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

On 09/12/10 01:05, Christopher Chan wrote: > 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

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

On 08/12/10 23:01, Warren Young wrote: > 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

[CentOS] how to run a command on a specific vnc display

Hello, I'm using selenium rc for automated testing on a centos box. working on the box itself has no problem as long as i start the server through terminal. though if i wanted to run tests remotely i have a problem with firefox not knowing on which display to run. i have a vnc client runnin

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.5 with MediaWiki

Em 07-12-2010 13:13, Ray Van Dolson escreveu: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 07:41:24AM -0200, Clovis Tristao wrote: >> Em 06-12-2010 15:55, Mathieu Baudier escreveu: Also, there will soon be a MediaWiki 1.16 package in EPEL[1]. There is >>> Good news! >>> >>> Actually my dependencies were probabl

Re: [CentOS] how to run a command on a specific vnc display

Hello, ssh sets the DISPLAY variable itself provided that : - the X11 forwarding is enabled in the remote sshd server : in /etc/ssh/sshd_config : you must have : X11Forwarding yes (man sshd_config) - you start the ssh connection with option -X, or you enable the X11 forwarding in your local /

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.5 with MediaWiki

Em 09-12-2010 08:09, Clovis Tristao escreveu: > Em 07-12-2010 13:13, Ray Van Dolson escreveu: >> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 07:41:24AM -0200, Clovis Tristao wrote: >>> Em 06-12-2010 15:55, Mathieu Baudier escreveu: > Also, there will soon be a MediaWiki 1.16 package in EPEL[1]. There is Good

Re: [CentOS] [OT]Asymmetric connections

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > 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

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. > > +1 Unfair: the 'text' formatting mode from GMail is very standard compliant, trimming the lines etc. Maybe one should just

[CentOS] kernel panic

Hi, I have CentOS 5.0 installed my system.It shows "kernel panic - not syncing : fatal exception" error during boot process.Can any one please suggest to resolve this kernel panic? I am very eager to solve this without upgrade the version for home work. Thanks -- Regards, M.Satheesh.

Re: [CentOS] kernel panic

2010/12/9 masatheesh : > Hi, >   > I have CentOS 5.0 installed my system.It shows "kernel panic - not > syncing : fatal exception" error during boot process.Can any one please > suggest to resolve this kernel panic? I am very eager to solve this without > upgrade the version for home work. Pl

Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd

A preliminary development version of ext4 was included in version 2.6.19[4] of the Linux kernel. On 11 October 2008, the patches that mark ext4 as stable code were merged in the Linux 2.6.28 source code repositories,[5] denoting the end of the development phase and recommending ext4 adoption. Ke

Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd

cybernet wrote: A preliminary development version of ext4 was included in version 2.6.19^[4] of the Linux kernel . On 11 October 2008, the patches that mark ext4 as stable code were merged in the Linux

Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd

ok, then i'm really sorry for informing you wrong anyway since we started a kernel talk why CentOS has and old but stable kernel ? From: Rob Kampen To: CentOS mailing list Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:15:58 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd cybernet wrote: > A prelimin

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

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 16:49 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote: > 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 replacem

[CentOS] old but stable kernel was: RE: 5.5 x86_64 live cd

> -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of cybernet > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:19 > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] 5.5 x86_64 live cd > > ok, then i'm really sorry for informing you wrong anyway > s

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

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: >> From: centos-boun...@centos.org >> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Tom H >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:34 AM >> To: CentOS mailing list >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6? >>

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

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM, 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 >

Re: [CentOS] [OT]Asymmetric connections

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:00:58 am Christopher Chan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Or would you prefer paying kilobucks per month for a tariffed OC3/12/48 or > > Gigabit provisioned Metro E? (that's all I can get, and it does cost > > kilobucks t

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

On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:06:34 pm Warren Young wrote: > That's great if you are wise enough to forsee all problems that an > automatic update can cause. > I am not that wise. Nor am I; that's why I have testing server VM's on which to stage updates. Even on the production servers, th

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

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:02:44 am Robert Nichols wrote: > On 12/07/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > > Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/Presentations/selinux_four_things.pdf > >> > > I am having difficulty with the pdf file - both adobe and kpdf ha

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

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 10:11 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:02:44 am Robert Nichols wrote: > > On 12/07/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > > > Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/Presentations/selinux_four_things.pdf > > > I am ha

Re: [CentOS] Optimal VPN

On 25/11/10 14:12, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote: [...snip...] > Will you be confronted with IPv6 in the (not so) near future? Forget > OpenVPN, it is still beta there, while it has been implemented in > strongswan for ages, and part of there standard test plan. Okay, I'll admit up-front I'm biased,

Re: [CentOS] Optimal VPN

David Sommerseth wrote: > "That's the wonderful thing about standards, > everyone can have their own" > - unknown Actually, that's "The nice thing about standards is that there are so *many* of them". mark

Re: [CentOS] Optimal VPN

On 30/11/10 15:49, Ben McGinnes wrote: >> > That is there must be a specific IP address assigned to a user/password >> > combination. pptp does not really do this but I wrote sort of a backend >> > (or maybe frontend? ;-) ) to change the IP address assigned based on a >> > login and password. It is

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

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 12/8/2010 4:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: >> iptables is a de-facto standard on all Linux distributions nowadays.  It >> is not ratified by ISO, IETF or similar ... but how does that make the >> real life scenario any different?  That's

Re: [CentOS] The Natives are Restless!

Christopher Chan wrote: > 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

[CentOS] PERC 6/E continue switch between "write though" and "write back"????

We have several DELL R900 server with PERC 6/E adapter in it. O.S. is CENTOS 5.5. recently one of server continue pop-up messages on /var/log/message for switch status between "write back" and "write through". == Dec 6 08:09:31 host01 Server Administrator: Storage S

Re: [CentOS] Optimal VPN

On 12/09/2010 10:30 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: On 25/11/10 14:12, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote: [...snip...] Will you be confronted with IPv6 in the (not so) near future? Forget OpenVPN, it is still beta there, while it has been implemented in strongswan for ages, and part of there standard t

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.5 with MediaWiki

On 12/06/2010 09:24 AM, Clovis Tristao wrote: > Hi, > > How do I install php-xml 5.2.10 on CentOS 5.5? > > I'm trying to install MediaWiki, and asks that package as a dependency. > > Cheers, I've found that a tarball install of 1.15.5 works fine on a CentOS5.5 machine without any special installa

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

On 12/9/2010 1:54 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > > For the vast majority of issues with SELinux, it possible to overcome > them using the provided tools. Of course, but I think you're mistaking "possible" for "practical". Everyone has different incentives and constraints. Allow me build an analog

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

Warren Young wrote: > On 12/9/2010 1:54 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: >> >> For the vast majority of issues with SELinux, it possible to overcome >> them using the provided tools. > > Of course, but I think you're mistaking "possible" for "practical". > Everyone has different incentives and constrain

[CentOS] Howto batch sign RPM packages?

Hi, I need to sign a bunch of RPM packages that have interdepencies: build #1, sign #1, install #1, build #2, sign #2, install #2 etc. Based on the info in bz436812 [1] I have created the key (RSA sign only, 4096bit, no sub keys) and put this in .rpmmacros: %_signature gpg %_gpg_path ~/.gnupg %_

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

On 12/9/2010 2:05 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > Also, Apple dictates style; to a lesser degree, so does M$. There's no > dictated style guide for Linux. That's outdated thinking. Apple's acquired some infamy among its fanboy base for violating their old style guidelines, which AFAIR were last

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

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Warren Young wrote: > On 12/9/2010 2:05 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> >> Also, Apple dictates style; to a lesser degree, so does M$. There's no >> dictated style guide for Linux. > > That's outdated thinking. Apple's acquired some infamy among its fanboy How about this long

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

Am 27.11.10 00:58, schrieb Alison: > total newbie on CentOS. Nothing against you, you asked a completely valid question. All others: Can this insanity please stop now? I'm really thinking about setting a subject moderation filter on this subject. Ralph _

Re: [CentOS] Howto batch sign RPM packages?

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:28 +0100, Patrick Lists wrote: What's so hard about: #!/bin/expect It will take care of all that for you in a jiffie... Yea you need a passphrase of which expect can handle for you. John ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@cent

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

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:08 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:06:34 pm Warren Young wrote: >> That's great if you are wise enough to forsee all problems that an >> automatic update can cause. > >> I am not that wise. > > Nor am I; that's why I have testing server V

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

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:39 PM, Tom H wrote: >>> SELinux came as a result that someone found weaknesses and wanted to try >>> avoid security issues. Just like when firewalls began to become so >>> popular 20-30 years ago or so. There was a need to improve something, >>> and someone did t

Re: [CentOS] [OT]Asymmetric connections

On Friday, December 10, 2010 03:12 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Thursday 09 December 2010 11:00:58 Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> Or would you prefer paying kilobucks per month for a tariffed OC3/12/48 >>> or Gigabit provisioned Metro E

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

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:32 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 16:49 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote: > > 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, Dav

Re: [CentOS] PERC 6/E continue switch between "write though" and "write back"????

On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:41 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote: > We have several DELL R900 server with PERC 6/E adapter in it. O.S. is CENTOS > 5.5. recently one of server continue pop-up messages on /var/log/message for > switch status between "write back" and "write through". > > ==

Re: [CentOS] [OT]Asymmetric connections

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:59 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:00:58 am Christopher Chan wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> Or would you prefer paying kilobucks per month for a tariffed OC3/12/48 or >>> Gigabit provisioned Metr

Re: [CentOS] Howto batch sign RPM packages?

On 12/09/2010 11:56 PM, JohnS wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:28 +0100, Patrick Lists wrote: > > What's so hard about: > > #!/bin/expect > > It will take care of all that for you in a jiffie... Yea you need a > passphrase of which expect can handle for you. Thanks John. Never thought abou