Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a strange question, something (I hope) you've never thought
> of doing. A student asked me about it, and I said it's illegal.
> But I was wrong...
Yup, you are, and I've mounted file systems on top of other file
systems plenty of times, including
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 22:01, Bill Sconce wrote:
> I'd back a --really flag or a '-o clobberroot' in mount(8).
How about a big pop-up window that says "Are you sure you really want
to do this?" with big buttons that say "OK" and "Cancel" ?
--
Seeya,
This is a case where the tool does one thing (mounts a filesystem) and
does its well. If its not encumbered with a lot of safety shields and
anti-pollution devices it is more easily understood, maintained and
generally remains more 'elegant.'
Simple tools can often be used in ways not imagined
"Andrew W. Gaunt" writes:
> Simple tools can often be used in ways not imagined by the designer
> and that's not always a bad thing. Who among us has not used a
> hammer or screwdiver in ways that they were not specifically designed
> for? Sometimes the results are desirable, sometimes not.
Supp
Thanks for all of the recommendations. It sounds like TWiki is the one to go
with.
Larry
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
--- Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are probably plenty of use cases for mounting
> multiple file
> systems on the same mount point. For instance, suppose
> you have a
> mangled root file system, or even a read-only file system
> which
> prevents you from doing something you no
Can anybody provide a clue as to what the proper
sequence of steps might be that would result in (A)
getting a Windows XP (Home Edition) machine rigged
to accept a connection from the Linux rdesktop
client and then (B) what the command line might be
from Linux to properly invoke rdesktop to connec
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:18:13PM -0500, Dan Jenkins wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> >
> ><... snipped a long, informative post ...>
>
> Thank you for that good explanation. It reminded me of so much I
> had forgotten. (Pushed from my mind might be the better phrase.)
You're welcome. :)
On We
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Michael ODonnell wrote:
Can anybody provide a clue as to what the proper sequence of steps might be
that would result in (A) getting a Windows XP (Home Edition) machine rigged
to accept a connection from the Linux rdesktop client
Win XP Home doesn't include Remote Desktop C
--- Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are probably plenty of use cases for mounting
> multiple file
> systems on the same mount point. For instance, suppose
> you have a
> mangled root file system, or even a read-only file system
> which
> prevents you from doing something you n
>> Can anybody provide a clue as to what the proper sequence of
>> steps might be that would result in (A) getting a Windows XP
>> (Home Edition) machine rigged to accept a connection from the
>> Linux rdesktop client
>
>Win XP Home doesn't include Remote Desktop Connection.
>That's one of the th
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Paul Lussier wrote:
It's not easy to undo, either - trying "umount" generates "device is
busy".
Well, of course it is, you now have *2* file systems mounted on the same
file handle.
I don't think "file handle" is the proper term here; I believe "mount point"
would be. I b
...
> > To issue a command of 'umount /' is going to confuse the kernel.
Just to clarify (and I apologize that I used sloppy wording which
didn't make this clear): it wasn't "/" which I tried to unmount,
but the second device-special. I.e., the sequence was
# mount -t iso9660 /dev/h
...
> > To issue a command of 'umount /' is going to confuse the kernel.
Just to clarify (and I apologize that I used sloppy wording which
didn't make this clear): it wasn't "/" which I tried to unmount,
but the second device-special. I.e., the sequence was
# mount -t iso9660 /dev/h
...
> > To issue a command of 'umount /' is going to confuse the kernel.
Just to clarify (and I apologize that I used sloppy wording which
didn't make this clear): it wasn't "/" which I tried to unmount,
but the second device-special. I.e., the sequence was
# mount -t iso9660 /dev/h
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Michael ODonnell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd once heard that the difference between NT4.0workstation and
NT4.0server was three registry entries... and $1200.
And the terms of the software license, which is what the code in question is
enforcing. And the development and
On Mar 31, 2005, at 22:39, Benjamin Scott wrote:
UltraVNC uses a Windows device driver to accelerate WinVNC
performance. You might check that out.
Oooh, hot tip, thanks. I'm putting together a server for remote access
work using Linux, VMWare, XP instances, and VNC and this looks like the
rig
17 matches
Mail list logo
