On May 1, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
>> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
>> have always stayed the same names in the same order.
On 05/05/2014 06:55 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> you should rather set
> PERRDNS=no
> DNS1=
> DNS2=
> in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
>
> The options in this file are documented in:
> /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt
>
A great answer, but with a minor typo. The option i
On 05/05/2014 10:55 AM, Tony Molloy wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2014 00:22:52 Evan Rowley wrote:
>> When I started this thread a week ago, I certainly did not expect
>> this many replies. Without a doubt it seems Network Manager is a
>> controversial topic. I still haven't worked out my Network M
On Monday 05 May 2014 00:22:52 Evan Rowley wrote:
> When I started this thread a week ago, I certainly did not expect
> this many replies. Without a doubt it seems Network Manager is a
> controversial topic. I still haven't worked out my Network Manager
> woes and just lost an hour troubleshooti
That file is 'sourced' by other network scripts so doesn't have to be
executable, but the contents set environment variables for other scripts.
Or so I believe. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong. 8-)
Cheers,
Cliff
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, M
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 07:22:52PM -0400, Evan Rowley wrote:
> Apparently in Golang's net package, there is a DNS resolver function that's
> called whenever a server is started. That function depends on a working
> /etc/resolv.conf - As per usual, the /etc/resolv.conf file turned out to be
> the bl
When I started this thread a week ago, I certainly did not expect this many
replies. Without a doubt it seems Network Manager is a controversial topic.
I still haven't worked out my Network Manager woes and just lost an hour
troubleshooting a Golang webserver which wouldn't start.
Apparently in Go
On 2014-05-01, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> I think I need to check with my manager - we do have a few RH licenses -
> and maybe I, or several of us, should put in an enhancement request for 7:
> DO NOT INSTALL NM by default *EXCEPT* for either a desktop, or, better, a
> laptop install. DO set netw
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:45:02AM -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2014-05-01, Scott Robbins wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> > Judging from both recent editions of Fedora and the free beta RH7, you
> > don't HAVE to use NetworkManager. You will have to manually turn it off
> > and turn network on, and judg
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> > Yep, do it all the time - first two thing I do are:
> rm -f /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> rm -r /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth*
> and then reboot.
>
> The above makes them be rediscovered on the reboot.
>
> The lan port
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM, wrote:
> >
> What I do when I upgrade a box via rsync is either rm
> 70-persistant-net.rules, or look at the MAC addresses beforehand, and edit
> the rules so that they're correct for this box before the reboot.
>
If it is a box we've used before, ocsinventory wil
On 05/01/2014 01:45 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
>> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
>> have always stayed the same names in the same order.
> That's
On 05/01/2014 01:45 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
>> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
>> have always stayed the same names in the same order.
> That's
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
>>> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
>>> have always stayed the sam
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I think I need to check with my manager - we do have a few RH licenses
>> - and maybe I, or several of us, should put in an enhancement request
>> for 7: DO NOT INSTALL NM by default *EXCEPT* for either a desktop, or,
>> better,
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 12:40 PM, Zube wrote:
>> Sure. Given that I have no need of NM, what part is broken that NM
>> fixes for me?
>
> Are you sure you will never have need for NM?
>
>> Or do the "some use cases" not apply to anyone who uses CentOS on
>> static IP desktops?
> Totally s
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
>> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
>> have always stayed the same names in the same order.
On 04/30/2014 12:40 PM, Zube wrote:
> I dunno. "Heresy!" "reality check, really." Sure seems to be the case
> to me. You certainly aren't praising people who don't embrace the
> change you do. I'll drop it and let others decide.
'Not embracing' and 'being actively antagonistic to any change' ar
On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> I feel for you then. I guess we have been lucky in the 6 or 7 hardware
> platforms we have used that the nics ( minimum 3, usually 4 or more )
> have always stayed the same names in the same order.
That's actually an illusion. If the detection pulls
On 05/01/2014 10:56 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I think I need to check with my manager - we do have a few RH licenses
> - and maybe I, or several of us, should put in an enhancement request
> for 7: DO NOT INSTALL NM by default *EXCEPT* for either a desktop, or,
> better, a laptop install. DO
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Keith Keller
wrote:
>
> Could this be a SIG in the future? "CentOS NM-Haters SIG" ;-)
>
> Does RH really "just throw these things in"? It seems like they would
> annoy many of their more tech-savvy customers with moves like this one
> (if it were to happen).
I t
Keith Keller wrote:
> Could this be a SIG in the future? "CentOS NM-Haters SIG" ;-)
>
> Does RH really "just throw these things in"? It seems like they would
> annoy many of their more tech-savvy customers with moves like this one
> (if it were to happen).
I think I need to check with my manag
On 05/01/2014 09:09 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> On 04/30/2014 02:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>
>> So, have you ever had to deal with a CentOS box and multiple NICs.
>> Especially one wher
On 2014-05-01, Scott Robbins wrote:
>
> I haven't followed this thread too closely, so if this has already been
> stated, please forgive me.
It was not explicitly stated, so I appreciate the succinct summary.
Thanks!
> Judging from both recent editions of Fedora and the free beta RH7, you
> don'
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:59:54AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Wed, April 30, 2014 14:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Makes me wonder why we have cars that are
> > all approximately the correct widths to fit on a road and brake and
> > accelerator pedals in the same relative positions.
> >
>
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 02:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> So, have you ever had to deal with a CentOS box and multiple NICs.
> Especially one where you've cloned it or moved a disk to a new
> chassi
On Wed, April 30, 2014 14:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Makes me wonder why we have cars that are
> all approximately the correct widths to fit on a road and brake and
> accelerator pedals in the same relative positions.
>
Graveyards.
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
Ja
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:54:18AM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 02:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> >> So, have you ever had to deal with a CentOS box and multiple NICs.
> >> Especially one where you've cloned it or moved a disk to a
On 04/30/2014 02:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> So, have you ever had to deal with a CentOS box and multiple NICs.
>> Especially one where you've cloned it or moved a disk to a new
>> chassis? Apparently there is just not a good way to identif
Keith Keller wrote:
>> I don't mind NM editing resolv.conf if it knows
>> - or even thinks it knows - how to improve
>> on the current settings, but what I don't understand
>> is why it occasionally deletes the current settings
>> without substituting anything else.
>> I can't imagine any situatio
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> >
> At any rate, for CentOS 6 we can still say "if you don't like NM, don't
> use it".
Yes, but we are approaching the end of an era. As soon as 7 is out,
you won't be able to get applications for 6 and you'll be forced to
switch, Oh wait,
On 2014-04-30, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Keith Keller
> wrote:
>>
>> No settings might be better. If I take my laptop from one site to
>> another, keeping my previous resolv.conf intact, and NM doesn't remove
>> it, then my laptop will try to query the previous site'
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>
> So, have you ever had to deal with a CentOS box and multiple NICs.
> Especially one where you've cloned it or moved a disk to a new
> chassis? Apparently there is just not a good way to identify
> interfaces.
>
> Yep, do it all the time -
On 04/30/2014 02:10 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Just like what Lose, I mean, WinDoze, logs... paragraph long "error
> messages" that are mostly useless and information-free.
As long as there is unique information to google, it will work out. And
while I detest them, the Windows hexadecimal co
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
>> I'll take [SRV record examples] as a 'no' for the general case.
> How is an RFC quote and an example of a running standardized application
> using the feature a 'no?' Please read
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record and see just how
On 04/30/2014 02:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> You do know that windows servers have a fairly complete set of command
>> line options, don't you?
>>
>> Well the one and only time I configured an interface on windows from the
>> command line I c
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 01:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> Dynamic DNS can be, yes. It depends upon the way the zone file is
>>> updated and whether it's Internet-exposed on not.
>> So how can it be dynamic, but controlled at the sam
On 4/30/2014 11:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Makes me wonder why we have cars that are
>> >all approximately the correct widths to fit on a road and brake and
>> >accelerator pedals in the same relative positions.
> a) Human fits to where pedals are.
> b) I still go with the Roman milspec on m
On 04/30/2014 01:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> Dynamic DNS can be, yes. It depends upon the way the zone file is
>> updated and whether it's Internet-exposed on not.
> So how can it be dynamic, but controlled at the same time?
>
Set up a DD-WR
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> You do know that windows servers have a fairly complete set of command
> line options, don't you?
>
> Well the one and only time I configured an interface on windows from the
> command line I couldn't believe I had to type
> some great big st
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 04/30/2014 12:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I blame all our economic problems on the wastefulness of
>>> duplicated effort in learning to
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> On 04/30/2014 12:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Yes, I blame all our economic problems on the wastefulness of
>> duplicated effort in learning to manage computers. That an
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 10:57 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> The upstream documentation has some info; the man pages (nm-applet(1),
> nm-connection-editor(1), nm-online(1), nm-tool(1), nmcli(1),
> NetworkManager.conf(5), nm-system-settings.conf(5), and
> NetworkManager(8) all have useful in
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Steve Clark
> wrote:
>>
>> What I meant about Windows is everything seems to be hidden behind some
>> gui interface, which
>> leads people to not really understand the underpinnings of what is truly
>> happening. NM seems akin
>> to this, at
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 04/30/2014 12:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, I blame all our economic problems on the wastefulness of
> duplicated effort in learning to manage computers. That and everyone
> having to stock a near-infinite numbe
On 04/30/2014 01:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> What I meant about Windows is everything seems to be hidden behind some gui
>> interface, which
>> leads people to not really understand the underpinnings of what is truly
>> happening. NM seems
On 04/30/2014 01:48 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I do have a reason for that hope... remember the thread a month or so
> ago, where *we* *were* asked about tcp-wrappers?
Yes; I don't recall if I commented or not.
> For things that mean major changes - systemd, NM, etc, I'm hoping
> that, in t
On 04/30/2014 10:57 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> I agree that WiFi networking is difficult, but ethernet networking, in
> my experience, is 99.9% stable.
Sure is; but we do bonding for a reason.
> I wish NM would just stick to WiFi.
There are other interfaces, like various VPN's and WWAN cards,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> You forgot to mention interoperable along with effective and complete.
>
> No, I didn't forget it.
>
>>> Dynamic DNS and/or mDNS with associated addresses deals with the need
>>> for a static IP;
>> Is that secure?
>
> Dynamic DNS can be, ye
Lamar Owen wrote:
> But the simple fact is that NetworkManager is with us for a long time
> coming. You don't have to use it if you don't need it's particular
Which leads to a thought: you said that the time to "vote" on NM was long
past. My response was that none of *us* saw, or were solicited,
On 04/30/2014 12:54 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> What I meant about Windows is everything seems to be hidden behind
> some gui interface, which
> leads people to not really understand the underpinnings of what is
> truly happening.
A GUI and a registry; and I agree with that assessment.
> NM seems
On 04/30/2014 11:10 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> My last test with Network Manager was a couple of years ago. At that time,
> a client that was set to boot using DHCP and NM would not set its hostname
> when such was provided with the DHCP response. That was a show stopper for
> me (none of my 200+
On 04/30/2014 12:56 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Choice is great, surprises not so much. And I find it surprising that
> NM sometimes runs, sometimes doesn't, depending on seemingly unrelated
> things.
Those would be bugs, and bugs need fixing. But they can't be fixed if
they're not reported.
>
On 04/30/2014 11:03 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You forgot to mention interoperable along with effective and complete.
No, I didn't forget it.
>> Dynamic DNS and/or mDNS with associated addresses deals with the need
>> for a static IP;
> Is that secure?
Dynamic DNS can be, yes. It depends upon t
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> What I meant about Windows is everything seems to be hidden behind some gui
> interface, which
> leads people to not really understand the underpinnings of what is truly
> happening. NM seems akin
> to this, at least the last time I tried
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 10:47 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I've got two rooms, with a number of servers in each room behind a
>> firewall, *required* by US law (HIPAA & PII data). I've got compute
>> clusters, and all the compute nodes are all 192.168.
On 04/30/2014 11:22 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Define "stable". please.
> I define stable in this context as 'behaving in a completely consistent
> and predictable fashion.'
>
>> I have servers (and I really, REALLY want to
>> reboot them, but they're
On 04/30/2014 10:47 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I've got two rooms, with a number of servers in each room behind a
> firewall, *required* by US law (HIPAA & PII data). I've got compute
> clusters, and all the compute nodes are all 192.168.etc, and they MUST
> NOT CHANGE, EVER!!! All of those s
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 12:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I think it is unfortunate there there is no standard defined for
>> configuration files or tools to stabilize it and make common
>> operations across platforms possible in spite of the bizarre
>> d
On 04/30/2014 11:01 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
> I don't use NetworkManager, so I don't know the answer to this
> question: is there a way to tell it not to clobber portions of your
> network configuration, and/or to provide it with defaults if it can't
> determine values for a particular option?
On Wed Apr 30 12:12:41 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> That's not what I think, nor is it what I said.
Quote 1:
> Back in the late 1800's people who had used tillers to steer their
> horseless carriages probably though the same thing about this new fancy
> gizmo called a steering wheel. And automatic
On 04/30/2014 12:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I think it is unfortunate there there is no standard defined for
> configuration files or tools to stabilize it and make common
> operations across platforms possible in spite of the bizarre
> differences each vendor tries to add. Something like posi
On 04/30/2014 11:39 AM, Zube wrote:
> I find this common argument execrable. It seems to suggest that if
> I don't accept and embrace the new things that you do, I'm somehow a
> Luddite or my thinking is backwards.
That's not what I think, nor is it what I said. Being unwilling to even
try some
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Zube wrote:
>
> I run CentOS because I want stability. It works and I know how to
> work it. When something like this is changed, there is an opportunity
> cost for having to figure out how to get it back to the way I want it
> to be (compare to recent issues wi
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 11:18 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> But freenx/NX/x2go put the big picture back the way it belongs.
>
> For certain usess I agree with that; for others, not so much. Seamlessly
> pulling applications from an application server to the
On 04/30/2014 11:18 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> But freenx/NX/x2go put the big picture back the way it belongs.
For certain usess I agree with that; for others, not so much. Seamlessly
pulling applications from an application server to the display server
has its distinct advantages, particularly
On Wed Apr 30 11:22:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> I really try hard to not be snide or offend very often, but the idea
> that something needs to stay a certain way either just because it's
> always been that way or because we can't do it the way someone else who
> we don't like has done it deserve
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Keith Keller
wrote:
>
> No settings might be better. If I take my laptop from one site to
> another, keeping my previous resolv.conf intact, and NM doesn't remove
> it, then my laptop will try to query the previous site's DNS. They may
> not like that; depending
On 04/30/2014 10:41 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Define "stable". please.
I define stable in this context as 'behaving in a completely consistent
and predictable fashion.'
> I have servers (and I really, REALLY want to
> reboot them, but they're home directory or project servers, and so it's
>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> That hasn't been a reasonable assumption for anything running X, ever, and
>> even less so with freenx/x2go.
>
> Interestingly, X turns the whole client/server thing on its head.
> and always has.
But freenx/NX/x2go put the big picture
My last test with Network Manager was a couple of years ago. At that time,
a client that was set to boot using DHCP and NM would not set its hostname
when such was provided with the DHCP response. That was a show stopper for
me (none of my 200+ non-wifi clients have any configuration on them th
On 2014-04-30, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> I don't mind NM editing resolv.conf if it knows
> - or even thinks it knows - how to improve
> on the current settings, but what I don't understand
> is why it occasionally deletes the current settings
> without substituting anything else.
> I can't imagine
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 03:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> There are two sides to this. On the one hand you want to be able to
>> nail down server configurations - and probably anything that is going
>> to stay wired.
>
> Ok, I'll bite on this one.
>
> *Why
Lamar Owen wrote:
> My experience? There is no such thing as a 100% stable networking
> environment.
I agree that WiFi networking is difficult,
but ethernet networking, in my experience, is 99.9% stable.
I wish NM would just stick to WiFi.
> NetworkManager is well-documented.
Where?
I haven't
On 04/30/2014 10:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> ...If you install the Desktop
>> package, there's a bit of an assumption that you want a Desktop, no?
>>
> No. Just no. Not if you think that means there is just one Desktop
> and it is physically
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 03:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> There are two sides to this. On the one hand you want to be able to
>> nail down server configurations - and probably anything that is going
>> to stay wired.
>
> Ok, I'll bite on this one.
>
> *Why* do we want a server configuratio
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> NetworkManager is well-documented. You just have to read the docs and
> be willing to try something new. It also logs to /var/log/messages in
> plain text, too. There are more pieces, yes, to trace through. But,
> unless you install the
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 02:42 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> This may be fine for users that don't know what they are doing or
>> don't have a stable networking environment, but I have found for me it
>> causes nothing but heartache.
> My experience? There is no such thing as a 100% stable n
On 04/29/2014 03:17 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I think upstream might consider, esp. that we're now a "partner",
> talking to *us*. I mean, this is an ENTERPRISE o/s, and that means,
> heavily, *servers*, and does anyone actually use wireless, or anything
> other than hardwired, for a server?
On 04/29/2014 03:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> There are two sides to this. On the one hand you want to be able to
> nail down server configurations - and probably anything that is going
> to stay wired.
Ok, I'll bite on this one.
*Why* do we want a server configuration to be nailed down? Is i
On 04/29/2014 02:42 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> This may be fine for users that don't know what they are doing or
> don't have a stable networking environment, but I have found for me it
> causes nothing but heartache.
Steve, first, if this comes off as a rant, that's not my intention, and
it's n
Les Mikesell wrote:
> For example, I think there are ways to tell NM not to
> mess with a specific interface setting, and maybe a way to say you
> don't want it to screw up your resolv.conf file,
I don't mind NM editing resolv.conf if it knows
- or even thinks it knows - how to improve
on the cur
On 4/29/2014 14:15, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Compute node... it automatically detects a
> GPU(s)? It comes with PBS/Torque installed? Fuse? Gluster? Ready to be
> joined to a cluster? I'd like to see what their definition of "compute
> node" is
It's probably the RHEL7 version of their HPC o
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 4/29/2014 13:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> can you tell it
>>> that adding a USB device and picking up a dchp address is OK, but you
>>> don't want to change your default route just because dhcp offers it?
>>
>> Mixed D
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 13:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> can you tell it
>> that adding a USB device and picking up a dchp address is OK, but you
>> don't want to change your default route just because dhcp offers it?
>
> Mixed DHCP and static IP configurat
Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 14:02, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>> "Trains stop at a train station, buses stop at a bus station"
>
> Taxis stop at the train station, cars park at the bus station, busses
> pull up to the airport...
>
> The lines aren't as sharp as you're trying to draw them
Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 13:17, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>> I mean, this is an ENTERPRISE o/s, and that means, heavily,
>> *servers*, and does anyone actually use wireless, or anything other than
>> hardwired, for a server?
>
> I think you're setting up false dichotomies here. It isn't
On 4/29/2014 14:02, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> "Trains stop at a train station, buses stop at a bus station"
Taxis stop at the train station, cars park at the bus station, busses
pull up to the airport...
The lines aren't as sharp as you're trying to draw them.
On 4/29/2014 13:17, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> I mean, this is an ENTERPRISE o/s, and that means, heavily,
> *servers*, and does anyone actually use wireless, or anything other than
> hardwired, for a server?
I think you're setting up false dichotomies here. It isn't about
desktop vs server, or
Frank Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:44:10 -0400
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> A Dell PowerEdge, or an HP DLx80, or a Penguin, or Why, what other
>> values of "server" do you have?
>
> Transferring files from one computer to another via ssh or ftp, for one.
> Backup via rsync for two. Da
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:44:10 -0400
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> A Dell PowerEdge, or an HP DLx80, or a Penguin, or Why, what other
> values of "server" do you have?
Transferring files from one computer to another via ssh or ftp, for one.
Backup via rsync for two. Database access for three.
N
Frank Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:17:09 -0400
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> does anyone actually use wireless, or anything other than
>> hardwired, for a server?
>
> That depends on how you define "server".
A Dell PowerEdge, or an HP DLx80, or a Penguin, or Why, what other
values of "
On 4/29/2014 13:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
> can you tell it
> that adding a USB device and picking up a dchp address is OK, but you
> don't want to change your default route just because dhcp offers it?
Mixed DHCP and static IP configurations is a very useful but often
neglected combination. [1]
E
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:17:09 -0400
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> does anyone actually use wireless, or anything other than
> hardwired, for a server?
That depends on how you define "server".
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
__
Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 02:22 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 04/28/2014 06:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Is this an impromptu poll? I think we had one for NM ("it's so much
>>> better in fedora, it was reworked..."), and everyone else, if it's not
>>> a laptop, wants it to Go Away. But
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> >
> This may be fine for users that don't know what they are doing or don't have
> a stable networking environment,
> but I have found for me it causes nothing but heartache. The first thing I do
> is disable it.
>
> The sad part is that it m
On 04/29/2014 02:22 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 06:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Is this an impromptu poll? I think we had one for NM ("it's so much
>> better in fedora, it was reworked..."), and everyone else, if it's not
>> a laptop, wants it to Go Away. But will they listen to us?
On 04/28/2014 06:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Is this an impromptu poll? I think we had one for NM ("it's so much
> better in fedora, it was reworked..."), and everyone else, if it's not
> a laptop, wants it to Go Away. But will they listen to us?
The answer is found in the package set for RH
Nathan Duehr wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2014, at 10:37 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:33:27AM -0400, Evan Rowley wrote:
>>> Is anyone frustrated by Network Manager? I wish CentOS just used the
>>> basic configuration files like the ones on BSD-style OSes. Those are so
>>> simp
On Apr 26, 2014, at 10:37 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:33:27AM -0400, Evan Rowley wrote:
>> Is anyone frustrated by Network Manager? I wish CentOS just used the basic
>> configuration files like the ones on BSD-style OSes. Those are so simple in
>> comparison.
>
> se
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
