On 04/26/2012 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> Yes, that's a horrible thing for servers.
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enterprise != servers.
> How's that? What kind of enterprise doesn't have some servers with
> nailed down N
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> >> Yes, that's a horrible thing for servers.
>> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enterprise != servers.
>
>> How's that?
>
> A distribution being an 'enterprise' distribution does not equate with that
> distribution being an (ex
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 02:12:20 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >> Yes, that's a horrible thing for servers.
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enterprise != servers.
> How's that?
A distribution being an 'enterprise' distributio
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a horrible thing for servers.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enterprise != servers.
How's that? What kind of enterprise doesn't have some servers with
nailed down NICs?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 01:28:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:36 AM, James B. Byrne
> wrote:
> > Now, consider upstream's decision to enable network-manager by default on an
> > enterprise distro. THAT I both understand and fundamentally disagree with.
> Yes, that's a
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:36 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> I used to think the same thing. However, on reflection I think that the
> decision
> to keep the network down until deliberately enabled is a sensible and prudent
> security choice. This leaves up to the operator the decision as to whe
On Thu, April 26, 2012 08:55, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> It has the network stack ... you must configure it during the install.
>>
>> If you do not configure and enable the ethernet card then it does not
>> turn on by default ... but it is in the installer to be able to do:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.
________
> From: Johnny Hughes
> To: centos@centos.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Not Quite Minimal CentOS 6.2
>
> On 04/24/2012 08:53 PM, Al Sparks wrote:
>> I recently did a minimal 6.2 install recently, and it
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02:49PM -0700, Al Sparks wrote:
>
>
> You're right. The stack was there.
>
> First, I was inaccurate when I said I installed 6.2. I actually installed
> 6.0, and later updated via yum.
>
> Second, yeah I was able to start the network service, so there was a stack.
l process, I was pretty
sure I had. For some reason it didn't take. Maybe I didn't click a save box
when I should have. I don't know.
=== Al
From: Johnny Hughes
To: centos@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS]
On 04/24/2012 08:53 PM, Al Sparks wrote:
> I recently did a minimal 6.2 install recently, and it was annoying that it
> didn't include the network stack.
>
> What use is an install w/o the network?
>
It has the network stack ... you must configure it during the install.
If you do not configure a
t: Re: [CentOS] Not Quite Minimal CentOS 6.2
On 4/24/2012 7:22 PM, listmail wrote:
> I a working on configuring a not-quite minimal installation of CentOS 6.2. I
> tried doing the "minimal" installation available with the installer, but it's
> a bit too minimal to be useful. So
On 4/24/2012 7:22 PM, listmail wrote:
> I a working on configuring a not-quite minimal installation of CentOS 6.2. I
> tried doing the "minimal" installation available with the installer, but it's
> a bit too minimal to be useful. So I'm cutting down from a less minimal
> starting place. I'm pretty
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:22:17 -0700, listmail wrote
> Also, any
> ideas as to what would be launching cups would be appreciated.
>
I answered one of my own questions: cups was being started by the VMware tools
startup script. I fixed this for now by editing the VMware startup script and
removing
14 matches
Mail list logo
