[CentOS] Problem with centos nfsroot

I made a diskless node centos. the pxelinux.cfg/default file : default centos label centos kernel vmlinuz-2.6.18-194.el5 append initrd=initrd-2.6.18-194.el5.nfs.img nfsroot=10.10.10.1:/srv/centos ip=dhcp rw I can successfull*y boot-strap the system with no error.* *But when i shutd

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 08/12/10 04:15, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote: >> >>> Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL >>> rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox >>> interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless there's a special http >>> pr

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 08/12/10 03:36, Ross Walker wrote: > On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Adam Tauno Williams > wrote: > >> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:37 -0500, Ross Walker wrote: >>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: [

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 8/12/10 2:37 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 03:11 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote: > > Thanks Ben, you just gave me another thing to coo about that I had > forgotten. What quotas? :-p Damn you, damn you to Heck. :) >> The even more horrendous problem, which is so perva

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 29/11/10 13:11, Steve Clark wrote: > I don't know how it is now - but I tried running in permissive mode a > few years ago. It would complain about some > file, I would fix the file and the next thing I knew it was complaining > about the same file again, and the file was part > of the redhat in

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 08/12/10 04:28, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/7/10 8:28 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >> >>> I think you've missed the point that 'all that stuff' (being traditional >>> unix security mechanisms) are not all that insecure. It is only when you >>> get them wrong that you need to fall back on selinux

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: >> Les Mikesell wrote: [...snip...] >> As was already mentioned in another post, run in permissive mode, for a >> few days if you must, and go through all the things the software does >> and voila! setroubleshoot and/or logs

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 30/11/10 17:21, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 11/30/2010 9:51 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> >> If a particular app is so recalcitrant that SELinux needs to be turned off, >> that's when I'd be doing some drastic things, much like windows lab >> environments need done. Things like automatic revert to kn

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:15:50PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote: > > > >> Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL > >> rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox > >> interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless t

Re: [CentOS] display issue after installing centos 5.5 on hp probook 4420s

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Keith Roberts wrote: > On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Agnello George wrote: > > > To: CentOS mailing list > > From: Agnello George > > Subject: [CentOS] display issue after installing centos 5.5 on hp probook > > 4420s > > > > HI > > > > I was just assigned a laptop wit

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 21:36 -0500, Ross Walker wrote: > >> I can only image phonetically calling these off on a support call, I'd > >> get half way through it and the other end would tell me to "forget it > >> I'll wait until DNS is working again". > > You aren't crippled currently when DNS doesn'

Re: [CentOS] http request, which command is good for testing

On 12/06/2010 10:52 AM, adrian kok wrote: > Hi all > > I just know there are curl / lwp-request, lynx and elinks > > Which command is good for http testing? What kind of testing? Throughput? Testing the output of scripts? Broken link detection? You need to define what you mean by 'http testing'.

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it) Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for use on this and other

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: > Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been > already written before you reply. > But all the time people out big sections. That IMHO defeats the > reason for bottom posting. Top posting ruins the f

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:10 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote: > >>> The even more horrendous problem, which is so pervasive it affects >>> everyone, is the insistence on asymmetric connections. Even when >>> Australia does get this fabled fibre-to-the-home, it still won't be >>> symmetric. *sigh

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: > On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: > > > Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already > written before you reply. > But all the time people out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: >> Christopher Chan wrote: >>> Les Mikesell wrote: > [...snip...] >>> As was already mentioned in another post, run in permissive mode, for a >>> few days if you must, and go through all the things the soft

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/10 4:42 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 30/11/10 17:21, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 11/30/2010 9:51 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> >>> If a particular app is so recalcitrant that SELinux needs to be turned off, >>> that's when I'd be doing some drastic things, much like windows lab >>> environm

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 09:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: >> On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: >>> Christopher Chan wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: >> [...snip...] As was already mentioned in another post, run in permissive mode, f

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: >> On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: >> >> >> Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been >> already written before you reply. >> But all the time people out big sections. Th

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 9:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 09:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: >>> On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: >>> [...snip...] > As was alread

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Scott Robbins wrote: > > http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php > > > > http://howto-pages.org/posting_style > > > > give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line > > answer at the end of 400 line me

[CentOS] [OT]Asymmetric connections (was:Re: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:37:02 pm Christopher Chan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 03:11 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote: > > The even more horrendous problem, which is so pervasive it affects > > everyone, is the insistence on asymmetric connections. Even when > > Australia does get this

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Scott Robbins wrote: >> > http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php >> > >> > http://howto-pages.org/posting_style >> > >> > give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line >> > an

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

> I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly. Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap. --- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsid

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 06:29:44 pm Les Mikesell wrote: > I think you've missed the point that 'all that stuff' (being traditional unix > security mechanisms) are not all that insecure. It is only when you get them > wrong that you need to fall back on selinux as a safety net. And if you

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > > I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly. > Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart > html crap. +1 Although I've found @gmail user's consider themselves

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

-Original Message- From: Lamar Owen Reply-To: CentOS mailing list Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:21:36 + To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!! >Alright, pray tell how I, a desktop Linux user, can, without VM's and >without having to

[CentOS] copy old CF image to new CF device

I am using an 8G CF card. (I was using dd to duplicate the card with different size cards I was advised not to). So I wrote the script below which basically: 1) runs fdisk to setup the device 2) makes the ext3 file system and the swap 3) mounts my old image "/" filesystem and the new partition 4)

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead > of ARP being an addition to IPv4. > > > I

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 9:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 06:29:44 pm Les Mikesell wrote: >> I think you've missed the point that 'all that stuff' (being traditional unix >> security mechanisms) are not all that insecure. It is only when you get them >> wrong that you need to fall ba

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > > Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead > > of ARP being an addition to IPv4. > > > >

[CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: > Honestly, I had no one in mind. > I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing > list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, > don't trim, and still use aol. It really is worth noting that the bottom

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

I agree!!! On 08/12/2010 16:46, Jerry Franz wrote: On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still us

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:03:26 am Scott Robbins wrote: > I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing > list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, > don't trim, and still use aol. Lots of corporate people top post to retain the threa

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:46 -0800, Jerry Franz wrote: > On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: > > Honestly, I had no one in mind. > > I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing > > list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, > > don't tri

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:28:38 am L A Hurst wrote: > From: Lamar Owen > >Alright, pray tell how I, a desktop Linux user, can, without VM's and > >without having to switch users, protect my files from a PDF attack > >through Adobe Reader? > > Backups. I looked in vain for a smiley, and

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Le 2010-12-08 07:41, Steve Clark a écrit : On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it) Really? In blatant disregard for the published g

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/08/2010 10:39 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Don't run software you don't trust. Keep the software you run up to > date. Don't open files you don't trust. Agree here. We have very few issues at my company, because we stress the issue of thinking before you click, especially when it comes to de

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: >> > I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post >> properly. >> Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off >> multipart html crap. > > +1 > > Although I've

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 4:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > >>> Disabling SELinux is the same type of decision as disabling the firewall --- >>> it's there to protect you, yet you don't know how to properly configure it >>> and >>> use it, furthermore you don't want to bother to learn, so you simply disable >

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

Jerry Franz wrote: > On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: >> Honestly, I had no one in mind. >> I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing >> list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, >> don't trim, and still use aol. > > It really is

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 08/12/10 16:03, William Warren wrote: > On 12/8/2010 9:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 09:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: >> Les Mike

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

> Lots of corporate people top post to retain the threading, > and get rather upset when you trim the replies below, since > they aren't using MUA's that can thread. Not to mention that > top-posting is the default reply setup for the most commonly > used corporate-type MUA's. +1. M$ Outloo

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

Responses inline. > -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of m.r...@5-cent.us > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13 > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly > depleted, are you read

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

On 12/8/2010 9:46 AM, Jerry Franz wrote: > On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: >> Honestly, I had no one in mind. >> I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing >> list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, >> don't trim, and still use

Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

> -Original Message- > Responses inline. > > > Jerry Franz wrote: > > > On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: > > >> Honestly, I had no one in mind. > > >> I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a > > >> mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how >

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:39:50 am Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/8/2010 9:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Alright, pray tell how I, a desktop Linux user, can, without VM's and > > without having to switch users, protect my files from a PDF attack through > > Adobe Reader? > > Don't run softw

Re: [CentOS] [OT] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13:05 am m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Top posting is talking over everyone else. Yep, you nailed it. It's in essence. And it is the way many non-technical people prefer to communicate. As Sam Goldwyn is often quoted as saying: 'When I want your opinion, I'll g

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 11:02 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:39:50 am Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 12/8/2010 9:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> Alright, pray tell how I, a desktop Linux user, can, without VM's and >>> without having to switch users, protect my files from a PDF attack thr

Re: [CentOS] [OT] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)

Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13:05 am m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> > Oh, BTW: vim over emacs. > Actually, yep. I do know how to exit from emacs (the windowing o/s masquerading as a text editor...). >> alt.religion.editors > > What about alt.emacs.die.die.die or alt.vi.di

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:17:40 pm Les Mikesell wrote: > But your question was what to do if you choose to ignore the simple and > available tools - things available and well understood on many platforms. VM = complex. Not to mention proprietary (for all but KVM) and resource-wasteful.

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 11:38 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > >> But your question was what to do if you choose to ignore the simple and >> available tools - things available and well understood on many platforms. > > VM = complex. Not to mention proprietary (for all but KVM) and > resource-wasteful. > Switch User

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 01:02:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote: > Standards committees have their ways of breaking all previous existing > implementations with their final decrees. Let me know when they are > finished. Standards committees are never finished. Linux is not standardized, either;

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 12:19 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > >> Standards committees have their ways of breaking all previous existing >> implementations with their final decrees. Let me know when they are >> finished. > > Standards committees are never finished. > > Linux is not standardized, either; in the case o

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/08/2010 10:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 06:29:44 pm Les Mikesell wrote: >> I think you've missed the point that 'all that stuff' (being traditional >> unix >> security mechanisms) are not all that insecure. It is on

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 08/12/10 17:10, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/8/2010 4:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: [...snip...] >>> Agreed, and something that equally needs standardization. >> >> iptables is a de-facto standard on all Linux distributions nowadays. It >> is not ratified by ISO, IETF or similar ... but how doe

[CentOS] apache ssl config

I hadn't noticed until just now that the default apache config file doesn't show a virtual host for https anymore. Does that have any significance, and do the same old config parameters apply to the new httpd when I want to set up a secure web site? Steve Campbell _

Re: [CentOS] apache ssl config

On December 8, 2010 11:23:55 am Steve Campbell wrote: > I hadn't noticed until just now that the default apache config file > doesn't show a virtual host for https anymore. Does that have any > significance, and do the same old config parameters apply to the new > httpd when I want to set up a secu

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 01:47:07 pm Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Sandbox -X might help solve some of these problems. Available in RHEL6 > http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/31146.html?thread=212906 Looks interesting, Dan. Thanks much. And thanks much for the sometimes thankless work of trying

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 12:55 PM, David Sommerseth wrote: > >> The real life situation is that iptables only works on linux and the way >> it works is distribution-dependent. So what you learn may lock you into >> a platform that may not always be your best choice. > > Please educate me here. I've been usin

[CentOS] The Natives are Restless!

Has anyone noticed over the years, that every time a major new CentOS release is just about to happen, suddenly there starts to be a few very long and drawn out threads? Has anyone ever considered that the core team is in fact monitoring this thread while trying to devote as much time as possib

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 7:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: > > Such [periodic failures] are fairly common I'd say the main reason someone chooses CentOS (or another Linux flavor with similar policies, like Ubuntu LTS) is that the distro provider has made a long-term support commitment with minimal churn duri

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

[I'm guessing from the dozens of quoted lines per reply that many of y'all aren't as lucky as I am. I have a threading email reader with backing store, so I can go back and read past messages in a thread if I need more context than a brief quote can provide. I have been so lucky since the mid

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 3:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > it is still not recommendable to trade security for simplicity. Security is never an absolute, is *always* a tradeoff against simplicity. We could store our servers 16 feet underground and encased in concrete to prevent tampering and accidental pow

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 06:29:44 pm Les Mikesell wrote: >> And if you can't get the simple version right, how can you hope to >> do it right with something wildly more complicated? > > Alright, pray tell how I, a desktop Linux user,... Let's not drag

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 3:41 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > /That/ is my point. I could -- and sometimes do -- work around file > permissions errors manually, quickly. SELinux has a higher order of > complexity compared to Unix file permissions, so the associated fixes > don't fit into a small, easy-to-mentall

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 3:26 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Is there any central reporting concept in SELinux so a multi-machine > admin doesn't have to go check each for all of the one-off cases and > knowledge can be shared about the fixes needed for 3rd party RPMs? No. But then, there's not one for file permi

Re: [CentOS] The Natives are Restless!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 03:40 AM, John Hinton wrote: > Has anyone noticed over the years, that every time a major new CentOS > release is just about to happen, suddenly there starts to be a few very > long and drawn out threads? Really? Interesting. > > Has anyone ever considered that the

Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:41 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > > > Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead > > > of ARP being an addition to

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 4:48 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On 12/8/2010 3:26 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Is there any central reporting concept in SELinux so a multi-machine >> admin doesn't have to go check each for all of the one-off cases and >> knowledge can be shared about the fixes needed for 3rd party RPMs?

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:11:23 pm Warren Young wrote: > Let's not drag the desktop user into this discussion, too. Why not? Are there no CentOS desktop users out there? Are the needs of the desktop just to be ignored? I support desktop Linux users who are not power users; works grea

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:03 PM, William Warren wrote: > On 12/8/2010 9:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 09:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> On 12/8/10 4:22 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: On 30/11/10 03:52, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: > Christopher Chan

[CentOS] dhcp + static dns

Hi all, Not having issues setting this in Ubuntu or Windows but I cannot seem to add a static DNS or search path without it getting over written when networks restarts. The file dhclient.conf seems ignored. I would like to simply have a fixed DNS and search path added to what ever was foun

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 05:00 AM, Warren Young wrote: > On 12/8/2010 7:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> >> Such [periodic failures] are fairly common > > I'd say the main reason someone chooses CentOS (or another Linux flavor > with similar policies, like Ubuntu LTS) is that the distro prov

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 02:55 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > Second, iptables is a de-facto standard for Linux, just as pf is pretty > much the standard firewalling on BSD. Windows and Solaris got their own > firewalling methods as well. My point is, neither of them are any Posix > standar

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 03:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > How many of those use the same commands to > start/stop/save-current-config? Where do they keep the configs? How If > you deployed applications on all of them, how much time would it take to > train the operators that do the install

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:55 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:11:23 pm Warren Young wrote: >> Let's not drag the desktop user into this discussion, too. > > Why not? Are there no CentOS desktop users out there? Are the needs of the > desktop just to be ignored?

Re: [CentOS] dhcp + static dns

> Hi all, > > Not having issues setting this in Ubuntu or Windows but I cannot seem > to add a static DNS or search path without it getting over written > when networks restarts. > > The file dhclient.conf seems ignored. > > I would like to simply have a fixed DNS and search path added to what > ev

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 6:14 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Thursday, December 09, 2010 03:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Or rather stop telling people not to use SELinux and iptables on this > list just because you don't want to use any of these tools because it is > too troublesome for you and your gang.

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 08:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/8/2010 6:14 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Thursday, December 09, 2010 03:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > > >> Or rather stop telling people not to use SELinux and iptables on this >> list just because you don't want to use any of

Re: [CentOS] dhcp + static dns

On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Mike Burger wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Not having issues setting this in Ubuntu or Windows but I cannot seem >> to add a static DNS or search path without it getting over written >> when networks restarts. >> >> The file dhclient.conf seems ignored. >> >> I would like to

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 5:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Thursday, December 09, 2010 05:00 AM, Warren Young wrote: >> I assume you mean to advocate running updates infrequently, > > No, I advocate setting up SELinux properly which will take care of the > automatic updates. That's great if you are wise e

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/8/2010 3:55 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:11:23 pm Warren Young wrote: >> Let's not drag the desktop user into this discussion, too. > > Why not? I thought my reason was clear, but apparently not. You talk the talk of security, but I guess we hang in different

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On 12/07/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > Daniel J Walsh wrote: > >> >> I wrote this paper to try to explain what SELinux tends to complain >> about. >> >> http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/Presentations/selinux_four_things.pdf >> > I am having difficulty with the pdf file - both ad

Re: [CentOS] SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:06 AM, Warren Young wrote: > On 12/8/2010 5:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Thursday, December 09, 2010 05:00 AM, Warren Young wrote: >>> I assume you mean to advocate running updates infrequently, >> >> No, I advocate setting up SELinux properly which will ta

[CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd

In the bang head and repeat mode here. The live usb partition is /dev/sda1 Reboot / power on It auto mounts the /dev/sda2 as ext4 on /mnt/disc/sda2 $ umount /mnt/disc/sda2 $ mkdir /root/foo $ mke2fs /dev/sda2 $ mount /dev/sda2 /root/foo Kernel panic Snip from the kernel panic: ?? list_del+0x

Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd

> -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:38 > To: 'CentOS mailing list' > Subject: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd > > In the bang head and repeat mode here. > > The live usb pa