Updating my Fedora 19 system this morning turned up a problem...the
newest version of google-chrome-unstable requires libmojo_system which
apparently is not available.
I posted a bug report...but anyone aware of any work-arounds ?
1984 was not meant as a blueprint for
Hi there. First post from someone returning to the RH family fold for
the first time since about 1996-1999, when I was a RHL user (v4 - v6
full time on my servers, v7/8/9 reviewed for various magazines - then
I switched to Caldera, then to SUSE and then to Ubuntu when it came
I'm trying to take a look at Fedora on real hardware as opposed to in
a VM. This is on a machine that multi-boots Windows 7, Ubuntu 13.10,
Crunchbang 11 and (used to) ElementaryOS.
I am trying to install on /dev/sda. It's a 1TB HD - there's also a
120GB SSD as /dev/sdb with Ubuntu's root filesystem and Win7 on it.
I have a pre-configured set of folders:
/dev/sda10 /home 150GB
/dev/sda11 (NTFS shared data) ~750GB
/dev/sda5 / 16GB <- this is where I want to put Fedora; it used to be
/dev/sda6 (Crunchbang /) 16GB
/dev/sda7 (FAT32, Windows pagefile) 8GB
/dev/sda8 (Linux swap) 8GB
So I need to tell Fedora to put root on sda5 and /home on sda10 and
use sda8 for swap. I want the bootloader on sda5 as well. I'm
currently using Ubuntu's GRUB, as it's my primary OS, but I plan to
replace this with a standalone boot manager.
I managed to get the Fedora installer to format sda5 but then, having
16GB of / + 150GB of /home and 8GB of swap, it said that it didn't
have enough space for the 6.7GB of stuff it needed to install and
crashed out with a series of Python errors.
Now it can't "see" a distro on sda5, it won't let me choose it as an
option. I can't remove and recreate it, either - or at least, I can't
see how. I also can't see how to tell it to put the bootloader in the
Is it me, or is the installer just not flexible enough to cope with
this sort of scenario?
Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk * GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven(a)hotmail.com * Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 * Cell: +44 7939-087884
i'm trying to figure out what is the best approach for files and folders
permissions in case of a shared webserver.
we are 2-3 developers and we have a server on which we installed Fedora
20 as web server for our development testing purpose.
all websites should be stored in /var/www/html/ directory
now let's say we are 2 devs called: "alain" and "francois" (those are
our fedora user accounts.
/var/www/html/ owner is root:root
now what should we do to allow each dev to use FTP and created/delete/
modify files and folders to create website structure ?
should we create a group like and add into it devs ?
Earlier this month, I posted that Firefox would not start for me. Ed Greshko kindly showed my his output when he started Firefox from the command line. I noticed a bunch of Gnome stuff and assumed that there was some sort of dependency I was missing, installed Gnome, and it seemed to work. Ed noted that I was solving a small problem with a big hammer, but to me, if installing gnome (a one-command fix) worked, then I didn't really care what the problem was as long as it was fixed.
Well, Ed was right in his criticism. The problem popped up again in a few days. I now know the problem, and I know a workaround, but I don't know the fix. Here it is:
Firefox will only allow one invocation of itself on my machine. Sometimes, if I invoke the program by clicking an icon, it will come up with an error message that says you can only have one copy running. However, sometimes that message does not appear, and it simply dies silently. Moreover, I don't remember ever getting that error message when I run it from command line, and I'm a very terminal-oriented guy.
But that's OK. The *problem* is that if I kill firefox by clicking on the kill-window button rather than the Quit button, the window goes away, but firefox continues in the background. Thus, if I kill firefox by closing the window, I can't start it again without running ps, finding the process, and manually killing it. It's an easy workaround, but a minor inconvenience.
Worse, however, if I forget to do that and log out, appearently the next time I turn on KDE, it comes on as a background process but never shows a window. Once again, that's not a huge problem now that I know to look for it.
I still don't know the fix, but the workaround is easy.
So, installing Gnome "fixed" the problem because I ended up cleanly exiting and restarting the machine, not because of anything Gnome did.
i setup an FTP server to allow me and my friend to upload, create,
delete, modify files/directories into /var/www/html directory (as ftp
however if authentification works great, i'm not able (even locally so
using ftp localhost) to create a simple directory e.g. "test"
here is the getsebool -a | grep ftp result:
ftp_home_dir --> on
ftpd_anon_write --> off
ftpd_connect_all_unreserved --> off
ftpd_connect_db --> off
ftpd_full_access --> off
ftpd_use_cifs --> off
ftpd_use_fusefs --> off
ftpd_use_nfs --> off
ftpd_use_passive_mode --> off
httpd_can_connect_ftp --> off
httpd_enable_ftp_server --> off
sftpd_anon_write --> off
sftpd_enable_homedirs --> off
sftpd_full_access --> off
sftpd_write_ssh_home --> off
tftp_anon_write --> off
tftp_home_dir --> off
basically i should be able.
after searching on internet i discovered that people use to set
"ftpd_full_access" to ON...
but is this really what needs to be done ? i have a feeling it opens
others issues about security, or am i wrong ?
The subject line says it all... Anybody try to get this device set
up, then hear about the defective antenna that was apparently shipped
with this device for a while, get the new (correct) antenna shipped to
them and then had any success getting this device working with Fedora
Depending on your responses, I might just return the item and get my
Eagerly awaiting your experiences with this device.
Steven P. Ulrick
I've seen this, or something similar in the bug track, but I am not
seeing a workaround.
I have a VM running FC20 (on an ESXi 5.5 host). I am using the KDE
environment. It was running great until a couple of days ago All of a
sudden, out of the blue, it rebooted and now comes up and tries to start
the GUI, but drops out to a text login. If I reboot or shut down from
the commandline it pops up the GUI again to shut down. StartX will not
start the GUI.
When I do a tail of /var/log/messages, I see the following:
localhost systemd: Failed to open private bus connection: Failed to
connect to socket /run/user/0/dbus/user_bus_socket: No such file or
I have tried uninstalling the VMWare tools to see if this would resolve
the issue. It has not.
Any assistance that you can give me to get it running would be greatly
Frank B. Tanner III
im running fedora 20 and i have a different color scheme im having issues
with one text. I use email online and when i compose a new email is when i
have issues. the txt color is a faintly light grey over white. do any of
you know which spesific color i would change in the options to change this
to a standard black?
This may not be a "fedora" problem, so if you know where I should ask this, please let me know. This is a mail problem, but I suspect that the "real" problem is named or something else. I don't know.
OK, here goes. I have a personal machine that has 5 static ip addresses. Here's my hosts file:
% cat hosts
# Automatically generated by OnApp (2.3.3)
126.96.36.199 www.forensicpath.biz forensicpath.biz forensicpath
188.8.131.52 hope.billoblog.combilloblog.com billoblog
184.108.40.206 www.bill-oliver.combill-oliver.com bill-oliver
220.127.116.11 www.cindyo.netcindyo.net cindyo
18.104.22.168 www.forensicsurveys.comforensicsurveys.com forensicsurveys
Here's some hostname fun:
22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
All of these have virtual hosts wrt apache, though only a couple actually have web pages, and, it all seems to work well enough, web-wise.
But here's the rub. I use sendmail for my MTA, and I use billoblog.com as my SMART_HOST. Sendmail relays all these domains without a problem, AFAIK. All the users on this machine have <user>@billoblog.com as their email address except my wife, who uses "cindy(a)cindyo.net."
But... Cindy (my wife, cindy(a)cindyo.net) is having her mail rejected by SuddenLink. If she sends mail to <user>@suddenlink.com, it gets bounced. The error sent by SuddenLink is simply "You cannot send email to this domain." Mail will send fine everywhere else -- aol, verizon, amazon, etc.
Oddly, if *I* send email **from the same machine** as "vendor(a)billoblog.com", SuddenLink will accept and deliver the mail.
So, I'm thinking, what's the difference between me sending email as "vendor(a)billoblog.com" and "cindy(a)cindyo.net" from the same server? One is relayed and one is not. The mail is seen by SuddenLink as being delivered by "hope.billoblog.com," which is my mailserver's hostname. So, the only thing I can thing of is that SuddenLink is seeing a relay and assuming it's being spoofed. But I don't know -- I called SuddenLink and they had no idea why they were bouncing the mail, didn't care, and said that they didn't support personal servers so go away.
So, I thought, hmmmm... I wonder if it would be possible to have a different hostname for different ip addresses? In other words, could I, on the same machine, serve mail as "hope.billoblog.com" when the user was "vender(a)billoblog.com" and be "www.cindyo.net" when the user was "cindy(a)cindyo.net?"
I tried the kneejerk thing of simply adding www.cindyo.net to the
sendmail SMART_HOST, i.e. changing
That just started giving me DNS MX loop errors.
If there's a postfix fix, I'll happily switch over...