search for: shitstorms

> On 10/25/2023 9:53 AM PDT Ham via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > It appears that none of our windows clients are syncing their time with > the samba DC.??? From what I can tell they are not able to get a > response from the DC.? For example, where the DC is named athena: > > >w32tm /monitor /computers:athena > >

Hello All, I want to ask about CentOS and money. Please do not start some kind of shitstorm over this, it isn't productive. I have just been looking at archive.org to see when the paypal option went missing from the donate menu at centos.org. I can't pin it down, but it was there on October 16, 2010 and isn't now, so that's the information I have on that point. There was a

Hello, My question is about how to join a "Linux" machine to a "Samba4 AD DC" domain. Given that I have a "Samba4 AD DC" running on a machine (A), given that I have a another machine (B) running "Linux Debian Wheezy", can you tell me: 1) How I can join (B) to the domain? Do I have to install specific packages on (B)? Does it look like something like

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:10:57 -0700 (PDT) James Browning via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > On 10/25/2023 9:53 AM PDT Ham via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > It appears that none of our windows clients are syncing their time > > with the samba DC.??? From what I can tell they are not able to get > > a

It appears that none of our windows clients are syncing their time with the samba DC.??? From what I can tell they are not able to get a response from the DC.? For example, where the DC is named athena: >w32tm /monitor /computers:athena athena[10.10.1.10:123] ? ICMP: 0ms delay ? NTP: error ERROR_TIMEOUT - no response from server in 1000ms From a Linux machine there is

control: reassign -1 xen-hypervisor-4.8-amd64 On Sat, 2018-01-06 at 15:23 +0100, Valentin Vidic wrote: > On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 03:08:26PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > According to that link, the fix seems to be configuration rather than > > code. > > Does this mean this bug against the kernel should be closed? > > Yes, the problem seems to be in the Xen