[02:09] <pipes> v
[02:11] <mralphabet> w
[03:49] <ajmitch> hello pipes 
[05:17] <hansin321> clear
[03:48] <mattwalston> The dhcpd3 has me confused... the config and lease file test passes, the service can be started via $ sudo dhcpd3 but the init script fails... any suggestions?
[03:51] <ivoks> start it with init
[03:51] <ivoks> and check syslog
[03:58] <mattwalston> ivoks: thanks, i finally found the problem
[03:59] <mattwalston> ltsp overides the dhcpd.conf with a statically programmed set of c-class private IPs
[04:05] <ivoks> heh
[05:14] <ivoks> woof...
[05:48] <Remo_A> Hi all, I'd like to find out informations about having an own webserver and the pro's and con's of a physically one at home to one hosted remoetly, considering costs, stability issues, control and thelike
[05:50] <Remo_A> Hi MajorPayne: So the bandwidth is important, you said, what would be a good bandwidth if you want to serve around 1000 visits per day?
[05:51] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I doubt you would need much.  Unless they all happen at the same time.
[05:51] <MajorPayne> Do you have a dynamic IP?
[05:51] <Remo_A> yes, but that is okay using dyndns or thelike
[05:52] <Remo_A> (I have a router, which contacts dyndns on a regular basis, if the ip has changed)
[05:52] <ScottK> Remo_A: Not really.
[05:52] <ScottK> It sort of works most of the time, but if reliability is important to you, you need a static IP.
[05:52] <Remo_A> okay
[05:53] <Remo_A> it sure is.
[05:53] <ScottK> Additionally, you need to check the terms of service for your account.
[05:53] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I have both a server here is my house and a hosted server.  I find they are good for different things.
[05:53] <ScottK> In many cases terms of service prohibit you from running servers.
[05:53] <ScottK> You could get your account canceled.
[05:53] <Remo_A> really? Okay, I'll check on that, thanks!
[05:54] <ScottK> I run servers from my house quite reliably, but I have business class service with static IPs that permit it.
[05:54] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I mentioned that in #ubuntu.  Your ISP sometimes doesn't like that.
[05:54] <Remo_A> MajorPayne: yes, best thing is I call them on monday, I think
[05:54] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: For the most part if you run a server and no one uses it they don't care, or would give you a warning before they do anything, but you have to be careful.
[05:55] <MajorPayne> With 1000 hits/day, they may notice.
[05:55] <Remo_A> yes, I don't want to keep it secret
[05:55] <Remo_A> better to be on the safe side
[05:56] <ScottK> OTOH, unless you have options for another service provider if they do cancel you, you ought to think seriously about the risk.
[05:57] <Remo_A> hm, no actually this is the only provider, that provides us cable-access, I would have to go back to the ADSL days
[05:57] <MajorPayne> Yea.  I emailed my service provider.  It says no servers in there TOS, but they responded and told me that as long as it does not use much bandwith they don't care.  And they also told me they would give me a warning before doing anything about it.
[05:57] <Remo_A> that sounds fair
[05:58] <Remo_A> but what is "much" bandwidth
[05:58] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: If you only want webhosting your can very cheap shared hosting.
[05:58] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I don't know :-P, but I didn't hit it yet.
[05:59] <Remo_A> that's my point, I'm trying to figure out, what would be better here, setting up an own server or using shared hosting.
[05:59] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: If you have to pay for the server in the first place just go with the shared hosting.
[06:00] <Remo_A> but there will be much traffic, and 10-100 visits at the same time could be possible
[06:00] <MajorPayne> In most cases shared hosting cost less than $5.  And you can also get a real domain name if you like.
[06:01] <Remo_A> that's already settled, I was using a lot of shared hosting partners in the past.
[06:01] <Remo_A> I just wanted to try out something new this time
[06:01] <MajorPayne> Ahh.  Best talk to your ISP.
[06:01] <Remo_A> yes I am going to
[06:04] <Remo_A> it's just, that the bandwidth for private clients have increased insanely and costs dropped proportionally
[06:05] <Remo_A> example: 10Mbit Down, 1Mbit Up: 48 EUR a month
[06:06] <Remo_A> and I can't see a way, how a private client can use this amount of upstream-bandwidth without having a server :)
[06:09] <Nafallo> Remo_A: 10Mbit down is easy to fill, 1Mbit even more so... it only takes a torrent...
[06:09] <Remo_A> they're slowing down p2p ports, but yes, of course
[06:10] <MajorPayne> I filled my 1 MB up 10 down all the time when I had it.
[06:11] <Remo_A> but in terms of server usage, how good would 1Mbit up be, anyway?
[06:12] <Nafallo> depends on what services, and how busy it would be.
[06:12] <Remo_A> exactly
[06:13] <Remo_A> 1000 hits a day and a max of 50 at the same time for starters
[06:13] <Remo_A> webserver with a highly used database (sql)
[06:15] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I don't know.  I never ran a popular web server on my home account.
[06:17] <Remo_A> me neither, that's why I ask :)
[06:17] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: If your ISP does not mind, give it a shot and ask the users.  If they say it is too slow move it to shared hosting.
[06:18] <Remo_A> pretty good idea
[06:19] <Remo_A> I'd just have to build it very  adaptable (there is a better word, I know *g).
[06:20] <Remo_A> or setting the server up like the shared hosting company I'd switch to in case of problems
[06:20] <Remo_A> I think I'll try that way
[06:26] <boxrock> can someone tell me how to add firefox extensions (like adblock) to my LTSP server so all users will access them by default?
[06:42] <Remo_A> hm, 1MBit = 0.119209MByte, which would produce in only 24hours fully used: 10'300 MB Traffic
[06:44] <Remo_A> they will never let me do this *g
[06:44] <Remo_A> but at least it's good to know, how much traffic could be used there!
[06:45] <MajorPayne> Remo_A: I doubt it would be fully used all the time.
[06:45] <Remo_A> of course, I just wanted to see, how much 24hours would be
[06:47] <Remo_A> it just says: in one second 122KB could be downloaded
[06:48] <Remo_A> I'm just trying to find out, after how many people accessing at the same time would feel a hard lagging
[06:51] <Remo_A> I think, using load balancing, 4KB/s should be enough for a not so bloated page.
[06:52] <Remo_A> hm
[07:23] <ivoks> a serious bug in samba
[07:27] <ScottK> ivoks: This is news?
[07:27] <ivoks> :)
[07:27] <ivoks> well, it's not quite samba bug
[07:28] <ivoks> shares-admin delets share, but the share is still available :)
[07:28] <ivoks> bug 70590
[07:28] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 70590 in gnome-system-tools "Shares do not get unshared but user is unaware" [High,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/70590
[08:33] <lamont> so shares-admin should reload samba, eh?
[08:34] <ivoks> or samba it self
[08:34] <lamont> as in tell samba to reload...
[08:35] <ivoks> samba already does that
[08:35] <ivoks> reloads periodiclt
[08:35] <ivoks> periodicly
[08:35] <ivoks> change of config file should trigger that
[08:37] <infinity> It does it fairly often...
[08:38] <infinity> Something inotifyish could be retrofitted in there to replace the polling code, I guess.
[08:38] <ivoks> right
[08:38] <infinity> But that'd be terribly Linux-specific, and never accepted upstream.
[08:40] <ivoks> reload isn't good enough
[08:43] <ivoks_> my kernel exploded :/
[08:45] <ivoks> so, reload isn't enough, full restart does the job :/
[08:49] <infinity>        Sending the smbd a SIGHUP will cause it to reload its smb.conf configuration file within a
[08:49] <infinity>        short period of time.
[08:49] <infinity> From the manpage...
[08:49] <infinity> Note "within a short period of time".
[08:49] <ivoks> hehe
[08:50] <ivoks> as soon as smb.conf is changed, smbclient doesn't show share
[08:50] <ivoks> but if you have it mounted, you can still write and read from it
[08:50] <infinity> I imagine it's something akin to an apache graceful reload, where it tried to not be too disruptive about it.
[08:50] <infinity> s/tried/tries/
[08:50] <ivoks> so i guess it does SIGHUP, but...
[08:50] <ScottK> Can the polling periodicity be reduced?
[08:51] <infinity> Perhaps, but at an obvious cost.
[08:52] <infinity> Anyhow, way past bedtime for me.
[08:52] <ScottK> Right.  But the cost may be less than restarting the whole system.  Just a thought.
[08:52] <infinity> We can argue about this another time. :)
[08:52] <ivoks> :)
[08:52] <ivoks> infinity: good night ;)
[08:53] <ivoks> or we can talk with people in #samba
 depends on the tool I guess - do you want the changes to be  used immediately? If so, then it should restart the main smbd I guess
[09:55] <kyled185> anyone here know how to install the 7.04 server with KVM
[09:56] <kyled185> and when I say KVM, I mean the virtualization
[09:56] <ivoks> just install 7.04 and kvm package
[09:56] <ivoks> and that's it
[09:57] <kyled185> er, I'm running this on my laptop, I want to install the server on a virtual environment
[09:57] <ivoks> ubuntu server?
[09:58] <ivoks> it's tricky cause of ubuntu installer's splash, so you should rmmod kvm from kernel first, and install without it
[09:58] <kyled185> hmm ok
[09:58] <ivoks> after that, you can normaly use kvm support in kernel
[09:59] <ivoks> other option is to do installation with qemu+kqemu
[09:59] <kyled185> how would I do that?
[10:00] <ivoks> the same way you would do it with kvm
[10:00] <ivoks> just instead of kvm, you should use qemu+kqemu
[10:01] <kyled185> ok
[10:02] <kyled185> alright things are starting to work now
[10:04] <kyled185> alright thanks
[10:04] <ivoks> np
[10:09] <osmosis> kyled185: i was wondering hte same thing.
[10:09] <osmosis> and whats the difference between  xen-desktop and xen-server ?
[10:10] <kyled185> I unfortunately don't have much experience with xen (or any kind of virtualualization for that matter) ;(
[10:10] <osmosis> kyled185: what are you trying to do?
[10:10] <osmosis> kyled185: I was just reading about Xen and KVM and trying to decide what to play with. I want to see what this virtualization stuff is all about.
[10:11] <kyled185> I am running a server on my laptop so that I can develop and test server apps without having to be physically connected to a server.
[10:11] <ivoks> don't know exaclty, i prefere kvm
[10:11] <kyled185> I am using KVM
[10:11] <osmosis> kyled185: are you talking about  Ubuntu Server version ?
[10:11] <kyled185> yeah
[10:11] <osmosis> kyled185: Well...Ubuntu Server is mostly just ubuntu with Xorg and Gnome installed. I run all the server stuff right on my desktop install. no problems. I admin a bunch of ubuntu server installs also.
[10:11] <kyled185> the Ubuntu Server will be running in the KVM environment
[10:12] <osmosis> kyled185: KVM in itself sounds pretty cool though. Id like to know how to set that up.
[10:13] <ivoks> kvm is great
[10:13] <kyled185> yeah, I'm partly doing it just to learn some about running VMs and partly so that I can have a level of abstraction between my server and my regular laptop environment
[10:13] <ivoks> you can migrate virtualized system to another hardware :)
[10:13] <ivoks> while virtualized system is running ;)
[10:13] <osmosis> ivoks: do you know how it differse from Xen? or are the different implementations of the same thing?
[10:14] <ivoks> osmosis: kvm can be used only on new processors
[10:14] <ivoks> while xen on all
[10:14] <osmosis> ivoks: so if you have a new processor, there is no reason for Xen ?
[10:15] <ivoks> osmosis: xen can utilize VT on new processors
[10:15] <osmosis> ivoks: how about...does KVM support limiting system resources to OS instances like Xen does ?
[10:15] <kyled185> I heard (can't remember where) that KVM is faster when on the hardware that supports it
[10:15] <ivoks> osmosis: so it's basicaly, thing of choice
[10:15] <osmosis> ivoks: okay, so they are the same idea mostly.
[10:15] <ivoks> osmosis: kvm is normal process on linux, so you can do everything
[10:16] <ivoks> new version also supports virtualized SMP systems
[10:16] <osmosis> http://www.gridvm.org/xen-vs-kvm.html
[10:18] <ivoks> this is rather old :)
[10:18] <osmosis> yah
[10:19] <kyled185> from personal experience, when running a computer with Xen, it seems to make things unstable
[10:19] <kyled185> I had Fedora 7, and things just were not working right when I used the xen enabled kernel
[10:19] <osmosis> kyled185: that might not be true on newer versions though. I remember that on older versions, but it was because of the libc libraries that the distros were using a year ago.
[10:19] <osmosis> here is something newer: http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18301&comment_id=256987
[10:22] <osmosis> sounds like KVM is a newer, fresher design...but Xen is more feature complete.
[10:22] <kyled185> yeah
[10:23] <ivoks> i would say it that way, but it's 10:30PM, so i don't care :)
[10:23] <ivoks> s/would/wouldn't/
[10:24] <osmosis> KVM can be controlled as a system process with  NICE and whatnot, but the Xen hypervisor allows me to set RAM limits, CPU Limits to guest slices.   1:24 PM here.
[10:24] <kyled185> bah it looks like that server install is hung up
[10:24] <ivoks> osmosis: kvm can do that too :)
[10:24] <osmosis> ivoks: ohhreeeaallly
[10:25] <ivoks> kyled185: it's not, give it some time :)
[10:25] <cyclops> hello
[10:25] <kyled185> I will
[10:25] <ivoks> osmosis: kvm --help
[10:25] <osmosis> Why is linux accepting Xen into 2.6.23 then ?
[10:25] <cyclops> I just installed the amd64-generic and I am trying to set up Internet servers
[10:26] <cyclops> can anyone be of help
[10:26] <cyclops> I am currently trying to locate telnet server because I can telnet out but cant recieve any connections at the moment
[10:27] <osmosis> cyclops: telent is horrible security. why not use ssh ?
[10:28] <cyclops> ok
[10:28] <cyclops> I tried ssh also but I think the ports are somehow locked
[10:28] <cyclops> It is refusing connection even from localhost
[10:29] <osmosis> cyclops: well you would probably be better to figure out why your ssh isnt working, rather then trying telnet instead.
[10:29] <kyled185> I don't think the ubuntu server comes with ssh installed by default
[10:29] <ivoks> osmosis: why not?
[10:30] <osmosis> ivoks: why not what ?
[10:30] <ivoks> osmosis: xen in linux
[10:30] <cyclops> osmosis: I really just want to test the connections but it is telling me that port 22 refused the connection. How do I make it accept connections from localhost
[10:30] <cyclops> I have not really implemented any kind of firewall
[10:30] <osmosis> ivoks: because KVM is already in the kernel.
[10:30] <kyled185> cyclops,  sudo apt-get install openssh-server
[10:30] <osmosis> cyclops: why dont you check if you ssh server is running.
[10:31] <cyclops> ok
[10:31] <cyclops> thanks, let me try that
[10:31] <ivoks> osmosis: so... we have couple of different schedulers in kernel too, lots of different stuff for same purpose
[10:31] <ivoks> osmosis: linux is about choice
[10:31] <kyled185> ivoks, I was under the impression that we don't have multiple schedulers (hence all the bickering)
[10:31] <osmosis> ivoks: oh yah...then how come the staircase deadline scheduler isnt included in linux ?
[10:32] <kyled185> haha
[10:32] <osmosis> high five!
[10:32] <ivoks> osmosis: i'm not kernel dev :)
[10:32] <osmosis> ivoks: i hears its not that hard with a little dedication. Its just c code.
[10:33] <ivoks> osmosis: i code on some other places :)
[10:33] <osmosis> ivoks: half of the core kernel devs work for IBM, Intel, etc and are employeed...but the other half of the guys have normal day jobs and just kernel dev at night.
[10:33] <kyled185> I've looked at some of the code, it's very clean
[10:33] <osmosis> ivoks: yah...im sticking to python.
[10:33] <cyclops> osmosis: thanks, I didnt really install the ssh-server
[10:34] <cyclops> But it is working now
[10:34] <osmosis> ken patches merged into mainline...  http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5ead97c84fa7d63a6a7a2f4e9f18f452bd109045
[10:34] <osmosis> xen
[10:35] <kyled185> ivoks, is it normal for an installation in qemu to hang for 10 minutes
[10:36] <osmosis> in ubuntu, anyone know the difference between  xen-server and xen-desktop ?
[10:36] <osmosis> ubuntu-xen-desktop - Xen software for running on servers.
[10:36] <osmosis> ubuntu-xen-server - Xen software for running on servers.
[10:36] <ivoks> kyled185: i guess not, try alt+f2 and running some commands inside installer
[10:42] <osmosis> "However, the leader of the open source Xen project, Ian Pratt, said he doesn't see any competitive issues with KVM in the 2.6.20 kernel.
[10:42] <osmosis> "Xen is a true hypervisor, whereas KVM is a legacy virtualization solution akin to VMware Workstation, VMserver and Microsoft Virtual PC," Pratt told internetnews.com. "It lacks the benefits of para-virtualization performance enhancements that have been pioneered by Xen and are now being copied by VMware and Microsoft." 
[10:43] <osmosis> and more...  "paravirtualization is a virtualization technique that presents a software interface to virtual machines that is similar but not identical to that of the underlying hardware. This requires operating systems to be explicitly ported to run on top of the virtual machine monitor "
[10:43] <osmosis> sorry for the big paste, seemed relevant though.
[10:43] <kyled185> hm
[10:43] <ivoks> osmosis: that's like asking bill gates does he prefere windows or linux
[10:44] <ivoks> you tell me what is better
[10:44] <ivoks> to run unmodified system in virtual env
[10:44] <osmosis> but it explains what the difference between xen and kvm is.  Xen requires the guest OS to be aware that it is a virtual instance, rather then thinking it is actually running on its own hardware. They can do this because they can modify linux. 
[10:44] <ivoks> or to run modified ssytem (kernel and libc) in virual env
[10:44] <kyled185> ivoks, yeah but the project lead should have a pretty good idea as to what is superior in xen's implementation
[10:45] <osmosis> Thats why the ubuntu wiki recommends KVM for windows emulation...because windows isnt modified to run on xen. Linux is though.
[10:45] <ivoks> but saying that kvm is legacy... hehe
[10:45] <osmosis> Yah, its a bit of a cheapshot, but thats business.
[10:45] <ivoks> you can run unmodified windows on xen too
[10:46] <ivoks> and linux isn't modified to run on xen
[10:46] <ivoks> it need special kernel, yes
[10:46] <osmosis> ivoks: its "special"  ..not modified. hehe.
[10:46] <ivoks> yeah... for example
[10:46] <ivoks> let's talk about production enviorment
[10:46] <ivoks> if you have xen
[10:47] <ivoks> then you guest system must have xen enabled kernel
[10:47] <ivoks> you loose security support cause of that
[10:47] <ivoks> cause xen isn't in kernel (and no, 2.6.23 will not include whole xen)
[10:47] <ivoks> if you have kvm, you run with normal kernel and have normal security support
[10:48] <ivoks> + kvm is part of kernel, so you have security support for kvm too
[10:48] <osmosis> ivoks: there is nothing unsecure about the xen userspace tools not being in the kernel. it doesnt make sense for them to be in the kernel.
[10:48] <ivoks> and on my tests, kvm had better performance results than xen
[10:48] <ivoks> i'm not talking about userspace
[10:48] <ScottK> If there are any lighttpd fans out there, we just got a dapper update pushed out the door....
[10:48] <ivoks> i'm talking about hypervison
[10:49] <osmosis> ScottK: backport ?
[10:49] <osmosis> ivoks: whats the problem with hypervisor ?
[10:49] <ScottK> No, bugfix in dapper-updates.
[10:49] <ivoks> ScottK: i was fan, untill i discovered that we ship apache in worst possible state and that it's actually faster :D
[10:49] <ScottK> Heh.
[10:49] <osmosis> ivoks: where is security lost ?
[10:49] <ivoks> osmosis: xen is not part of the kernel
[10:50] <ivoks> can we agree on that?
[10:50] <osmosis> ivoks: ok
[10:50] <ScottK> osmosis: I'm open to a lighttpd backport after we get the latest security fixes done if you want to request it in dapper-backports.
[10:50] <ivoks> drivers that aren't in kernel require special care
[10:50] <ivoks> with drivers in kernel, you only keep an eye on kernel
[10:50] <ivoks> with drivers all over the world, you have to keep an eye on whole wolrd
[10:50] <ivoks> world
[10:51] <osmosis> ivoks: there is more Xen code in the linux kernel (2.6.23) then there is KVM code,...but Xen has its userspace tools which are not part of the kernel. hypervisor.
[10:51] <ivoks> same thing with xen and kvm
[10:51] <ivoks> osmosis: not whole xen's kernel part is in kernel
[10:51] <ivoks> and what does more mean?
[10:51] <osmosis> ivoks: line count.
[10:51] <ivoks> xen has much more code cause it works other way
[10:52] <ivoks> kvm doesn't care about old proecessors
[10:52] <ivoks> and doesn't support them
[10:52] <osmosis> ivoks: xen has entire x386 architecture in the kernel now.
[10:52] <ivoks> ofcourse there would be less code
[10:52] <ivoks> this isn't seriuos conversation
[10:53] <ivoks> counting lines doesn't mean anything
[10:53] <kyled185> uh oh... Peer has struck
[10:54] <osmosis> there is nothing unsecure about xen.
[10:54] <ivoks> i didn't say it's insecure
[10:55] <osmosis> ivoks: kvm requires QEMU...and that isnt part of the kernel either.
[10:55] <ivoks> stop
[10:55] <ivoks> look
[10:56] <ivoks> i'm not talking about userspace tools *at all*
[10:56] <osmosis> whats the sound
[10:56] <osmosis> everybody look whats going down
[10:56] <osmosis> your talking about kernel patches ?
[10:56] <ivoks> i'm talking only about kernel part
[10:56] <ivoks> on one side is xen
[10:56] <ivoks> big, but still not whole in kernel
[10:56] <osmosis> so ever with 2.6.23, kernel patches are still going to be needed ?
[10:57] <ivoks> when i say that i mean that not whole xen kernel part is now in 2.6.23
[10:57] <ivoks> there are still parts on xen's kernel part wich aren't in linux
[10:57] <ivoks> osmosis: yes
[10:57] <osmosis> ivoks: so the 2.6.23 xen patches are just for guest kernel? 
[10:58] <ivoks> right
[10:58] <ivoks> and only i386 client patches
[10:59] <ivoks> no amd64
[10:59] <ivoks> no server side
[10:59] <ivoks> with 2.6.23, you'll be able to use unmodified kernel as a guest
[11:00] <ivoks> and that's it
[11:00] <ivoks> still lots of code outside kernel
[11:00] <ivoks> and just cause xen has bigger line count... well... don't count lines - they don't mean anything
[11:01] <ivoks> enough for today
[11:01] <ivoks> 'night all
[11:01] <osmosis> bye
[11:01] <kyled185> see ya
[11:02] <osmosis> http://kerneltrap.org/node/8088
[11:03] <osmosis> #
[11:03] <osmosis> Xen is a fairly large project, providing both paravirtualization and full virtualization. It is designed as a standalone kernel, which only requires Linux to perform I/O. This makes it rather large, as it has its own scheduler, memory manager, timer handling, and machine initialization.
[11:03] <osmosis> kvm, in contrast, uses the standard Linux scheduler, memory management, and other services. This allows the kvm developers to concentrate on virtualization, building on the core kernel instead of replacing it.
[11:03] <osmosis> #
[11:12] <osmosis> hmm...that article makes kvm sound pretty good.
[11:16] <kyled185> yeah, except for Intel's lack of real mode support
[11:17] <kyled185> which is giving me a headache
[11:21] <osmosis> kyled185: i get a core dump right after I launch kvm.
[11:21] <kyled185> what are you trying to virtualize?
[11:22] <osmosis> kyled185: kvm -no-acpi -m 384 -cdrom /dev/scd0 -boot d windows.img      but i just threw a ubuntu desktop 7.04 cd in the drive to test.
[11:23] <kyled185> osmosis, you're probably running into the same problem I had
[11:23] <osmosis> kyled185: cool..whats the solution
[11:23] <kyled185> osmosis, qemu -no-kqemu -m 512 -cdrom ./ubuntu-7.04-server-i386.iso -boot d ./server.img
[11:23] <kyled185> osmosis, if you run that, it should be able to install (although I'm on my 4th attempt and it looks like it's hung up again)
[11:25] <kyled185> osmosis, I'm looking into a fix now for that, because it's apparently not working
[11:26] <kyled185> osmosis, kvm -no-acpi -m 512 -cdrom /dev/cdrom -boot d windows.img
[11:27] <kyled185> osmosis, that's what I used to install windows
[11:27] <osmosis> cool...i think that worked.
[11:35] <osmosis> kyled185: have any idea what would happen if I launched kvm without xorg? would it just take over my screen ?
[11:35] <kyled185> osmosis, I don't know, I've never tried it but that's an interesting idea if it works
[11:36] <osmosis> kyled185: just wondering if I could do a kvm ubuntu server from inside a ubuntu server.
[11:37] <kyled185> osmosis, yeah, that'd be kind of cool.  I would think it would be possible since VMs are mostly used by servers
[11:39] <osmosis> kyled185: yah...thats a major point.
[11:43] <osmosis> kyled185: I got windows running, seems a bit slow though. dunno.
[11:44] <kyled185> there's a problem with acpi
[11:44] <osmosis> oh great.... my xorg mouse just stopped when kvm qemu closed. doh!
[11:45] <kyled185> osmosis, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM
[11:45] <osmosis> i would click on it if i could.
[11:45] <kyled185> lol that's rather sad
[11:46] <kyled185> I hate when weird crap like that happens
[11:47] <kyled185> osmosis, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM
[11:47] <kyled185> in case you don't have a log :)
[11:47] <osmosis> cool
[11:49] <osmosis> kyled185: did you try and get networking yet ?
[11:50] <kyled185> osmosis, I did a little bit, but since I primarily use wireless those instructions won't work for me
[11:50] <kyled185> osmosis, so I've put that on the back-burner for now
[11:50] <osmosis> too bad the qemu windows isnt resizable.
[11:51] <kyled185> osmosis, it is if you change the resolution in the guest os
[11:51] <kyled185> osmosis, otherwise I would think things would look very strange and stretched
[11:53] <osmosis> ohok
[11:57] <osmosis> argh...wished i would have hit F7 at boot
[11:57] <kyled185> what does F7 do?
[11:58] <osmosis> turns off ACPI at windows boot.  its said...Installing Devices for about 10 minutes now.
[11:58] <kyled185> oh
[11:59] <kyled185> I just followed that guide from start to finish and it worked pretty flawlessly...except for networking but my case is a little odd