Damien Curtain [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And thats going well...
At least they tried. No one else has done better.
Im not sure how in touch people here are with kernel development,
because
I wouldnt be rushing to stick the latest and greatest 2.4 kernel on any
machine other than crash and
In the console, it allows you to set-up a external proxy at your ISP?
This could be used for content filtering right? If of course that is what
your ISP proxy is doing?
I see that there are other subscription services available like this. Some
require you to log on with a username and password.
Damien Curtain [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And thats going well...
At least they tried. No one else has done better.
What has happened to axonlinux?
--
Regards
Brandon Friedman
Product Manager
Tech-Knowledgy Advantage
Ph: +27 (011) 486-0626
Fax: +27 (011) 486-0629
Cell: +27 (083) 408-7840
I haven't had much trouble with Mandrake 8.1 systems other
than their update system not being able to automatically
install their kernel update. The things you get with it
are built-in support for installing on raid, with or without
LFS and all of the journal file systems, automatic device
Any news on a file etc to fix the DHCP issue with v5.1.2.
Or shall I just go back to v5.0.3
Scott
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
From: Rob Hillis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:32, Dan Brown wrote:
Also, unless I'm pretty far off base, it shouldn't take much
tinkering to be able to restore a non-RAID system to a RAID one,
or
Wouldn't that
If you'd like a commercial solution, check out Backup-Edge from Microlite. I
believe they are located at www.microlite.com
Scott
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
Damien Curtain [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And thats going well...
At least they tried. No one else has done better.
What has happened to axonlinux?
Disappeared without a trace.
--
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lead
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Darrell May wrote:
If we take axonlinux as a project that has travelled this path already,
they built a new distro iso. To be very brief they essentially took a
disto (SGI XFS) and added all the e-smith rpms that the distro did not
include by default. After that
I've installed this on our production system and it is a very good add-
on. Works like a champ!!
Regards,
--
Greg J. Zartman, P.E.
Vice-President
Logging Engineering International, Inc.
1243 West 7th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97402
541-683-8383fax 541-683-8144
--
Please report bugs to
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Charlie Brady wrote:
So you are suggesting a project fork. That's a lot of work, and fragments
the community. So you should have very good justification for proposing
is.
Sorry - for proposing it.
To put it another way, what's wrong with this scenario?
I don't like
Scott,
Any news on a file etc to fix the DHCP issue with v5.1.2.
*What* DHCP issue with 5.1.2? I haven't heard of any and don't
believe any bugs have been reported on that.
There *was* an issue reported here on the list, but it turned out
to be a situation where someone had installed Filippo
Greg,
1) Some time back one of the devinfo folks supplied a link to an article
detailing an sys-admins view of the 2.4 linux kernel. He put forward a
really good argument against switching. I'm not proposing abandoning the
idea of a newer kernel, just pointing out some food for thought.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Dan York wrote:
Any news on a file etc to fix the DHCP issue with v5.1.2.
*What* DHCP issue with 5.1.2? I haven't heard of any and don't
believe any bugs have been reported on that.
Sorry to contradict you Dan, but Scott has reported a problem and it is
being
Scott,
Any news on a file etc to fix the DHCP issue with v5.1.2.
My apologies... I was plowing through e-mail and responded without
fully investigating the matter. It does appear there is an open
issue (reported by you) that is being investigated. That is all
I know at the moment.
Regards,
started to have problems. Could it be Windows XP wierdness?
Charlie,
We've been running a single XP Pro workstation here in our office for
some time with no problems. Our production system is still running SME
5.0.
Regards,
--
Greg J. Zartman, P.E.
Vice-President
Logging Engineering
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Greg Zartman wrote:
We've been running a single XP Pro workstation here in our office for
some time with no problems. Our production system is still running SME
5.0.
I don't believe that there are any DHCP differences between 5.0 and 5.1.2.
--
Charlie Brady
Guys,
I had what I would assume is the same problem when I upgraded from 4.X
to 5.0 and never got it solved. I never reported it as a bug. (Sigh, I
know a slap on the wrist) Looking through the message boards on
e-smith.org it has been noticed by a few people besides Scott and me.
Not
Just to put in my $0.02 worth (heavily over-valued actually),
I've been happy with the direction so far.
opinion
I have always seen this server as the Swiss Army Buzzsaw of Linux
distributions, and really enjoy the ability to do the add, subtract,
modify, delete routine for any and all
Charlie,
Me as well. My XP machines are getting dynamically assigned IP's
from my SME 5.0 server in the office, but not from my 5.0 server at
home. In fact no Windoze boxes are getting DHCPd IP's from the server at
my home, while all are in the office.
Noah
-Original Message-
I had a small problem with DHCP on SME5, but on an unsupported
configuration, so I didn't file a bug report.
I had two internal lans and two intenal nics, I wanted to offer dhcp service
to both.
dhcp-2 never worked, as soon as I installed dhcp-3 it worked without any
change to config files.
Darrell
You are correct. A fresh install fits on the floppy, but a lively production
system generates more data than the boot disk can handle. There is only
about 5K of free space on the normal boot disk and it doesn't take long to
chew that up. If the entire configuration file (or substantial
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Noah Genner wrote:
I had what I would assume is the same problem when I upgraded from 4.X
to 5.0 and never got it solved. I never reported it as a bug. (Sigh, I
know a slap on the wrist) Looking through the message boards on
e-smith.org it has been noticed by a few
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Smith, Jeffery S (Scott) wrote:
I believe we were the ones who requested the reinstallation boot disk.
I don't recall whether you requested it, or it was suggested by us to
satisfy a more general disaster recovery requirement that you had (I think
the latter), but the
Has anyone tried to grab some traces (tcpdump) of this in action? A
dump of it working and a dump of it not working could be very
enlightening. You need to install tcpdump (rpm -Uvh
ftp://ftp.rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/6.2/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/tcpdump-
3.4-19.i386.rpm) then run the following
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, John Powell wrote:
I could not find a specific build of tcpdump on rpmfind.net for RH7.0,
but the one for RH6.2 (tcpdump-3.4-19.i386.rpm) worked fine on my SME
5.1 box. It is real hard finding much specific for 7.0, seems RH is
disavowing that 7.0 ever existed ;)
[The
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, John Powell wrote:
Has anyone tried to grab some traces (tcpdump) of this in action? A
dump of it working and a dump of it not working could be very
enlightening. You need to install tcpdump (rpm -Uvh
Smith, Jeffery S (Scott) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Darrell
You are correct. A fresh install fits on the floppy, but a lively
production system generates more data than the boot disk can handle.
Thanks, good to be correct every now and then. You also raise some valid
points. Maybe the
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So you are suggesting a project fork. That's a lot of work, and
fragments
the community. So you should have very good justification for proposing
is.
Well it is only a project fork if Mitel does not join in and follow along
with the community ;-
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Darrell May wrote:
Comments have been mentioned that 2.4 kernel has limitations. So what.
Isn't that what a development project is all about? I am not talking about
a production release here. I'm talking a bleeding edge development release.
We've been hoping to get
sufficient hours to it. Why should Mitel's owners fund this
development, if they don't see it as a pressing business need?
This topic must be on Mitel's roadmap? Mitel can't possible hope to
stick with the 2.2 kernel for the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong
Darrell, but it appears that
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Greg Zartman wrote:
sufficient hours to it. Why should Mitel's owners fund this
development, if they don't see it as a pressing business need?
This topic must be on Mitel's roadmap? Mitel can't possible hope to
stick with the 2.2 kernel for the long term.
Yes,
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
sufficient hours to it. Why should Mitel's owners fund this
development [at this time], if they don't see it as a pressing
business need?
Because it is the direction the project *needs* to go in.
In *your* opinion. Obviously Mitel's
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
sufficient hours to it. Why should Mitel's owners fund this
development [at this time], if they don't see it as a pressing
business need?
Because it is the direction the project *needs* to go in.
In *your* opinion.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
Charlie Brady wrote:
I'd be *very* happy for someone to work out a kernel 2.4.x and ext3
upgrade strategy. I'd be interested in doing it myself, but I don't have
the time to do it right now, and I don't have an urgent need for it
I've always wondered why the Samba team packages Samba into one RPM when
Red Hat comes out of the box as three RPMs. Well, here's why they do it:
From a post on the Samba mail list:
I hate to be critical, and I will probably build a binary
distribution from the sources, but the single
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
Charlie Brady wrote:
on the other, Mitel is interested in seeing these items accomplished
and on the foot, they are saying Yes, go ahead, we think that would
be real nice, keen thing that, it's just that we don't really
2) In response to Stephens comment about adding X
Seems to me that if a sys admin saw a need
to setup an X-server to service thin clients,
then you'd want a machine
Adding X to the server gets away from the
simplicity. reliability. security. mantra
i'm not interested in ext3 or
Hey Gang;
Time for me to speak up I guess. I think the idea of creating a list of
wanted and needed features and capabilities of the next releases IS part of
what a developers mailing list should be about. I also feel that Mitel and
its representatives should support this affirmatively, even
[BETA] For devinfo testing only. [BETA]
http://myezserver.com/docs/mitel/rav-howto-beta.html
This _beta_ release includes the following:
- configuration panel for the server-manager (4.x/5.x)
- ravscan hard drive scanner
- log files created for all rav events viewable in View log files panel
Nice Darrell, at first blush, it simply worked fine on my 5.1.2 test
box.
-jeff
-Original Message-
From: Darrell May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:12 PM
To: e-smith-devinfo
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] [BETA] new RAV panel for SME available
my idea is to use a redhat cd of the same version as
the SME, then add, X + KDE + LTSP
This is already done. Goto www.mandrake.com and download mandrake linux
version 7.2.
You are correct, the SME folks have created one of the easiest linux
SERVER distros around. However, just about
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Darrell May wrote:
[BETA] For devinfo testing only. [BETA]
http://myezserver.com/docs/mitel/rav-howto-beta.html
...
Comments welcomed.
The licensing conditions on your documentation are inconsistent.
Your document claims:
GNU Free Documentation License:
Copyright (C)
My only idea. ( dont have many)
A distro that at install time, asks what bits you want. As example we
have a ESSG box behind a firewall/gateway so don't need masq. Also same for
appletalk protocol. Dial up same.
Karl
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Karl Ponsonby wrote:
My only idea. ( dont have many)
A distro that at install time, asks what bits you want. As example we
have a ESSG box behind a firewall/gateway so don't need masq.
This choice you get when you choose serveronly or servergateway (at
initial boot
the SME, then add, X + KDE + LTSP
This is already done. Goto www.mandrake.com and
download mandrake linux version 7.2.
mostly i don't want to work in a beehive with extra
computers humming around me.
also unless you setup NIS you have to create duplicate
uses, co-ordinating dhcp and
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The licensing conditions on your documentation are inconsistent.
I got that phrase directly from the gnu site?
Charlie, how about finding something _productive_to do with your time, like
instead of picking on me, maybe put your time towards a RedHat 2.4
At 20:46 6/2/2002, Darrell May wrote:
Charlie, how about finding something _productive_to do with your time, like
instead of picking on me, maybe put your time towards a RedHat 2.4 kernel
Howto
Given that Charlie's posting was timestamped at 20.13 Pacific, and he's in
Ottawa, where it's after
disclaimer
First, let me preface this by saying that I have never messed with kernel
upgrades before, and I am just writing this so people who want to mess with
trying to upgrade their SME servers to a 2.4.x kernel and see what breaks (a
bit of stuff). Don't ask me complicated questions about
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Des Dougan wrote:
I also think it's about time both of you made a constructive effort to be
polite to each other. The battle of wills (or egos, or whatever) on this
list is becoming disruptive. Few of us here (i.e. the ones who pay) have
any call on how Mitel sets its
50 matches
Mail list logo
