On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:04:09AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> Ah ok, I thought there was something else. OTOH, the non uniqueness of
> the labels can be an advantage. Imagine you are using only one device at
> a time (for whatever reason): you will always have the device mounted in
> the
On Thu,11.Sep.08, 14:47:31, Dave Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:28:04AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > Care to explain the benefits of UUID as opposed to label?
>
> They're already there, and unique. Labels tend to range in the more
> common ranges, so can be more readily r
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:28:04AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Care to explain the benefits of UUID as opposed to label?
They're already there, and unique. Labels tend to range in the more
common ranges, so can be more readily reproduced. In terms of removable
devices, more secure. In th
On Wed,10.Sep.08, 21:58:53, Jack Schneider wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:52:30 +0300
> Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed,10.Sep.08, 14:24:07, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Andrei for the response. Checked out #s and yes they have
> > > changed.
> > > So I need
On Thu,11.Sep.08, 09:41:01, Dave Patterson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:23:55PM -0400, abel wrote:
>
> > Hope the attached file helps. Commentary is appreciated, even expected ;-)
> >
>
> Another method that can be more robust in a security context is to mount the
> partition with the fi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:52:30 +0300
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed,10.Sep.08, 14:24:07, Jack Schneider wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Andrei for the response. Checked out #s and yes they have
> > changed.
> > So I need some further guidance... "In case of any doubt use
> > labels." An
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:23:55PM -0400, abel wrote:
> Hope the attached file helps. Commentary is appreciated, even expected ;-)
>
Another method that can be more robust in a security context is to mount the
partition with the filesystem's UUID as a specifier, instead of the label.
This is p
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:52:30 +0300
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed,10.Sep.08, 14:24:07, Jack Schneider wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Andrei for the response. Checked out #s and yes they have
> > changed.
> > So I need some further guidance... "In case of an
On Wed,10.Sep.08, 14:24:07, Jack Schneider wrote:
> Thanks, Andrei for the response. Checked out #s and yes they have
> changed.
> So I need some further guidance... "In case of any doubt use labels."
> Any pointers to an appropriate "howto" Question 2 What's the
> impact on FSTAB set
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:30:15 +0300
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue,09.Sep.08, 16:00:11, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >
> >
> > -- Hi, all
> >
> > I created my own problem. I think!
> > I have a dual boot Dell M60 laptop. Running Lenny, linux kernel
> > 2.6.26-1-686. I have/had
i just come across this problem 2 days ago. in my case, it is actually
the udev problem. check if there is any error saying udevd failed etc.
Even after successfully booting. i have problem with my eth0 not
working (renamed to eth1 by then new udev)..
to fix it, i do apt-get update then apt-get up
On Tue,09.Sep.08, 16:00:11, Jack Schneider wrote:
>
>
> -- Hi, all
>
> I created my own problem. I think!
> I have a dual boot Dell M60 laptop. Running Lenny, linux kernel
> 2.6.26-1-686. I have/had a small primary (hda3) as /boot.
> A larger logical (hda2) with / (hda5) and /home (hda6) + Sw
12 matches
Mail list logo
