking about the WRT54GL, you
don't need to think about 1Gbit cards. Which makes the PRO/100 cards optimal.
Just my 2 cents.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
doesn't change, if the behaviour was wrong to
start with.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
, or that there are no
security issues ... but to distinguish this, then you need to have more
solid arguments than I haven't experienced it ... because you might not
have experienced it _yet_.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http
would really be a lot better than anything else. Keep
people in the darkness, and they'll start looking for the light switch ...
provide them with a candle, and they'll sit more calmness, observing and
having fun.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
://www.karan.org/blog/index.php
http://planet.centos.org/
I'm sorry if I've missed some other more obvious places with more updated
information ... so if that is the case, please enlighten me.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
On 16/02/11 13:31, Stephen Cox wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Sommerseth
d...@users.sourceforge.net
mailto:d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Is it really too much to ask for information on the progress? And
frankly, these references below doesn't shed too much
and are the SELinux file context correct on
/home? (restorecon -rv /home)
Also double check /var/log/messages, /var/log/secure and
/var/log/audit/audit.log carefully when trying to log in as that user.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
On 16/02/11 14:18, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:50:55PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Exactly! Supporters who could most probably do even more, than just to sit
here idle waiting for the next release - if we only knew what the issues
are they are facing.
I
*, which is the current situation.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
being
asked for any password by default.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
for this attack, I do dislike
this kind of personal attacks - at least in the full public. I'm
disappointed to see such happening here by the key people in the CentOS
community.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS
On 16/02/11 15:58, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi David,
On 02/16/2011 12:50 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
Exactly! Supporters who could most probably do even more, than just to sit
here idle waiting for the next release - if we only knew what the issues
are they are facing.
So what happened
2.6.18 code in it as well.
Check the release notes for more info ... Like for RHEL5.5
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/5.5_Release_Notes/ar01s04.html
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
. They are just different, with a different different
needs. It doesn't necessarily make them victims or unlucky.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
at all. If a software version
is 0.7, doesn't mean it's less stable or useful than if the version is 1.0.
It all depends on the developer(s) and how they evaluate their work.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
or questions will *never* stop.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
is that IPv6 in CentOS5 works very well, but is not
optimal due to lack of stateful firewalling. However, I'm certain that
is solved in CentOS6/RHEL6.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman
through
all your changes you did before it stopped working.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
or if I have a specific
setup of my own which need a hand crafted SELinux module.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
some of your questions ...
http://www.redhat.com/virtualization/rhev/server/features-benefits/
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
check which file descriptors
being in used and which files or sockets they relate to by checking the
/prod/$PID/fd directory.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Controller (rev 03)
These cards uses the e1000 driver.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 17/12/10 16:55, Tom Bishop wrote:
So I need some opinions on which way to go, for my home network I am
running almost all linux, and I am starting to want to manage all of the
users accounts, uid/gids for all of the devices some of which are
laptops...so what is the best path going forward,
tried CentOS on the desktop. Maybe
CentOS 6 will be a good choice for that.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
wisely ... the rest is just a matter of personal taste.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
...
http://thedailywtf.com/Series/CodeSOD.aspx
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
take
care of that to happen. You can have that power if you want to.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
hunting in the wilderness.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
And considering what's happening with Novell these days as well, I would
be concerned relying on Mono until things gets clearer. The Microsoft
agreement and Novell had is about to expire soon as well, iirc.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS
programmer who has learned to *check their error
conditions* is worth their weight oyster-crafted gemstones.
Quite so true.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
with other storage brands and I chose
this one due to my very good experience with IBM servers and their Linux
support. And I would definitely go out and by another IBM storage again if I
needed to.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing
variable
from a shell and via a cron job and try to figure out why it is different.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
support exists, but if you have files bigger than 2GB, they need to be
restored on a Linux box.
So nothing big and amazing, but slightly more advanced than rsync and simpler
than Bacula or Amanda backup.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS
On 09/12/10 17:29, Steve Clark wrote:
On 12/09/2010 10:30 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 25/11/10 14:12, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
[...snip...]
Furthermore, openvpn is only compatible with openvpn, while using ipsec you
might be able to connect to other boxes.
That is mostly true
(Final)
[doug...@centos5 tmp]$
On CentOS5 it is reporting 4k block sizes when it should report 32k. Has
anyone seen this or aware of what is causing this change in behavior?
What kind of network file system is used to mount your NAS?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
the following line to /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist
blacklist pcspkr
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 09/12/10 01:05, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, December 09, 2010 02:55 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
Second, iptables is a de-facto standard for Linux, just as pf is pretty
much the standard firewalling on BSD. Windows and Solaris got their own
firewalling methods as well. My point
On 08/12/10 23:01, Warren Young wrote:
On 12/8/2010 3:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
it is still not recommendable to trade security for simplicity.
Security is never an absolute, is *always* a tradeoff against simplicity.
We could store our servers 16 feet underground and encased
- unknown
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-in does.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 08/12/10 04:15, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL
rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox
interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless there's a special http
protocol string
as a part of IPv6, instead
of ARP being an addition to IPv4.
http://itkia.com/how-to-arp-a-in-ipv6/
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http
with semodule. But that's a heavier path to take,
especially if 'semanage fcontext' can do the job for you.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
with it in the
beginning.
But unless you *invest time* to learn the tools ... you'll only be
frustrated that something doesn't work. And some people find it easier
to give up and just disable it ... just like some people even did with
firewalling in the early days.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
of minutes or hours
(depending on how invasive the script is).
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
know about those.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 08/12/10 16:03, William Warren wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 09:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote
On 08/12/10 17:10, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/8/2010 4:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
[...snip...]
Agreed, and something that equally needs standardization.
iptables is a de-facto standard on all Linux distributions nowadays. It
is not ratified by ISO, IETF or similar ... but how does
.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
, if possible, other ISPs anyway, to
see what they can offer you.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/12/10 13:22, John Thomas wrote:
Can a machine with only an IPV6 address communicate with a machine that
only has an IPV4 or are they separate?
They are separated. It's two different protocols, even though they are
similar in many aspects.
There are some projects trying to bridge that
regards,
David Sommerseth
[1] http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/IPv6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
4.294.967.296 addresses doubled 32 times.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
gateway. That could be
64.57.176.18, right? Then we can just setup a direct route from us to
his 172.16.10.0/24 network. Wait! Lets add 172.16.0.0/12, just to be
sure we hit the right path
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
cascaded firewalls in front of a public IPv6 address. Traceroute might
give some clues, but if it's a strict firewall just dropping packages,
this can take a looong loong time.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS
On 07/12/10 18:39, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 11:19 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:01, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 10:20 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
[...snip...]
permit outbound client connections from anything connected behind them
without much regard to how many
On 07/12/10 18:52, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:43 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:36 AM, Tom H wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes
which needs to understand a lot of different protocols to be
able to do things correctly. Which often do not work as well as it could.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo
On 06/12/10 15:29, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:27 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift redsh...@pandora.be wrote:
On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4
CentOS6 should be good to go.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
this IPv6 subnet in a
separate VLAN without a IPv6 gateway to the rest of the world?
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
85 matches
Mail list logo
