* Brian Ballsun-Stanton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010715 19:13]:
> This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade
> to 2.4.6? (I'm
> "Andy" == Andy Saxena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy> On Sid about a 100 or so packages are updated everyday. A few weeks
ago, I
Andy> had a severely disabled system when the PAM modules failed to
function. In
Andy> essence, I couldn't log into the system.
Another importan
or samba-tng.
Thanks for your suggestion.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Andy Saxena wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:48:50 -0400
> From: Andy Saxena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Brian Ballsun-Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Newbieish questio
Hi Brian,
I recently went through two upgrade cycles - from stable (AKA Potato) to
testing (AKA Woody), and then to unstable (AKA Sid).
On Sid about a 100 or so packages are updated everyday. A few weeks ago, I
had a severely disabled system when the PAM modules failed to function. In
essence,
I meant as a PDC :)
File sharing, sure, it works with my 2k box now, but I heard that it uses
legacy auth stuff.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Sam Varghese wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:37:51 +1000
> From: Sam Varghese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subj
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:43:30AM +0100, Neil Durant wrote:
> Brian Ballsun-Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> >mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> >bad. How risky is running unstable? W
Brian Ballsun-Stantonwrites:
> Thank you, Its not so much upgrading to testing, or to 2.4... I'm just
> wondering if 2.4 will improve stablitity in unstable.
It will make no difference. Don't upgrade your kernel unless you need to.
BTW, 'unstable' doesn't mean what you think it does. It isn't t
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:52:00PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 04:21:21AM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote:
> > Don't forget to "apt-get upgrade" :-)
>
>
> Actually if all you want to get from unstable is a few selected source
> packages, DON'T 'apt-get upgrade', but you mus
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:37:21PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
> Thank you, Its not so much upgrading to testing, or to 2.4... I'm just
> wondering if 2.4 will improve stablitity in unstable. The only thing I
> have to go to unstable for is samba-tng (for my 2k clients). And I want to
> min
day, (the
14th) ::chuckles::
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, David Purton wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:57:17 +0930 (CST)
> From: David Purton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Brian Ballsun-Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Newbieish
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 04:21:21AM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:11:38PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
> > This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> > mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> > bad. How
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:24:30PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
> Well, sorta ::chuckles::
> I don't mind upgrading stuff (I think...) but... I don't know what not to
> do
> I think main question is: how unstable is unstable, and how do I make it
> more stable?
>
I'd say, unstable
Brian Ballsun-Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head
completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file
sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access.
This is my dilemma: to run samba
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
>
> Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head
> completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file
> sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access.
>
> This is my dilemma
: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 04:21:21 +0200
> From: Stephen Rueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Newbieish question
> Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:22:21 -0700
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:11
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:11:38PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
> This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade
> to 2
16 matches
Mail list logo
