System with 12 CPUs will not boot
in [General Linux]
|
From: Ignoramus3537 on 13 Jul 2010 10:21 On 2010-07-13, William Poaster <wp(a)64-bitBSD&Linuxmachines.com> wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > >> Hadron writes: >>> It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a >>> secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it >>> amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL >>> security. >> >> Who the hell said anything about "security"? I just asked why the >> server had a monitor. In most cases a monitor on a server is a waste of >> money, space, and electricity, but there are valid reasons for one. In >> the "locked server room with armed guard" scenario (not the one that >> was under discussion AFAIK), however, the monitor and keyboard probably >> should be locked in a closet in the server room when not in use. The >> monitor should certainly not be left hooked to one of the servers >> running a screensaver. >> >>> Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once >>> more. >> >> As you regularly demonstrate. > > Applause! > Great writing. But this developers server is in the same room as the developers' workstations. Should we take monitors away from the developers too? i
From: Hadron on 13 Jul 2010 10:29 John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> writes: > Hadron writes: >> It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a >> secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it >> amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL >> security. > > Who the hell said anything about "security"? I just asked why the I did. All this bullshit about servers not having monitors is total bollox in small businesses in many cases. Some people do not like opening their servers to ssh access. See if you can guess why? > server had a monitor. In most cases a monitor on a server is a waste of > money, space, and electricity, but there are valid reasons for one. In > the "locked server room with armed guard" scenario (not the one that > was under discussion AFAIK), however, the monitor and keyboard probably > should be locked in a closet in the server room when not in use. The Bullshit. That is almost NEVER the case. In a secure room the monitor (if they have one) remains connected and invariably displays diagnostics and/or security logs. They really do NOT lock the monitor in a closed cupboard in a locked secure room. Are you for real? More likely is all servers share a monitor and keyboard and are switched via a kvm solution. > monitor should certainly not be left hooked to one of the servers > running a screensaver. re:screensaver - Probably not. But if you think for one minute a small screen saver adversely affects a real server that is properly configured than you're nuts. More likely is it will be conmfigured by dpms or something to power off the monitor when not in use. > >> Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once >> more. > > As you regularly demonstrate. Not at all. But nice try.
From: Hadron on 13 Jul 2010 10:29 William Poaster <wp(a)64-bitBSD&Linuxmachines.com> writes: > John Hasler wrote: > >> Hadron writes: >>> It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a >>> secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it >>> amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL >>> security. >> >> Who the hell said anything about "security"? I just asked why the >> server had a monitor. In most cases a monitor on a server is a waste of >> money, space, and electricity, but there are valid reasons for one. In >> the "locked server room with armed guard" scenario (not the one that >> was under discussion AFAIK), however, the monitor and keyboard probably >> should be locked in a closet in the server room when not in use. The >> monitor should certainly not be left hooked to one of the servers >> running a screensaver. >> >>> Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once >>> more. >> >> As you regularly demonstrate. > > Applause! Why am I not surprised you agree. He is way off base.
From: Hadron on 13 Jul 2010 10:30 Ignoramus3537 <ignoramus3537(a)NOSPAM.3537.invalid> writes: > On 2010-07-13, William Poaster <wp(a)64-bitBSD&Linuxmachines.com> wrote: >> John Hasler wrote: >> >>> Hadron writes: >>>> It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a >>>> secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it >>>> amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL >>>> security. >>> >>> Who the hell said anything about "security"? I just asked why the >>> server had a monitor. In most cases a monitor on a server is a waste of >>> money, space, and electricity, but there are valid reasons for one. In >>> the "locked server room with armed guard" scenario (not the one that >>> was under discussion AFAIK), however, the monitor and keyboard probably >>> should be locked in a closet in the server room when not in use. The >>> monitor should certainly not be left hooked to one of the servers >>> running a screensaver. >>> >>>> Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once >>>> more. >>> >>> As you regularly demonstrate. >> >> Applause! >> > > Great writing. But this developers server is in the same room as the > developers' workstations. > > Should we take monitors away from the developers too? > > i These guys are idiots. They like to only discuss the 1337 extremes so they sounds knowledgeable. Ignore them. I am finally going to use the killfile. I cant bear to read any more of Poasters nonsense.
From: J G Miller on 13 Jul 2010 10:34
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:21:29 -0500, Ignoramus3537 wrote: > Should we take monitors away from the developers too? Yes. And the keyboards and mice. There should be a direct interface to the developer's cortex. |