|00:56||alkisg has quit IRC|
|01:07||alkisg has joined #ltsp|
|01:58||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
|02:16||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
|02:45||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
|02:49||cyberorg has quit IRC|
|03:02||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
|03:18||cyberorg has joined #ltsp|
|03:30||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
|03:32||bobby_C has joined #ltsp|
|03:46||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
|04:01||otavio has quit IRC|
|04:21||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
|04:39||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
|04:55||mikkel has joined #ltsp|
|05:10||kusznir has quit IRC|
|05:12||kusznir has joined #ltsp|
|05:24||otavio has joined #ltsp|
|05:50||bobby_C has quit IRC|
|05:58||hersonls has joined #ltsp|
|06:21||alkisg has quit IRC|
|06:23||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
|06:31||ogra has quit IRC|
|06:34||ogra has joined #ltsp|
|06:40||alkisg has joined #ltsp|
|06:40||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
|06:43||abeehc has quit IRC|
|06:45||abeehc has joined #ltsp|
|07:33||leio has quit IRC|
|07:34||leio has joined #ltsp|
|07:42||alkisg has quit IRC|
|08:28||pmatulis has joined #ltsp|
|08:47||litlebuda has joined #ltsp|
|08:48||bobby_C has joined #ltsp|
|09:28||moldy has joined #ltsp|
|09:29||hersonls has quit IRC|
|09:31||Ctek has joined #ltsp|
|09:34||hersonls has joined #ltsp|
Hy guys, has anyone used Easy-LTSP on ubuntu ?
|09:38||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
|09:39||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
|10:38||alkisg has joined #ltsp|
|10:46||pmatulis has quit IRC|
|10:53||slidesinger has joined #ltsp|
|10:58||vagrantc has joined #ltsp|
|10:59||alkisg has quit IRC|
|11:00||slidesinger has quit IRC|
|11:01||alkisg has joined #ltsp|
|11:28||bobby_C has quit IRC|
|11:37||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
|11:38||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
|11:44||nubae_ has joined #ltsp|
|11:45||nubae has quit IRC|
|11:49||zirconiumks has joined #ltsp|
|11:53||plasticdoc has joined #ltsp|
Could someone, please, point me to documentation about the lts.conf options? Were there any changes in the latest 5.2?
alkisg: "lts.conf" :: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/lts.conf
plasticdoc: many, many options are undocumented...
So yes, there were changes for 5.2, but the only way to be sure would be to read the sources :)
perhaps we have too many..
The worst thing is that we have them in a single file... we must make it http based asap
(reuse cluster code or merge the two methods in a new one or something...)
the insistance on "worst" and "must" is wearisome :P
Excuse my lack in english, but we can't even make a proper GUI now
Given an lts.conf, it's really difficult to parse it and then save it properly
ah, i see what you mean
it is a very standard configuration file format... there must be tools to parse that sort of thing.
I've been trying with python's ConfigParser, but it doesn't help...
We "should" ;) allow for an lts.conf.d/ directory, where vendors/packages/sysadmins could drop files there...
i'm generally fond of .d directories ... almost to a fault :)
(and not only configuration files, but code as well - if client_ram < xxx then param123=yyy...)
alkisg: well, we've got ltsp_config.d ... that should handle code-side.
That's on the client, not on the server
ah, back to this thing :)
It can't decide what username to send based on ip/time/class...
but it could be a plugin that asks the server
Indeed, a plugin could send some information to the server and get some configuration values
But that plugin would offer more than lts.conf itself, so it could just replace it completely...
why bother replacing it?
that's the part i just don't get.
we already have the infrastructure to make it unecessary... to force it to disappear seems gratuitous
What's the point of supporting html 3 when html 5 is out?
Given the right tools, ltsp.conf.d, GUI editing etc, why would we need to keep supporting the old lts.conf syntax, and depend on bison/flex etc?
what's the point of dropping support?
the code has barely needed changes for some 10 years now... it's not like it's a high-maintenance piece of code.
Anyway my point is not in dropping support or not - it's that we need some additional functionality
|12:32||hersonls has quit IRC|
|12:34||hersonls has joined #ltsp|
|12:42||Egyptian[Home]1 has joined #ltsp|
|12:42||Egyptian[Home]1 has left #ltsp|
|13:00||ludug3r0 has joined #ltsp|
|13:06||wwx_ has joined #ltsp|
|13:08||wwx has quit IRC|
vagrantc, about ltsp_config.d, shouldn't that dir be created by ltsp-client-core?
|13:17||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
alkisg: only if it puts something in there by default...
Couldn't it be in debian/dirs?
alkisg: why do you even need it?
For example, to provide some side-wide defaults
packages that need to put something in there will create it ... admins can create it
yes, i understand how to use it :)
Heh, yeah, I'm the one that tries to understand here :)
although admins should really be creating custom ones in /etc/ltsp/ltsp_config.d, though i didn't add support for that (yet)
vagrantc: so, for example, could I move there some upstream code to provide some defaults for fat clients?
(move the existing code from ltsp_config, that is...)
E.g. if LTSP_FATCLiENT then LOCALDEV=False...
i was tempted to split ltsp_config into snippets in ltsp_config.d ... but i resisted the change just to keep it minimal
It would be better imho - e.g. we could provide an "ltsp-fat-client" package that way, which could be added/removed at anytime, not only on ltsp-build-client...
yes, that sounds like a much better way to handle it
then you get dependency resolution for package dependencies, which is much easier than hard-coding it in the plugins and such
|13:30||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
|13:32||Egyptian[Home]1 has joined #ltsp|
|13:34||Egyptian[Home]1 has quit IRC|
|13:34||Egyptian[LapTop] has joined #ltsp|
|13:36||nubae has joined #ltsp|
|13:37||nubae_ has quit IRC|
|13:47||zirconiumks has quit IRC|
Do you know if in LTSP 5.2 we still do need to use X_RAMPERC=80 to avoid the Firefox/Openoffice "Pixmap caching" bug?
|13:49||pmatulis has joined #ltsp|
plasticdoc: it's not so much LTSP but the firefox or openoffice versions
vagrantc: sorry? I did not understand what you meant.
plasticdoc: it is bugs in firefox or openoffice that make setting X_RAMPERC necessary, so the versions of those is what matters, not the version of LTSP
vagrantc: Oh, I see. Thank you.
haven't heard recent noise about the issue, so hopefully it's at least partially resolved in recent versions
vagrantc: I am just trying to get rid of lots of config tweaks that linger around my lts.conf files
plasticdoc: nothing like testing to verify for sure
vagrantc: I am very afraid to upset my users and delete those lines, just to discover latter that they are still needed.
plasticdoc: so, configure one machine to not use it and test it
or leave it in :)
|13:58||ludug3r0 has quit IRC|
vagrantc: ...configure one machine... I have it in the [default] section. To change I will have to create lots of [aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff] LIKE = SomeOldSettingsMachine.
vagrantc: but I will give it a try.
vagrantc: Thank you.
plasticdoc: you can do the other way around ... just configure one machine with X_RAMPERC=100
|14:02||php_szg has joined #ltsp|
|14:06||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
|14:08||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
vagrantc: X_RAMPERC=100 ? Will it work like that?
plasticdoc: that's what i'm trying to tell you :P
vagrantc: After all it seems that there is an easy way... I will try that with a few users and see if they start reporting problems. Thank you.
hi folks, I'm a little confused about LTSP's boot process; the subnet I want (and right now, have) to use is behind NAT.
there are 2 DHCP servers running there, I have access only to one of those
I have only dumb switches
what I'm confused about is the behavior of the 2 DHCP requests
both servers respond to PXE queries, but my client always boots (w/PXE) from the "right" one and always gets an IP from the another during bootup
of course, it boots fine if I unplug my uplink connection
I'm just trying to come up with a solution to this issue. Is there any way to set a static IP as the server address
so the client can connect to the "right" box and won't bail out to an initramfs prompt?
php_szg: i have to run soon, but you'll probably want to use IPAPPEND in your pxelinux.cfg/default menu
alkisg is the master of IPAPPEND
vagrantc: thanks; I'll check that
php_szg: why do you have 2 dhcp servers?
If one of them is the ltsp server, you'd better just turn it off
Or, isolate it to a separate subnet
|14:26||Egyptian[LapTop1 has joined #ltsp|
|14:27||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
|14:27||johnny has left #ltsp|
|14:28||Egyptian[LapTop] has quit IRC|
|14:28||johnny has joined #ltsp|
|14:28||Egyptian[LapTop] has joined #ltsp|
|14:28||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
|14:33||Egyptian[LapTop1 has quit IRC|
Hi moldy :)
alkisg: about your question in #lns: yes, we have been thinking about doing this
Did you find any good way?
(for the server to send commands to the clients...)
i haven't really put any research into this yet
i did experiment with a helper daemon running inside the user session at some point
|14:37||plasticdoc has left #ltsp|
alkisg: but if you just want to run some command like firefox in the user session, we have a working implementation for that
alkisg: right now, it only works for gnome sessions, though
moldy: but it only works for thin clients, right?
I.e. it wouldn't work for fat clients...
alkisg: for fat client, you would use ssh, i guess
I'd prefer something like (from the client): ssh <use-control-socket> server command-listener | command-executioner
Currently I'm installing openssh-server on the thin/fat clients, but it's not a good approach...
I'd like to use reverse connections instead, the clients should connect to the server
|14:41||vagrantc has quit IRC|
I've been looking at socat, xmlrpc, ssh -R, gabriel and other alternatives, but I'm not sure what's the best solution here
(I'd also like it to be extra slim, to keep the thin client requirements low)
alkisg: I have access to only one of those. Provided that I'm the only one using the whole infrastructure, "ipappend 1" turned out to be a painless and fast solution :)
|14:48||plasticdoc has joined #ltsp|
|14:49||din_os has joined #ltsp|
|14:50||Egyptian[LapTop1 has joined #ltsp|
|14:52||moldy has quit IRC|
|14:54||Egyptian[LapTop] has quit IRC|
|14:57||php_szg has quit IRC|
|15:13||Selveste1 has joined #ltsp|
|15:22||vagrantc has joined #ltsp|
|15:26||wwx_ has quit IRC|
|15:26||wwx has joined #ltsp|
|15:30||plasticdoc has quit IRC|
|15:31||Selveste1 has quit IRC|
|15:40||bobby_C has joined #ltsp|
|15:44||mordocai has joined #ltsp|
|15:45||Selveste1 has joined #ltsp|
|15:56||alexqwesa__ has quit IRC|
|15:57||alexqwesa has joined #ltsp|
|15:57||pths has quit IRC|
|15:58||pths has joined #ltsp|
|16:13||mordocai has quit IRC|
|16:20||Egyptian[LapTop1 is now known as Egyptian[Laptop]|
|16:26||ogra_cmpc has quit IRC|
|16:27||epaphus has joined #ltsp|
|16:27||ogra_cmpc has joined #ltsp|
|16:48||pmatulis has quit IRC|
|16:52||bobby_C has quit IRC|
|16:58||moldy has joined #ltsp|
alkisg: hi again. sorry, the box that runs my irc client got into trouble.
alkisg: alkisg i don't have irc logs, can you repeat your last 2 or so messages? :)
|17:04||Lumiere has quit IRC|
|17:04||Lumiere has joined #ltsp|
|17:05||epaphus has quit IRC|
|17:09||nubae_ has joined #ltsp|
|17:10||nubae has quit IRC|
alkisg: thanks. ssh <use-control-socket> server command-listener | command-executioner <-- that sounds good to me
alkisg: i talked to yanqui about xmlrpc over ssl, but i would prefer to use ssh if possible
moldy: that's what I'd like too, but I haven't sorted out the redirections yet
but well, tcm development is more or less stalled at the moment, anyway
It doesn't matter, if we find a good way I could implement it and then you could copy the code whenever you continue with tcm
yanqui is very busy, and it's not much different with me
yup, that would be nice
The problem is that the | operator is one-way
So I probably need to code it in some programming language for a 2 way communication, so that the server not only sends commands, but it also receives the output
E.g. echo hostname
read output ==> the client hostname
read output ==> the user, etc
I've currently implemented this with openbsd-inet and with nc on the client, but I'd like to use the ssh channel instead of nc
|17:22||moldy has quit IRC|
|17:22||moldy_ has joined #ltsp|
|17:22||moldy_ is now known as moldy|
this box is having routing trouble... stupid hoster uses broken dhcp
thx. yep, yep.
i might be on-and-off another 2 times or so :)
|17:31||moldy has quit IRC|
|17:31||moldy has joined #ltsp|
|17:52||hersonls has quit IRC|
|17:54||alkisg has quit IRC|
If i move the image created from the LTSP server to a machine with just PXE and share the image via FTP will it work ?
I mean i only use the ltsp server to create the image and then use another machine to serv the pxe image and the client image via shares or ftp
|18:12||shamino_ has joined #ltsp|
|18:12||abeehc_ has joined #ltsp|
|18:12|||Ryan52 has joined #ltsp|
you can move the tftp image to another server sure
but is there a reason you want to do that?
why not just point your dhcp server at your ltsp machine? or are you already running a tftp server on that machine?
yes... to use just one machine
do you already have a tftp server?
|18:13||Ryan52 has quit IRC|
yes, and a ldap and samba DC
|18:13|||Ryan52 is now known as Ryan52|
you can't serve ltsp from windows
the machine is linux
you can't serve anything ltsp related on shares for regular ftp
I use ebox from ebox-platform
not sure why you would imagine you could
sorry.. that's impossible unless they have an ltsp 5 package
in which case you would just install ltsp 5 on that server
i'm afraid that if i install the ltsp server into the ebox server (most likely) i'll broke it
you can certainly serve the tftp files from that server
i would recommend against it
as then you would have to install a gui on the server too
i wanted to do something like so on a image and authenticate against the ebox ldap and use the roaming profiles ...
you can still do auth via ldap and roaming profiles
but really ltsp is roaming
if you wanted to
but sure.. you could use ltsp cluster perhaps
hm, i see what you say...
check out ltsp-cluster.org
|18:16||abeehc has quit IRC|
|18:16||shamino has quit IRC|
|18:16||jcastro has quit IRC|
i think that i'll do a custom image of "damn small linux" integrated into my domain and serv it via pxe
my need was to just "shove" the so to the fat clients and use the ebox as DC + profiles... but i think it dosen't work like i wanted :D
Anyway thank you for the advices and i'll keep on reading maybe i reach my goal afterall
|18:24||jcastro has joined #ltsp|
|18:31||plasticdoc has joined #ltsp|
|18:36||FGXR6 has quit IRC|
stgraber: could you point me to an howto or something like that, on how to SSH log into the main server from a thin client, and perform all the admin activities like if I were at the server keyboard & screen (i.e., at the real server, not the thin client chrooted environment)?
plasticdoc: that's the normal behavior of LTSP.
plasticdoc: you're usually logged into the server, the thin client is just a monitor/keyboard/mouse essentially.
|18:45||Egyptian[Home] has quit IRC|
|18:45||Egyptian[Laptop] has quit IRC|
stgraber: i just uploaded ltsp-docs to debian/sid ... you might want to pull it if you can still
vagrantc: You mean: if I am an user listed at admin in the server's /etc/group file, if I issue an sudo aptitude update; sudo aptitude install some_program, I will be doing that at the server and not inside the chrooted env?
plasticdoc: once you logged in, all programs you run run on the server
plasticdoc: sounds like you've got it. :)
moldy: You mean that I may admin/update/install/uninstall from any thin client terminal, and not at the server room at the server's screen/keyboard/mouse?
plasticdoc: if you want to run stuff on the client, then you need to do something "special". the normal case is that everything runs on the server.
|18:53||FGXR6 has joined #ltsp|
If I told you that I am successfully administering a rather complex LTSP for almost 3 years, and suffering with a rather noisy pair of high availability servers each time I need to upgrade/install/remove software... WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
the suffering ends here :)
welcome to one of the best features of LTSP.
Am I happy!
But wait, I am sure that there are apps, right now I remember OpenBravo (Java based), that if you install/reconfigure from a terminal it will be jammed and not work anymore.
Are there any known problems with Java Tomcat served apps that you know of?
vagrantc: One other rather annoying problem are the exact ports that one must keep open in order to feed the thin clients and keep them happy. Could you, please, point me to credible info on what is really needed in LTSP 5.2? Is it 22, 53, 69 (or is it 67-69?), 137-139, 445, 514, 9571-9572, 9100?
|19:10||pmatulis has joined #ltsp|
ltsp5 with ldm uses port 22 for sure. 9571-9572 are used for ldminfod and maybe nbdswapd? 2000 is used for NBD images on ubuntu, at least. don't remember what ports NFS uses, but some distros (debian) still use NFS by default.
53 is dns, iirc
so you only need to keep that open if your server is the dns server for your network
137-139 and 445 are smb/cifs/samba
|19:19||din_os has quit IRC|
moldy: do we still need 137-139 and 445, even if we do not have anything windows/MSFT at our network?
|19:20||Selveste1 has quit IRC|
What about 69/tcp tftp, 67/udp, 68/udp for dhcp?
|20:04||plasticdoc has left #ltsp|
|20:04||shawnp0wers has joined #ltsp|
|20:04||litlebuda has quit IRC|
|20:05||plasticdoc has joined #ltsp|
|20:08||plasticdoc has left #ltsp|
|20:13||shawnp0wers has quit IRC|
|20:23||mikkel has quit IRC|
|20:50||pmatulis has quit IRC|
plasticdoc: no, you don't need 137-139 and 445 unless you do samba
|21:08||Ctek has quit IRC|
|22:40||weenus has joined #ltsp|
|22:47||weenus has left #ltsp|
|23:03||vagrantc has quit IRC|
|23:06||vagrantc has joined #ltsp|
|23:11||vagrantc has quit IRC|
|23:22||vagrantc has joined #ltsp|
|23:33||vagrantc has quit IRC|
|23:33||vagrantc has joined #ltsp|
|23:41||alkisg has joined #ltsp|
|23:56||vagrantc has quit IRC|