On Lu, 15 iul 19, 09:15:19, Kent West wrote:
>
> However, now with the machines upgraded to Debian 10 (Buster),
> "/usr/bin/lsb_release -a" reports the Debian version as 10 rather than as
> 10.0, and apparently the SMA expects that minor number as well as the major
> number.
This issue will most
On Monday 15 July 2019 16:15:23 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:09:28PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> > Well, in this particular case, the Quest SMA is a Systems Management
> > Appliance, which provides management and data-collection
> > capabilities of devices on a network. When a s
On 7/15/19 3:54 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
Kent West (12019-07-15):
- They plainly state that they support Ubuntu 18.04, but not Debian.
So, did I get this right: this is a software, if you install it on
Ubuntu 18.04, it can tell you on what OS and version it runs, REMOTELY.
Is that it?
Yes
Kent West (12019-07-15):
> - They plainly state that they support Ubuntu 18.04, but not Debian.
So, did I get this right: this is a software, if you install it on
Ubuntu 18.04, it can tell you on what OS and version it runs, REMOTELY.
Is that it?
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Des
On 7/15/19 3:15 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:09:28PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
Well, in this particular case, the Quest SMA is a Systems Management
Appliance, which provides management and data-collection capabilities of
devices on a network. When a sysadmin wants to use t
On Monday 15 July 2019 16:09:28 Kent West wrote:
> On 7/15/19 2:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> 3) It spurs me to ask: So, if not via LSB, what is the canonical
> >> way to programatically determine the version of an installed Debian
> >> setup?
> >
> > Why would a program want to know?
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:09:28PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Well, in this particular case, the Quest SMA is a Systems Management
> Appliance, which provides management and data-collection capabilities of
> devices on a network. When a sysadmin wants to use the SMA to find out about
> PCs on the ne
On 7/15/19 2:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
3) It spurs me to ask: So, if not via LSB, what is the canonical way to
programatically determine the version of an installed Debian setup?
Why would a program want to know?
That won't give it very much information, since the system may very
well have
> 3) It spurs me to ask: So, if not via LSB, what is the canonical way to
> programatically determine the version of an installed Debian setup?
Why would a program want to know?
That won't give it very much information, since the system may very
well have a mix of packages from different Debian r
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 02:34:39PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> 3) It spurs me to ask: So, if not via LSB, what is the canonical way to
> programatically determine the version of an installed Debian setup?
cat /etc/debian_version
On 7/15/19 9:25 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 09:15:19AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
However, that didn't solve the issue; apparently the SMA release on
the "Description:" line of output from "lsb_release -a" instead of
the "Release:" line.
And now we see one of the big reas
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 09:15:19AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
However, that didn't solve the issue; apparently the SMA release on
the "Description:" line of output from "lsb_release -a" instead of the
"Release:" line.
And now we see one of the big reasons why the LSB initiative failed: the
vend
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 09:29:55AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> What's the point of preserving the environment, but resetting PATH?
It assumes you trust yourself, and that you did not intentionally
sabotage your own environment.
The changes that you, the owner and administrator of your computer
NOT REQUIRED READING; this is just a follow-up for documentation
purposes in case anyone else needs this info from the list archives.
(TL;DR at bottom)
On 7/11/19 1:48 PM, Kent West wrote:
1) I have several Debian boxes running as kiosks, and reporting to a
centralized Quest-branded "Systems
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:42:52AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 09:11:17AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Du, 14 iul 19, 00:09:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Use "su -" (or "sudo -s") if you want to achieve that...
> >
> > You probably meant 'sudo -i' ;)
>
> Ye
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:07:05 -0400
Dan Ritter wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:21:28AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > Reco wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:21:28AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Reco wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's not a problem sending mail via a script; that's a problem with
> > > > Google's view o
Hi there!
Anyone else having trouble with setting up sftp using proftpd on buster?
DefaultRoot ~
RequireValidShell off
SFTPEngine on
Port
SFTPLog /var/log/proftpd/sftp.log
S
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:34:44 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> > I tried with mail.mailutils, and I get the following error:
> >
> ><< 550-5.7.1 [2a01:e35:8a7f:9c50:2e4d:54ff:fed0:5806] Our system
> > has detected th
Hi Pierre,
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> I tried with mail.mailutils, and I get the following error:
>
><< 550-5.7.1 [2a01:e35:8a7f:9c50:2e4d:54ff:fed0:5806] Our system has
> detected that
><<< 550-5.7.1 this message does not meet IPv6 sending guidel
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:28:40PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:21:28AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
[...]
> > Why do you think they have that requirement?
>
> An error message included a link to support.google.com. Along with the other
> things it says:
Heh. Great minds think al
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:21:28AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not a problem sending mail via a script; that's a problem with
> > > Google's view of the reputation of the mail server tha
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:21:28AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not a problem sending mail via a script; that's a problem with
> > > Google's view of the reputation of the mail server tha
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > That's not a problem sending mail via a script; that's a problem with
> > Google's view of the reputation of the mail server that you are using.
> > (Which may be the machine that you are typing on, o
On Fri 12/Jul/2019 13:27:08 +0200 Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:33:44AM +0300, Georgios wrote:
>> Hi there!
>>
>> Based on security and stability i was wondering what is more preferable?
>>
>> Installing apps through flatpak or through debian repositories?
>
> I trust Debian at packagin
Hi.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:05:04PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > > I'm looking for a way to send a mail via a script What are the available
> > > solutions ?
> >
> > I tried with mail.mailutils, a
26 matches
Mail list logo
