On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gary Stainburn
gary.stainb...@ringways.co.uk wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 17:54:26 Philip Keogh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am
On Friday 30 January 2015 13:11:07 Tom H wrote:
You probably need to point to the F17 archives:
http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/17/Fedo
ra/x86_64/os/
I did try that Tom, but it still complained about the metadata being missing,
or something similar.
I've
On 01/26/2015 04:49 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 21:17:55 Pete Travis wrote:
No, please don't do this. Be honest with yourself about how frequently
you are willing to upgrade this server, and compare that to Fedora's
release cycle. It doesn't match up. I'm all for
On Friday 23 January 2015 21:17:55 Pete Travis wrote:
No, please don't do this. Be honest with yourself about how frequently
you are willing to upgrade this server, and compare that to Fedora's
release cycle. It doesn't match up. I'm all for using Fedora, even in
apparently mission-critical
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 09:49 +, Gary Stainburn wrote:
Bear in mind that I'm replacing a Fedora 8 server. This is how often I
update my servers. These are non-public facing servers, and perform
internal services.
I've still got a Fedora Core 4 server running as the LAN's file server.
It
On Friday 23 January 2015 17:54:26 Philip Keogh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am going to re-do the last
4 days work
Of course, my next problem is that yum no
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am going to re-do the last 4
days work
Of course, my next problem is that yum no longer works, presumably because
there are no repositories left. Is this true, or are there still some out
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am going to re-do the last 4
days work
Of course, my next problem is that yum no longer works, presumably because
there are no repositories left. Is
On 01/23/2015 11:37 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am going to re-do the last 4
days work
Of course, my next problem is that yum no longer works, presumably because
there are no repositories
On 01/23/2015 12:13 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
All of my servers run the same type of setup and it's all based
around security = share. Why is this so universally declared as bad??
Well, consider how it worked:
https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba3-HOWTO/ServerType.html#id2559439
The
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:54:26AM -0800, Philip Keogh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:59:48 Gary Stainburn wrote:
I'm now installing Fedora 16 on my server and am going to re-do the last 4
days work
Of course, my next problem is that yum no
On 01/23/2015 01:17 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
If your workflow or circumstances can't accomodate more than a one year
lag, consider a distribution that has support cycles longer than one
year. CentOS comes to mind, most of your knowledge will translate well.
Either that, or plan on using only
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:21:39 -0800
Joe Zeff wrote:
Either that, or plan on using only the even (or odd) releases and
migrating slightly before End Of Life.
Or stick with new fedora, but build samba3 from source in a
nice separate directory tree that doesn't conflict with anything.
--
users
On 23.01.2015 12:24, Gary Stainburn wrote:
...
If someone comes up with a strong argument as to why I need to re-design
everything, or at least gives me some idea of how I can do it easily I can't
se any alternative
General questions regarding Samba
Many years ago I built a server on Fedora 8 which became my core network
server running all the network servers (DNS etc) as well as a host of custom
services over inetd, However it's main purpose was to service Samba shares.
That server is now failing so I've just spent a week building a new
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:13:22 +
Gary Stainburn wrote:
The problem is that security = share did *exactly* what I wanted and now I
can't seem to achieve the same effect any other way.
Absurd, right? There is one other way: Use user and password based security,
then
make scripts for all the
On Friday 23 January 2015 11:18:50 Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:13:22 +
Gary Stainburn wrote:
The problem is that security = share did *exactly* what I wanted and now
I can't seem to achieve the same effect any other way.
Absurd, right? There is one other way: Use user
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:24:07AM +, Gary Stainburn wrote:
I don't really understand this. How would making startup scripts per PC work?
My issue is that I can only connect each client to one samba share. Once I
try to connect the same client to a second share is throws be out with
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:29:46 -0600
Dave Ihnat wrote:
But a better solution would be to use the approach suggested here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1962617
I'm pretty sure I spent most of about 3 days trying to get
the Bad User gimmick to work and something I needed to do
On Friday 23 January 2015 15:24:44 Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:29:46 -0600
Dave Ihnat wrote:
But a better solution would be to use the approach suggested here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1962617
I'm pretty sure I spent most of about 3 days trying to get
20 matches
Mail list logo
