Re: [uml-user] uml networking as non-root

2007-02-22 Thread Jason Lunz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > ok, it seems as though I hadn't rebooted since I created the group > umlusrs and for some reason while I was in the /etc/groups file as > being a member of umlusrs, that didn't take effect ... I had to > reboot. Does anyone know why that is? (newbie alert, newbie alert!)

Re: [uml-user] uml networking as non-root

2007-02-22 Thread Christopher Taylor
ok, it seems as though I hadn't rebooted since I created the group umlusrs and for some reason while I was in the /etc/groups file as being a member of umlusrs, that didn't take effect ... I had to reboot. Does anyone know why that is? (newbie alert, newbie alert!) After reboot I had to reset th

[uml-user] uml networking as non-root

2007-02-22 Thread Christopher Taylor
downloaded the 2.1.19-skas3-v8.2 patch from here: http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade/patches/skas3-2.6/skas-2.6.19-v8.2/ downloaded the FC5 kernel 2.6.19 srpm from here: http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3?stat=26&dist=47&size=46357838&name=kernel-2.6.19-1.2288.fc5.src.rpm followed this re

Re: [uml-user] Problem Logging in

2007-02-22 Thread jez
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:09:47PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote: > > auto eth0 > iface eth0 inet static > address 192.168.1.4 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > up route add -host 192.168.1.2 dev eth0 > up route add default gw 192.168.1.2 > [/code] > > then when I screen in to

[uml-user] Problem Logging in

2007-02-22 Thread Jonas Meyer
So here is a really random problem. I'm not sure if it is a problem with UML, or a problem that only shows up under UML. I am running ubuntu (32 bit) edgy eft (6.10) on both the host and the guest. I am using the latest edgy vanilla kernel on the host, and 2.6.18 off of blaisorblade's site for t

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-22 Thread Mattia Dongili
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:58:37AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2007 00:51, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:19, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > > > Blaisorblade wrote: > > > > Using > /dev/null 2>&1 is not suitable? > > > > > > Well yes, that might also