On Wednesday 13 Jul 2011 21:51:52 Bill Longman wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 12:38 PM, Grant wrote:
> > I suppose I could also do without the PXE layer and all of its
> > requirements if I install some sort of minimal storage device (flash
> > drive, SD card, USB key, etc.) into each workstation for the b
On 07/13/2011 12:38 PM, Grant wrote:
> I suppose I could also do without the PXE layer and all of its
> requirements if I install some sort of minimal storage device (flash
> drive, SD card, USB key, etc.) into each workstation for the boot
> image. I could still push updates to the boot image ov
> Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can
> have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address
> different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to
> experiment with PXE booting for the client and server.
That
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Grant wrote:
Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can
have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address
different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to
experiment with PXE booting
>>> Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can
>>> have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address
>>> different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to
>>> experiment with PXE booting for the client and server.
>>
>> That sounds like
James Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Grant wrote:
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
That's hilarious. :)
- Grant
Thanks. A friend shared that with me.
I post some of
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Grant wrote:
>>
>> Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can
>> have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address
>> different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to
>> experiment with PXE booting for
>> After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to
>> stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo
>> systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What
>> can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier?
>> I think id
>>> And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they
>>> provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single
>>> keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like
>>> to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards,
>>> monitors,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Grant wrote:
>> And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they
>> provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single
>> keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like
>> to control a single Gentoo computer via
> And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they
> provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single
> keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like
> to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards,
> monitors, and mice
>> >> After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to
>> >> stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo
>> >> systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What
>> >> can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier?
>
>> After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to
>> stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo
>> systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What
>> can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier?
>> I think id
13 matches
Mail list logo
