I updated to the latest stable Nvidia-drivers-396.24-r1 ,
rebooted & 'startx' :
the result was an X error "No devices detected ... no screens found".
Downgrading to 390.48 got X working again.
Nothing to see on the Forum or among Gentoo 'nvidia' bugs.
My kernel is 4.9.16-gentoo.
Has anyone else
Okay, with all that advice, I gave it another try. I'm also setting up
a VirtualBox for my WFH stuff and VB wants to use 10.0.0.0 for its
networking. I've changed this to 172.16.0.0 so now I can easily tell
that network from work network (which seems to use 10.25.0.0)
I wanted to add a route to
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Wol's lists wrote:
>
> On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I feel like this is something that Windows natively gets "better" than
> > POSIX. They have a concept of UIDs being specific to a machine or
> > authentication server (or domain as they call it), and
On June 9, 2018 1:20:14 PM UTC, Tom H wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM Ian Zimmerman
>wrote:
>>
>> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on
>NFS
>> clients and servers?
>
>You have to use NIS, NIS+Kerberos, or LDAP+Kerberos.
>
>I've never tried it but
On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
I feel like this is something that Windows natively gets "better" than
POSIX. They have a concept of UIDs being specific to a machine or
authentication server (or domain as they call it), and this concept is
enforced at the host level. That said, I'm sure
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 08:37:41 BST zless wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just finished installing kernel 4.14.48 on two
> Intel laptops and I have different results for
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spec_store_bypass
>
> On one of them it looks nice:
> "Mitigation: Speculative Store
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 12:34 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> NFS will quite happily work with dissimilar IDs if you're using "other"
> permission to access everything. }:-)
>
There are a few network filesystems with this property. As long as
you just mount the whole filesystem with one user/group
On 06/08/2018 10:42 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
clients and servers?
I can argue that the IDs don't have to be synchronized to use NFS. You
just end up with unexpected complications from different IDs on
different systems.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> On 2018-06-09 14:15, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>
> > I had a look at the source code for kmod-25. If I read it right, dmesg
> > should have records along the lines of:
> > kmod-25/libkmod/libkmod-module.c:886: INFO(mod->ctx, "Failed
On 2018-06-09 14:15, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> I had a look at the source code for kmod-25. If I read it right, dmesg
> should have records along the lines of:
> kmod-25/libkmod/libkmod-module.c:886: INFO(mod->ctx, "Failed
> to insert module '%s': %m\n", path);
>
> modprobe returns
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
You have to use NIS, NIS+Kerberos, or LDAP+Kerberos.
I've never tried it but "/etc/idmapd.conf" has a "[Static]" section in
which you can set up
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 01:20:18 BST Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM Mick wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 June 2018 23:21:52 BST Grant Taylor wrote:
> > > On 06/08/2018 03:31 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> > > > Sigh, I take it back. That causes the internal sites to no longer
> > >
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:56 AM Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018, 07:34 Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-06-08 22:38, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 22:30 Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 2018-06-08 22:00, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
On 9 June 2018 at 06:28, wrote:
> Where can I find a sufficient explanation and a description of the new
> syntax ... I dont know lua enough to have a successful gues work
> here...
Most of it is converting the variables to the new format, which is
explained on the github page.
man conky also
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 6:42:56 AM CEST Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
Not to my knowledge.
I use OpenLDAP for my users and groups and this has worked perfectly ever
since I implemented it.
> Or, is there
On 2018-06-09 09:41, Andrew Udvare wrote:
On 2018-06-09, at 00:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
clients and servers?
I checked and there is no way. It is recommended UID/GID be synced
regularly on all client machines.
NFSv4
> On 2018-06-09, at 00:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
I checked and there is no way. It is recommended UID/GID be synced regularly on
all client machines.
NFSv4 requires user names and group names be
On 09/06/18 05:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
>
> Or, is there any other remote filesystem (other than the one originally
> made by Microsoft) that avoids that chore?
Which filesystem do you mean? Do you
18 matches
Mail list logo
