On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:24:55AM +0900, Simon Walter wrote:
> linuxvoice.com/interview-lennart-poettering
>
> It's an old article, but as I read, I realized how much I disagree with
> Lennart. TBH, he sounds like an Apple fan.
>
Good morning, Simon! ;)
>
> I don't like Upstart or Cannonical
Simon Walter writes:
> After some testing, I have a question about an option in
> /etc/default/shorewall:
> wait_interface
> If I add the bridge interface to that line, shorewall will not start
> unless a container is brought up. I suppose that is why I was thinking
> of bridging the bridge inerfa
Le 08/06/2016 23:49, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
Thanks for the link. Not that I want to control resource usage, but
cgroup can help to keep track of processes.
Didier
___
Dng mailing l
Simon Walter wrote:
> After some testing, I have a question about an option in
> /etc/default/shorewall:
> wait_interface
> If I add the bridge interface to that line, shorewall will not start unless a
> container is brought up. I suppose that is why I was thinking of bridging the
> bridge ine
Simon Walter wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 07:07 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> >Yet another thing that systemd is getting its tentacles into ... wonder
> >when the majority of users will say "enough is enough" with it?
> >
> >
>
> They will not. The majority of users are freeloaders. So we may end up
> using
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:22:40 -0400, Dan wrote in message
<20160609152240.gm9...@xps-linux.djph.net>:
> Simon Walter wrote:
> > On 06/09/2016 07:07 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > >Yet another thing that systemd is getting its tentacles into ...
> > >wonder when the majority of users will say "enough is
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:50:16 +1200
gordon cooper wrote:
> On 09/06/16 02:59, Richard Heck wrote:
> >
> > Alternatively---here's a crazy idea---we could suspend the mailing
> > list and send people to the forum
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> Perhaps not really crazy at all. I work in both ma
On 2016-06-09 02:50, Simon Walter wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> After some testing, I have a question about an option in
> /etc/default/shorewall:
> wait_interface
> If I add the bridge interface to that line, shorewall will not start
> unless a container is brought up. I suppose that is why I was thi
On 06/09/2016 10:24 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Or I could do as Mr. Hobson does and run shorewall in a container. Would that actually be
a more insulated "secure" approach?
"Security" is a relative thing, and depends on your priorities. Putting the
firewall in it's own VM would improve isolation
Hi all,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to submit a modified version of the
debian template to the upstream LXC project.
I am not sure who wrote those scripts. It seems like that is part of LXC
source. So I am guessing it has nothing to do with the Debian LXC
package maintainer.
Also,
(A little update)
What I did was:
cp /usr/share/lxc/templates/lxc-debian /usr/share/lxc/templates/lxc-devuan
cp /usr/share/lxc/config/debian.common.conf
/usr/share/lxc/config/devuan.common.conf
cp /usr/share/lxc/config/debian.userns.conf
/usr/share/lxc/config/devuan.userns.conf
I don't know i
On 2016-06-10 03:02, Simon Walter wrote:
[snip]
> Though, you do need to specify the bridge to be created and destroyed,
> which is something I thought was done automatically. It is when there
> are ports specified. As Rainer pointed out, when bridge_ports is "none",
> then the bridge device is
On 2016-06-10 06:34, Greg Olsen wrote:
[snip]
> The only side-effect are the extra messages during ifup with
> "bridge_ports none":
>
> iface testbr1 inet static
> bridge_ports none
> address 10.91.0.1
> netmask 255.255.0.0
> network 10.91.0.0
> broadcast
13 matches
Mail list logo
