similar to: UC C-6, Gnome question

On Mon, January 12, 2015 09:40, Rushton Martin wrote: > > Another Firefox "funny" to be aware of occurs if you have a $HOME > shared between multiple machines. Firefox will refuse to start on the > second machine whilst the first is running Firefox, it believes that > there is already an instance running. Rebooting the second machine > will not help. The

On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 14:40 +0000, Rushton Martin wrote: > <snip> > Another Firefox "funny" to be aware of occurs if you have a $HOME shared between multiple machines. Firefox will refuse to start on the second machine whilst the first is running Firefox, it believes that there is already an instance running. Rebooting the second machine will not help. The quick-and-dirty

>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 05:12:48PM -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: >> > On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:42 -0500, Fred Smith wrote: >> > <snip> > >> > In a nutshell, after I would terminate Firefox as part of my normal >> > log off process, there would be another instance of Firefox left >> > hanging around with a ppid of 1 (so it's

>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 05:12:48PM -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: >> > On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:42 -0500, Fred Smith wrote: >> > <snip> > >> > In a nutshell, after I would terminate Firefox as part of my normal >> > log off process, there would be another instance of Firefox left >> > hanging around with a ppid of 1 (so it's

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over. If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that stops the update. :-( >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of John R Pierce >Sent: 04

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz >Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd > >Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin: >> Our cluster was supplied with two IBM DS3400 RAID arrays connected >> with fibre channel.

In article <1446132814771.22431 at slac.stanford.edu>, Eriksson, Thomas <thomas.eriksson at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > This should probably be a bug report for the fail2ban EPEL maintainer, the problem was introduced in version 0.9.3 > > >From the file /etc/fail2ban/action.d/iptables-common.conf > ... > # Option: lockingopt > # Notes.: Option was introduced to

Hi, I noticed that some, but not all, of my CentOS 7 machines have these kernel parameters for turning on systemd debug level logging added to the grub.cfg file. systemd.log_level=debug systemd.log_target=kmsg The parameters are *not* in the /etc/default/grub file, so if I rebuild grub.cfg with grub2-mkconfig, they disappear. I am a bit puzzled over how they got introduced. Has anyone else

On Thursday 02 February 2017 10:22:19 John Hodrien wrote: > The safe bet is, it doesn't, and it's something unique to you/your > profile/your firefox configuration. Have you got an example URL that > you're saying obviously misrenders in firefox? > > Does it still misbehave if you run firefox in safe mode with a new profile, > say be doing: firefox --ProfileManager

Wasn't there a TV series in the 1960s about a US soldier who got made up to general thanks to the accidental over punching of paper tape? Regards, Martin, >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Always Learning >Sent: 10 July 2014 11:43 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 :