[ale] fstab question

[Richard Bronosky]

Still no sshd by default?

On 11/4/09, Jim Popovitch <jimpop at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 18:01, Brian Pitts <brian at polibyte.com> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2009 02:45 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 14:24, Sean <kilpatms at speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> Why not use /sda2, /sda3, and /sda4?
>>>
>>> Because some (probably lonely under-sexed pale-skinned
>>> mothers-basement-living) individual thought that all Debian/Ubnutu
>>> desktop systems should have all the same software configurations as
>>> powerful backend servers.  For presumably the same reasons you get
>>> Bluetooth, NetworkManager (with PPP, GSM, etc), Avahi, etc on your
>>> Debian/Ubuntu Server installs.
>>
>> You sure you aren't thinking of Red Hat?
>
> No, I was sure about Ubuntu < 9.10.
>
>> Johnny stuck up for Debian, and now I'm going to stick up for Ubuntu. I
>> just downloaded and installed ubuntu-9.10-server-i386.iso
>>
>> After installation, it's using 733MB of disk space and 18MB of RAM (+/-
>> buffers/cache).
>>
>> It's running in runlevel 2. The contents of /etc/rc2.d are README,
>> S50rsync, S70dns-clean, S70pppd-dns, S99grub-common, S99ondemand, and
>> S99rc.local
>
> If that is the case, then Ubuntu has recently changed (kudus!)
>
> -Jim P.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

.!# RichardBronosky #!.