Le 31 août 2000, Vinnie écrivait :
> search domain.com sub1.domain.com sub2.domain.com domain.net
> the problem is that the search path doesn't work :( the *first* domain
>From the resolv.conf(5) man page:
search Search list for host-name lookup. The search list is normally
determi
Hi, everyone,
I did a rebuild of my main system, got it all cleaned up and configured the
way I wanted, and then installed Kooldown, a/k/a KDE 1.93, a/k/a KDE 2.0 Beta
4.
I've only been using it for a few days, but it's sure come a long way since
Kleopatra (KDE 1.91). It really loooks to b
Excerpts from linuxchix: 31-Aug-100 [techtalk] resolv.conf issues by
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2. Can anyone confirm/deny this behavior in another linux distro? I don't
> recall ever trying multiple search domains before, personally, but it
> works fine on solaris 2.7 and openBSD 2.7
/etc/resolv.conf
distro: VectorLinux 1.0
problem: /etc/resolv.conf looks like this
search domain.com sub1.domain.com sub2.domain.com domain.net
sub3.domain.net sub4.domain.net
nameserver
nameserver
the problem is that the search path doesn't work :( the *first* domain
will work, no matter what it
Nancy Corbett said:
> A segmentation fault is reported when you run a program and it tries to
> access something it doesn't have permission to access...at least that's my
> understanding of it. A program will skip merrily along until BAM! it
> hits a wall when it tries to occupy a space where it
A segmentation fault is reported when you run a program and it tries to
access something it doesn't have permission to access...at least that's my
understanding of it. A program will skip merrily along until BAM! it
hits a wall when it tries to occupy a space where it isn't allowed to be.
It wi
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 04:35:03PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I forgot to ask in my last post - what is a segmentation fault?
In short (because I don't know much about the kernel), it's the signal the
kernel sends a process when it's eating into memory that the kernel didn't
give it. If it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I thought the -p option preserved the permissions. How can I preserve
> my files original permissions scheme (in directory B)?
The permissions being preserved are those of the copied file. Any files that
get copied over don't matter.
Did you try not preserving permiss
You're not copying from an NFS mount, are you? a few days ago I tried to do something
similar and the permissions would not preserve, and the ownership changed to nobody.
We finally decided it was an NFS thang, since it runs as nobody.
Davida Schiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
Hi,
I have a question about preserving permissions (for files). It seems like
the -p option during a copy does not work. Here is the scenario:
Directory A has 4 files with the following permissions: file1=777,
file2=666, file3=667 & file4=676. Directory B has the same (contents) 4
files with th
I'm not sure if there is an opensource AOL server however the jabber
project has come quite far:
www.jabber.com (has a free windows client and they produce a "commercial"
jabber server {ie. "redhat jabber" }
www.jabber.org (the original jabber site hosts the server/transport
development)
www.jab
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, moira wrote:
I was looking for a server not a client.
I'm a huge fan of gaim, and everyine here at my office seems to like IM,
but we don't want to rely on AOL's servers, additionally we'd like the
privacy of one on our internal network.
> haven't used it but my boy seems to
I've got a samba server and need to give full
rwx privs to all the admins at my job.
I tried setting:
admin users= admin1's username, admin2's username, admin3's username
in [global] but it did not have the desired effect. I had seen this
done in one of the example scripts that samba comes with
13 matches
Mail list logo
