|00:31||vagrantc has left IRC (vagrantc!~vagrant@unaffiliated/vagrantc, Quit: leaving)|
|00:35||ben_roose has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org, Remote host closed the connection)|
|02:40||lucascastro has left IRC (email@example.com, Remote host closed the connection)|
|05:23||book` has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org, Ping timeout: 248 seconds)|
|05:33||book` has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
|06:10||GodFather has left IRC (GodFatherfirstname.lastname@example.org, Ping timeout: 256 seconds)|
|06:18||GodFather has joined IRC (GodFatheremail@example.com)|
|06:20||Statler has joined IRC (Statler!~Georg@p5B30E703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)|
|06:29||GodFather has left IRC (GodFatherfirstname.lastname@example.org, Ping timeout: 256 seconds)|
|06:37||GodFather has joined IRC (GodFatheremail@example.com)|
|06:59||ricotz has joined IRC (ricotz!~ricotz@ubuntu/member/ricotz)|
|08:34||Statler has left IRC (Statler!~Georg@p5B30E703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de, Remote host closed the connection)|
|09:09||Statler_Office has joined IRC (Statler_Office!~Georg@gwrz3.lohn24.de)|
|11:29||Faith has joined IRC (Faith!~Paty_@unaffiliated/faith)|
|12:11||david^pinet has joined IRC (david^pinet!b8940efc@gateway/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168)|
|13:23||lucascastro has joined IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|14:32||GodFather has left IRC (GodFatheremail@example.com, Quit: Ex-Chat)|
|14:32||GodFather has joined IRC (GodFatherfirstname.lastname@example.org)|
|14:32||ben_roose has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
|14:58||nehemiah has joined IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|14:59||robot__ has joined IRC (robot__!891a8196@gateway/web/freenode/ip.22.214.171.124)|
|15:33||nehemiah has left IRC (email@example.com)|
|15:34||robot__ has left IRC (robot__!891a8196@gateway/web/freenode/ip.126.96.36.199, Ping timeout: 260 seconds)|
|15:59||vagrantc has joined IRC (vagrantc!~vagrant@unaffiliated/vagrantc)|
|16:05||lucascastro has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org, Remote host closed the connection)|
|16:16||kjackal has left IRC (email@example.com, Ping timeout: 256 seconds)|
|17:38||lucascastro has joined IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|17:42||lucascastro has left IRC (email@example.com, Remote host closed the connection)|
|17:43||lucascastro has joined IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|19:18||Faith has left IRC (Faith!~Paty_@unaffiliated/faith, Quit: Leaving)|
|19:22||lucascastro has left IRC (email@example.com, Remote host closed the connection)|
|19:30||Statler_Office has left IRC (Statler_Office!~Georg@gwrz3.lohn24.de, Remote host closed the connection)|
|19:37||kjackal has joined IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|19:40||nehemiah has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
What can cause fat clients not to resolve DNS? /etc/resolv.conf gets set to 127.0.0.53, changing that manually to the routers address fixes it until a reboot.
nehemiah: generally, that means it expects a local DNS resolver to be running local and it's not. for ltsp specifically, I'm not sure what would cause that. did you use ltsp-manager to set it up?
Yes I did.
Would it help to post my dnsmasq conf file?
ah, probably a bug then. only 16.04 is reliable out of the box right now
What is setting that ip in resolv.conf
because, I guess a work around would be to set the DNS manually?
nehemiah: the resolv.conf ltsp code needs updating for 18.04
Unfortunately noone is working on ltsp currently, so I don't know when that will be done
possibly, I haven't done any hacking on ltsp since 14.04 so I'm sure what work around to use
Better use 16.04 for now
||cw: actually I did for 12.04 and 16.04, but never for 14.04 :D
would editing it in the chroot work? might have to re-edit when biulding updated clients
The symlink generation is broken
It's done live while the client boots
Bummer, it's working very well apart from that. And since we're only a couple of months out from official 18.04 release it would be great if I could at leas work around it somehow.
There's also a shutdown issue in 18.04, which needs a script that handles systemd better
I.e. clients hang on shutdown some times
Correct, and that
I've fixed those and a few others here locally, if we manage to get funding for ltsp I'll upload them to git...
I see, and understand. I hope that works out because we here think LTSP is amazing.
I think I'll also make the fixes available for people that donate to ltsp... we'll see
Okay, I'll keep checking in for that. We'd probably be able to chip in a little. We're a non-profit organization and we have very basic funds for our technology ourselves. But we have ~75 locations over the wold of which we want the largest part to use LTSP. It's about 5/50 workstations per location. That's what I'm working on, I'd like to create an automated Ubuntu installation (or any other way) that would leave any of those locations wi
th a running LTSP server. Needless to say, with this vision, LTSP is quite important to us because I don't know of any real alternative.
alkisg: :/ that's not very GPLv2 friendly...
||cw: of course it is, gpl and all the floss licenses do want developers to get paid when they write code
nehemiah: if you want, you can additionally control the servers themselves via epoptes
It makes it very very easy for a central sysadmin to administer all of them
right, I mean, you wanted to bounty it. but if it's already written...
|20:29||nehemiah has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|20:44||nehemiah has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
|20:46||nehemiah has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|20:46||nehemiah has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
the GPL would require anyone who has access to the code to give the same rights to anyone else who has the code
but if the code is not made public ... it only needs be shared with those using it
it also gives all parties the choice to share the code publicly
so i don't think holding on to personal code changes is against the GPL
unless you refuse to share them with people you've shared the code and/or binaries with
the GPL is very generous to the end-user, but it at least gives the developer that much
LTSP is mostly interpreted, so it's quite hard to not share the code with the users :)
|20:58||kjackal has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org, Ping timeout: 256 seconds)|
I didn't say is was illegal or against or anything, it's just not friendly.
I certainly don't expect anyone to write code for free, but sitting on code that's already written is uncommon in OSS
well, i can say alkis has volunteered the vast majority of major improvements in LTSP over the last 5+ years
and help countless people
which is also why i'm surprised by this
||cw: basically the options mostly are, let ltsp undeveloped, or find funding
I think the ltsp users would prefer the second option
I would call that one most user friendly
Personally, I have jobs waiting that pay a whole lot more than ltsp ever did; but I care for my users (schools), that's why I'm trying to find a way to keep working on ltsp
or find someone willing to volunteer the time to fix it ...
Frankly, I don't think ltsp can produce enough money to sustain its development without a company or a ministry of education etc behind it
or more than one for that matter.
I totally understand not having new development if there's no force driving it.
I'm just a little taken back by the statement that you have code already working you would only share to people that donate.
Ah, it's not something that relates to #ltsp here, it's a greek schools thing
I have 2 roles in Greece, one is supporting 300 schools and the other 1000 schools + developing ltsp
That second role stopped in 2015, hence the stopping of me working on ltsp, and that's what we're trying to convince the politicians to agree to continue now
So currently and while we're trying to convince them, I'm supporting the 300 schools in my region, but I stopped supporting the other Greek schools
So I need to maintain ltsp locally, but not in all of greece, because then the politicians will say "ok we have free support" and will never approve work on ltsp anymore
have you tried getting other schools on board to contribute too? I'm sure the greek schools aren't the only ones using it
Some Greek school teachers are willing to even pay for it from their own funds, because sometimes it's hard to convince the school principal to give money for software
could a compromise to only post it in patch form and not make a new release?
But I don't like that; teachers shouldn't be the ones paying for ltsp
right, it should be the school boards.
So while I made some preparations for crowdfunding pages etc, I never ended up activating them
they should see the value in it, that it's saving them money
maybe sold as support packages?
idk, lots of ideas. maybe when i retire I work on these kinds of things
Sure, an "ltsp-fixes" package could be developed and sold, and it could be completely unrelated to the ltsp codebase and licensing,
and those fixes could even be merged in the upstream codebase periodically,
but... I'm a programmer, I don't like trying to solve financial issues :D
So I try to avoid thinking about that
And I'm just hoping that the teachers will be able to convince the politicians
but once an ltsp-fixes package is released, any one recieving it could submit the patches back upstream
then it would be awkward not to integrate them
It could even be closed source, the tech problems aren't the hard ones here
Or the licensing could prevent them from being shared upstream before the developers agree
but derived works of GPL inherrit GPL
Fixing ltsp systemd shutdown issues isn't a derived work
I'd be perfectly content with a patch posted to a bug report that doesn't get merged until someone justifies spending time merging. even merged, someone still has to manage the upgrades and new features, so the larger schools still don't really get it "free"
The "ltsp-fixes" code may work without touching anything in any ltsp directory; it's not derived codebase
yes, i guess it depends on how it is implemented
|21:24||kjackal has joined IRC (email@example.com)|
using the various .d areas might land in some grey area ... but is probably mostly fine
It's even possible to make it work using the new ltspd hooks (.d directories), so it doesn't have any grey areas at all
But anyways those parts are not important. Finding a way to share the development costs with all the big users is... if big ltsp users paid only 1 euro per client per year, it would be more than enough to sustain ltsp development
But this is a problem for a company, not for a developer :D
|21:30||* alkisg waves goodnight for now! Cya guys :)|
|21:32||kjackal has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org, Ping timeout: 264 seconds)|
|21:33||* vagrantc waves|
|21:39||ben_roose has left IRC (email@example.com, Remote host closed the connection)|
|21:42||nehemiah has left IRC (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|22:01||ricotz has left IRC (ricotz!~ricotz@ubuntu/member/ricotz, Quit: Leaving)|
|22:16||JerryT has joined IRC (JerryTemail@example.com)|
Is there a way to manipulate _meta_keys that are protected with the API?
Some sort of override?
Wordpress REST API
for LTSP ?
wrong channel, maybe?
|23:00||vagrantc has left IRC (vagrantc!~vagrant@unaffiliated/vagrantc, Quit: leaving)|