[00:16] hmm.... why would i get permission denied from apache when my entire directory is set to 766?? [00:17] where are you getting denied? what is it saying in the log? [00:17] addisonj: Surely, you mean 755? [00:17] addisonj: what about parent directory? [00:17] addisonj: 766 gives no execute permission on the directory, so it can't be traversed. [00:18] execure permison on a directory? [00:18] you misunderstood directory permisons [00:18] anyone here famaliar with sugarCRM? well i am trying to install, i am getting an error that none of the config files are writeable [00:18] x means access [00:19] addisonj: check your file / folder permissions [00:19] jmedina: ... [00:19] jmedina: I really don't. [00:19] k, so yeah, i would normally want group writeable? then that should work [00:19] jmedina: You can't traverse a directory without it have +x [00:19] depends on who owns the file [00:20] s/have/having/ [00:20] atm, root, but i tried changing it to my super user and still no go [00:20] so... how do i check under what user or group apache is runnnig? could that be the problem? [00:20] addisonj: ls -la on the tree [00:21] addisonj: You want your files 644 (or 444, or whatever), and your directories 755 (or 555, or..) [00:21] addisonj: Need read on the files, and traverse on the directories. [00:21] addisonj is trying to install sugarCRM and the installer is trying to write to the config files [00:22] so infinity is right, dirs need 755 and you may need to temporarilly set 777 to the config files [00:22] then change them back to 644 afterwards [00:22] Okay, and if you need to write config files, you need the files 666 (and the directory 777 to be able to create new files) [00:22] KillMeNow: No point in having executable text files. 666 is enough. :P [00:23] 6 and one half the other [00:23] gonna change the perms back after install [00:23] so, is there a way to chmod just the directories? or do i have to do all of em? [00:23] KillMeNow: Yeah, I just prefer to teach people a bit about what permissins mean, I guess. I see far too many blind "chmod -R 777 foo/" installations out there with no understanding of what it means. [00:24] this is interesting, i first installed locally and had no problems whatsoever [00:24] y7ea, that's why i referred to the config file, not 777 the dir [00:24] or all files in a tree [00:25] addisonj: Your fastest route is "chmod -R ugo+rwX /path/to/dir" ... And then when you're done, "chmod -R go-w /path/to/dir" [00:25] wait, so only users should be able to write? [00:26] addisonj: (That's shorthand for "user, group, other, full read, write, and X on directories", and then "group, other, remove write" [00:26] addisonj: Ultimately, only the file owner should be able to write to it. And that shouldn't be apache. :P [00:26] addisonj: But for now, you need apache to write to it. [00:28] k, alright, now my other weird error, for some reason, my mysql is not working starting, one sec here is error [00:28] mysqladmin: connect to server at 'localhost' failed [00:28] error: 'Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2)' [00:28] Check that mysqld is running and that the socket: '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' exists! [00:29] and... it does not exist [00:29] so... how does one fix that? [00:38] what are you telling it to connect through? [00:38] localhost 3306? is mysqld actually running? [00:46] no and nor will it start i guess... [00:51] then you need to over come why that it's not starting [00:52] check your /var/log/mysql/mysql.log [00:52] also check /var/log/messages [00:58] they all seem to be empty... hmm [01:00] any messages has nothing about mysql [01:04] if you don't have mysql logging turned on in my.ini that would be why they're empty [01:04] but you should stil lget a message in /var/log/messages [01:04] or /var/log/syslog [01:29] blah, i just did a purge on everything mysql related, still will not start, curious though could it be an iptables problem? [01:33] nope thats not it either [01:43] iptables won't stop an application from starting, but apparmor can [02:12] On a Ubuntu 8.04 live cd I can ping local machines by their name, that is, ubuntu.local and vice-versa. What do I need to do for that to work in ubuntu-server/ubuntu-jeos? [02:13] Hmm, that question is written pretty badly, let me try that again :) [02:14] If I boot from a Live CD, I can ping other machines on the lan using hostname.local, and from those other machines, I can ping the Live CD machine with ubuntu.local. Under Jeos/Server all I get for my trouble is unknown host. What process is making this magically happen? [02:15] owh: what you're referring to is called zeroconf [02:15] it's an IEEE working standard [02:15] ubuntu implements zeroconf with avahi [02:17] Cool, let me do some RTFM on that. Much appreciated giovani. [02:17] owh: no problem -- it's crap, but it's becoming widely used with Windows Vista+ and OS X [02:18] Hmm. Bonjour style :) [02:18] style? [02:18] Bonjour IS zeroconf [02:18] Apple likes mDNS [02:18] Microsoft likes SSDP [02:19] avahi speaks both :) [02:19] Yes. I was making a little joke. Other than making a static list of hostnames is there a better way of managing a bunch of virtual machines? [02:20] I'd rather not run a virtual machine with dnsmasq which would duplicate the DHCP activities of the host. [02:20] heh [02:20] well then don't use your host for dhcp/dns [02:22] however, there are systems for dynamically setting up DNS via DHCP requests from the client [02:22] as in ... the client can define its own hostname, and DNS will be properly set for it [02:22] all that does is remove the centralized, more manual DNS setting, and replace it with something decentralized in control [02:23] Yeah, but VMware has been spectacularly unable to understand what I mean if I ask them specifically that. [02:23] why would you ask VMware that? [02:23] this isn't a virtualization issue [02:23] VMware doesn't provide a DNS server from the host afaik [02:23] maybe a DNS relay [02:24] Because I'm running Fusion and the DHCP server is run by it. It also provides a DNS proxy. I wanted to know how I could link the two. [02:24] it's a special setup [02:24] I would never expect a consumer-oriented virtualization product to support it [02:24] I'm sure Fusion allows you to disable the DHCP [02:25] and host your own [02:25] Nope, all I can do is not use NAT. [02:25] The innards of Fusion and enterprise based VMware code is the same AFAIK, just the management/gui is different. [02:25] no, it's not the same [02:26] at all [02:26] and this is not an innards issue [02:26] I can disable the DHCP server on my VMware Workstation product [02:26] How? [02:26] I'm not familiar with Fusion specifically, but it's a stripped down version of Workstation [02:26] it's a setting ... [02:27] Fusion is the OSX version of Workstation. It is not a stripped down version. [02:27] it's a stripped down version, that's consumer-oriented, at a deep discount [02:27] it's not the same product [02:27] Workstation is like $400 [02:27] that's not because it runs on Linux and Windows [02:27] That's what I paid for Fusion. [02:28] VMware Fusion is like $80 [02:28] My credit card does not agree with that. We're not talking Fusion 1.x, we're talking 2.x [02:28] Came out earlier this year. [02:29] VMware Fusion 2.0 (for Mac OS X) [02:29] Electronic Software Download - Start Using It Instantly $79.99 [02:29] that's a paste from vmware.com [02:29] there's a 5-pack version for $350 [02:29] (that's 5 individual licenses) [02:30] Hmm. [02:30] Moving right along. [02:30] heh, so the bottom line is, VMware Fusion is NOT Workstation for the mac [02:30] I hear you. [02:31] they have a different featureset -- and they're oriented at different markets (hence different levels of customization I'm sure) [02:31] now, googling has revealed that you have full access to the dhcp.conf [02:31] I do. [02:31] so I suggest you google vmware fusion dhcp [02:31] and figure out how to disable it [02:31] I did. [02:31] or how to configure it to your liking [02:31] I can make a static list of hostnames, but that hardly makes this managable. [02:32] static hostnames are how most networks function :) [02:32] networks 100s and thousands of times the size of yours [02:32] I'd have to restart the network every time I create a new guest, which means all other guests lose network connectivity. [02:32] but you're welcome to configure it a different way [02:33] right, which is why you can disable the dhcp server in vmware [02:33] and host your own, inside of the guest network [02:33] Hmm. [02:33] google "fusion disable dhcp" [02:33] 1st and 2nd results are EXACTLY what I've been recommending [02:34] "vmware fusion disable dhcp" actually [02:36] I've just read those. I understand what you mean. I was aiming for a more dynamic implementation using the existing infrastructure. You're indicating that you don't think that's possible and that I need to run my own. [02:36] I'm suggesting that I don't know anything about VMware's built-in DHCP server ... I presume it's crap, and a minimal implementation [02:36] dynamic hostname setting client-side with DNS is complex [02:36] it's definitely not a standard configuration [02:37] and VMware doesn't even offer a real DNS server, so it's unlikely it's even possible [02:37] The DHCP server is the standard ISC DHCP server. [02:37] that's scary [02:38] still, there's no DNS server, afaik [02:38] which is clearly required to offer DNS :) [02:38] That appears to be the case :) Just a proxy. [02:38] I'm unclear on why you think having VMware run your DHCP/DNS is better than you running it yourself [02:39] Running it myself means it's virtualised, so it's chewing more cycles than if it was running natively. [02:39] (I'd recommend, btw, that if you want a full test lab network, that you not use a desktop virtualization solution) [02:39] haha [02:39] I think you don't realize how minimal of an impact DHCP and DNS are on a cpu [02:39] I'm glad I can provide entertainment :) [02:40] I run an authoritative DNS server on the internet with 32MB of ram [02:40] and that's the entire OS included [02:40] the DNS server uses a few MB [02:40] and I'm sure the load hasn't ever reached 0.01 [02:40] you should really not be using Fusion for a lab though :) [02:40] use a proper vmware server install (free), or kvm, or xen [02:41] I've been tinkering with VirtualBox today [02:42] heh [02:43] another desktop product :) [02:43] It's not a lab. I'm running my ubuntu desktop as a virtual machine because I'm fed-up having to deal with hardware incompatibilities every time an update comes past. In addition it allows me to make my machine independent of the actual machine its running on, so I can run it on a different computer altogether if I need to. And finally it means I can test new releases and finally do some work with ubuntu-server and contribute back to [02:44] owh: why would you need dynamically-updating DNS then? [02:44] it sounds like you only have one VM :) [02:44] giovani: kvm probably requires AMD-V or VT though. [02:44] Well, it allows me to build a VM in a few minutes without needing to update the DNS somewhere, destroy the machine when I'm done. Rinse and repeat. [02:44] ...so that's not an option for me. [02:44] ball: yeah, because it's real virtualization :) [02:45] * ball nods [02:45] owh: why do you need local DNS for one machine? [02:45] I could run it on the production server, but I will want to try it out first. [02:46] giovani: It's not one machine. When I write software for a client, I'll host a development machine for the project. Since I have many clients, there are many such machines. They're not all running at the same time, but having to maintain a list somewhere is asking for trouble. [02:46] Does kvm use a host OS? [02:46] It's not like a standard corporate network where machines don't come and go several times a day. [02:47] ball: Yes. [02:47] owh: fair enough -- that sounds like a lab to me though [02:47] not "I want to host a personal ubuntu desktop in a vm" [02:48] owh: would kvm let me connect the guest machines together via a virtual ethernet and also have the host OS see that via something like a virtual interface? [02:48] giovani: It's like a testing lab in some ways. If there was another virtualisation tool I could use under OSX that worked, I'd be prepared to look at that. [02:48] ball: Yes. [02:48] owh: excellent, thanks. [02:48] owh: virtualbox is another option [02:48] ball: Lemmie find the KVM guide for you. One mo. [02:48] however, I still fail to see why you can't run a vm that offers the network services you want [02:49] giovani: The last time I looked at that it crashed around my ears every 20 minutes. [02:49] owh: sorry, what? [02:49] I don't follow what that means [02:49] giovani: You are beginning to convince me that running my own DHCP/DNS is an option. [02:49] it's not just AN option -- it's your ONLY option for what you'd like [02:50] giovani: virtualbox has been unstable and unreliable for me. It was running within a Ubuntu host at the time. It did not fill me with confidence. [02:50] hm [02:50] virtualbox has been plenty reliable for me [02:50] but alright [02:51] I'm moving all of my desktops to os x actually [02:51] my laptop's wifi card is a problem though [02:51] ball: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/ [02:52] giovani: I did contemplate running Ubuntu natively on this MacBook Pro, but I decided that I would be no better off. This way, Apple takes care of its own hardware and Ubuntu just sees a bog-standard PC. [02:52] owh: thanks [02:52] heh [02:52] yeah, I'm not a huge fan of linux desktops [02:54] My over-riding concern was that I was unable to contribute to the ubuntu-server team because I'm on the road all the time. This way I can use my Ubuntu desktop for running my business, setup guests as u-s machines and test and fix u-s bugs/issues. Something which I couldn't do since Gutsy when VMware stopped working under Ubuntu desktop. [02:54] * owh has been running a Linux desktop for nearly a decade. [02:54] Best thing I ever did. [02:55] I've just started seriously using Linux. I've used NetBSD as my primary desktop OS for the past ten years, commercial unices before that. [02:56] ...it took a while for Linux to reach a point where I could consider putting it in front of people. [02:56] giovani: Thanks to your comments I've just had a quick squiz at avahi-daemon. It installs 11.4Mb of stuff just to make it work. dnsmasq is looking mighty nice :) [02:58] ball: The first desktop I put in front of a client was dapper. They are still my clients and they love me since for the first time in their living memory they have had a machine that just keeps working. I've now done that for several clients and am working my way through migrating several more. Hardware support is still an issue, but from a stability perspective, I don't look at anything else anymore. [02:59] owh: I did a short trial with Hardy, but the users couldn't print, so that effort died fast. [02:59] What issue was it? [03:00] Printing has not seemed to be a high problem where I've done this. [03:00] Sharp MX-3501N was silently discarding PostScript jobs. [03:00] ...couldn't persuade the driver to send PCL6 instead. [03:00] CUPS is kind of shit :) [03:01] ball: What did linuxprinting.org have to say about it? [03:02] owh: I have no idea. [03:02] Didn't even know that existed. [03:02] giovani: I'll agree that it's temperamental :) [03:03] giovani: It's like sendmail. It's not unfriendly, just choosy on who it becomes friends with :) [03:06] giovani: Thanks for your comments. I'm outta here. 5 hours until I finally go on holiday after 3 years :) [03:30] Does kvm only work with Linux guests? [03:32] kvm provides hardware emulation, not paravirtualization. [03:32] It should be able to run arbitrary guest OSes [03:33] However, it would not be difficult for an OS to deliberately refuse to work with kvm, by e.g. checking the model ID reported by the CPU. I think OS X does such things, for example. [03:33] Oh, and the intel C compiler [03:37] twb: I suppose I'll just have to try it. [03:37] ball: did you have a particular OS in mind? [03:38] twb: Solaris sprang to mind [03:38] twb: ideally NetBSD too, but I'm not optimistic about that working. [03:38] Doesn't NetBSD run on everything? [03:40] It does run on many things, but not on everything. [03:40] Can't boot it in VirtualBox or on certain Macintosh systems [03:40] (very old Macs) [03:50] Of course you can't boot kvm inside virtualbox. KVM requires hardware virtualization support (VT-x). [03:50] Oh, you meant netbsd. === bc_ is now known as bc [05:20] i'm connecting my server wirelessly using dhcp, but when for some reason, the connection is lost, the server wont auto-reconnect back up. is there anyway to tell dhclient to auto-reconnect on connection loss? [05:21] dhclient isn't reponsible for reconnecting. Probably wpa_supplicant or NetworkManager is. [05:21] umm, on ubuntu server what would be? [05:21] uh, possibly neither [05:21] there is no network manager as far as i know [05:22] does your network use encryption? [05:22] nope [05:22] oo wait [05:22] samd: pastebin your /etc/network/interfaces [05:22] it does [05:22] wep [05:22] ok, stop using wep [05:22] it's useless [05:22] ight, ill probably just hide the network and use mac filter [05:22] samd: you can sniff and spoof mac adresses trivially. [05:23] samd: no [05:23] samd: use proper encryption [05:23] samd: if you care about security you should use WPA2 and/or a VPN tunnel. [05:23] i.e. at the minimum, WPA2-PSK [05:23] giovani: ight [05:23] at ideally WPA2-TKIP [05:23] and* [05:23] or AES, your choice [05:23] giovani: erm, isn't TKIP orthogonal to PSK? [05:24] twb: yes, my mistake [05:24] WPA2-EAP is more like it [05:25] http://paste.ubuntu.com/248369/ [05:25] samd: yeah ... [05:25] I don't know if there's a solution for this [05:25] samd: yeah, you wanna use wpa-supplicant and/or NM [05:25] the wireless card handles reconnection typically [05:26] so dhcp has to be issued by an app watching the status carefully [05:26] giovani: here, running just wpa-supplicant, there's a wpa daemon that re-ifups. [05:26] giovani: twb , does NM runs w/o x server? [05:26] twb: well it must be watching the wireless interface [05:26] samd: no clue, I don't touch that nasty stuff [05:27] NM is a headless daemon. [05:27] Unfortunately the utter dickheads that maintain it only provide GUI (no CLI) interfaces to it. [05:27] because it's scary code [05:27] "Because you can just write raw dbus XML to it," they told me. [05:27] umm , ill probably end up connecting it via cable [05:27] it's obnoxious at managing interfaces [05:27] I would never ever use NM myself [05:28] twb: what would u use? [05:28] twb: none? what about wicd? [05:28] samd: I use plain wpa_supplicant myself [05:29] twb: i see [05:29] twb: let me change encryptioni to wap now [05:29] auto wlan0 \n iface wlan0 inet manual \n wpa-roam /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf \n wpa-roam-default-iface wlan0-default \n iface wlan0-default inet dhcp [05:30] So then "wlan0" comes up, which just starts the wpa roam daemon. It gets a hard-coded list of APs from wpa_supplicant.conf, and when the iwconfig status changes, it runs "ifup wlan0-default" [05:30] (which triggers a dhclient) [05:30] i see [05:30] interesting [05:31] The only downside for me is that I need to sudoedit that file to add/remove APs. [05:31] twb: yeah, cuz they'r hard coded [05:31] twb: no problem if its a desktop [05:31] I think you can also use wpa-cli to add/remove them [05:32] so ur under what os? [05:32] which* [05:32] Technically this is on Debian, but I'm confident it's applicable to Ubuntu [05:33] yeah, i bet it is, after removing network manager, as it comes in default ubuntu desktop install [05:49] what's the "deafault" (i.e well supported) imap/pop3 server on ubuntu? [05:49] should I go for dovecot or courier [05:50] is having a xorg in a server a unessesary security risk? [05:53] I would say yes, but that depends on your definitions of "necessary" and "risk". Most people advise against it anyway. [05:54] LiraNuna: dovecot is default [05:56] I can't get dovecot working with postfixadmin :( [05:56] X on a server is a YAGNI issue [05:56] tonyyarusso: what about if it's not running,, (running it just when i actually need it) [05:56] samd, I did the same as you describe, but then I ended up using the command line and then purging ~500 packages [05:56] And if you *do* need X to administer a server, that's probably indicative of larger problems [05:56] samd: less so anyway [05:58] twb: tonyyarusso LiraNuna , i was thinking on installing xserver to use wicd ( a network manager) to reconnect in case of a connection lost [05:59] samd: what's wrong with just using wpa_supp? [05:59] samd, I never had trouble with ifupdown [05:59] or is it strictly wireles [05:59] wireless does not a good server make [06:00] twb: ohh, i didnt understood i could use wpa_supp for that. LiraNuna i know, ill work on wiring, but ill have to wait for at least 1 month with wireless [06:01] LiraNuna: whats ifupdown? does it runs auto? [06:01] samd, I don't know how it goes for wireless netwroking [06:02] ill prolly go for wpa_supp as twb suggested, ,,, [06:11] If I had a server with apache2 on it then create a VM and install apache2 on it and configure virtual hosts for a few domains. Is this posible? [06:21] jamesrfla: don't understand your question :/ [06:21] Okay let me see if I can explain it differently [06:22] I install Ubuntu server with apache2 hosting domain.domain.com then on that same server I make a VM and install Apache2 on it and configure virtual hosts to host domain2.domain.com and domain3.domain.com [06:23] I basically want to do a very VPS hosting for a few of my friends [06:24] jamesrfla: i see, sounds fine [06:25] jamesrfla: you can install apache2 on the host (dom0) and apache2 on the virtual machines (domUs) also [06:25] Will there be any conflicts. The VPS will run on a different internal IP than the other server not in a VM. I only have one dynamic world ip [06:27] jamesrfla: should be fine provided that everything has different IPs or you use port forwarding [06:28] Different external Ip's or different internal Ip's. Also can I run all of then on port 80? [06:28] jamesrfla: internal is fine, provided that you intend on accessing them from the internal network :) [06:28] I am just worried that after typing in a web address that it would go to the other VM and say this site isn't here [06:29] Hmm. I kind of wanted them to be accessed by the web. [06:29] jamesrfla: how, if you're using internal IPs? [06:30] jamesrfla: how about .... [06:30] Well internal then use port forwarding....Maybe I am missing something here [06:31] jamesrfla: ok, port forwarding is fine if you don't mind using http://domain2.domain.com:8802 (or equivalent), http://domain3.domain.com:8803, etc. [06:31] jamesrfla: or, you could use a reverse proxy on the dom0 and send the traffic to the domUs that way ... don't know what complications that may uncover tho [06:33] So what I want to do won't really work. I would have to have all the web hosting on the one server. [06:34] jamesrfla: no, it will work ... but if you have all sites pointing to the same IP, obviously you need a way to then get the traffic to the appropriate virtual machine [06:35] Okay I see. So how can I point it to the right virtual machine? [06:35] jamesrfla: reverse proxy, port forwarding, etc. :) [06:36] jamesrfla: maybe there are more obvious ways, but i don't know [06:36] Maybe if I post something on the UF and see if they have any ideas on the matter. [06:36] yeah, the more input you can get the better! [06:37] the reverse proxy way would work nicely [06:37] jamesrfla: It sounds like you are new to web hosting, so you should probably start out with a single copy of Apache and do all the hosting one one machine. Once you are comfortable doing that you can explore the idea of migrating some of those virtual hosts into separate VMs via a reverse proxy. Start small and simple and get it working, then add complexity as your knowledge and experience grows. [06:38] jmarsden: hmm, wise words. [06:39] Well I have been hosting a site on apache2 server for about 2 years. I am just new to this virtual hosts and VM's [06:39] jamesrfla: why do you need individual VMs? [06:40] Bingo!!!! [06:40] I just got a good idead [06:40] *idea [06:40] jamesrfla: ? [06:40] Setup a VPS and have it so all my friends can access it. Do all my web hosting just in that VM... [06:40] *VM [06:41] what is a php library [06:41] jamesrfla: What is the benefit of using a VM for this? [06:41] artillerytx: A bunch of PHp someone else wrote that you can use. [06:41] hmm. I need a min to think this out for a sec. [06:42] jmarsden: oh well how do i install cURL [06:42] jmarsden: then I can host all the web sites on that and virtual hosts. Then I wouldn't have to mess with thisreverse proxy. [06:42] jamesrfla: You can just host multiple sites on the main machine OS, no need for a VM. Keep it simple. [06:44] artillerytx: Same way you install anything else on Ubuntu. sudo apt-get install PACKAGENAME . In this case sudo apt-get install php5-curl [06:44] yeah I can. Hmm. I guess it depends who is going to use it. Give me a min to think this out. [06:45] jmarsden: okay [06:45] jamesrfla: i can see from a security stand point why using a VM would be beneficial [06:46] Yeah I just want to keep my stuff personal and there stuff in a VM [06:46] Kind of how Linode does there stuff [06:48] jamesrfla: You do not know as much as the Linode admins do :) And if "your stuff" includes a web site, you'll need a reverse proxy to separate your web site (on the physical host) from the others (in the VM)... [06:48] * jmarsden thinks it may be better to just help your friends each set up their own Ubuntu machines at their own homes. [06:50] yeah true. Well this project is still in planing [06:50] well the linodes also get there own world ip [06:50] If your friends just need web hosting (no shell access), you can probably do fine setting up everyone on the main physical machine OS and locking it down carefully so they can only destroy their own stuff... [06:51] yeah that is another option. Or when they want there web page updated they can e-mail me the new page and I can do it for them. [06:52] Just as long as they don't want there web page changed every min :) [06:52] well, that would get old pretty fast when they each email you 500 photos and 200 videos from their cellphones... [06:53] You could set up a CMS for each of their sites to avoid that... [06:53] Sounds like you are not really sure what you are trying to do here :) [06:53] lol. I hope not. I don't think I will have many people interested in this. If they want more than just web hosting I can set them up with a VPS and SSH [06:54] 5 people x a few hundred photos from a weekend trip = *way* too many emails... [06:55] Well still in planing. I don't think many people would want it anyway. They all seem to hate Linux [06:59] Well thanks for your help jmarsden and mattt I think I am just going to just have them e-mail me if they want there site changed. That is if they want a site or I could make a little space for them like domain.domain.com/friend/ [06:59] No problem. [07:00] There's one reason to host different sites in VMs: if they all require very specific, conflicting versions of PHP and/or MySQL. [07:00] I guess I got a little too excited wit VMware ESXi and VMware Server.... [07:00] Of course, the Right Thing then is to not run PHP apps :-) [07:01] twb: Well the main reason was security. But I could also make there account very limited and somehow give them my SSH key so they can actually get in [07:02] jamesrfla: or, you know, use THEIR ssh key [07:02] use their SSH key? [07:02] Giving someone else your ssh key would be dumb [07:03] oh. Make a secound key for them you mean [07:03] If they want to access a VPS on your server, THEY give you THEIR public key, and you tell the VPS to let that key in. [07:05] I guess I could do that. Setup a account for them that is limited to only rebooting apache2 and adding/remove files to there web site directory [07:09] Well thanks again. [07:10] They shouldn't even need apachectl permissions... just give them an account in vsftpd [07:11] okay so they can use vsftpd [07:11] to upload there web page but don't you still have to stop and start apache? [07:20] Well GTG to bed [08:23] how do you copy a directory again [08:24] is it cp -R /dir /dir2 [08:26] is there anyway to allow root ssh login from lan, but block it from the internet? [08:27] artillerytx: cp -r source destination === highvolt1ge is now known as highvoltage === twb` is now known as twb [08:48] dayo: AllowedUsers [08:49] dayo: sorry, "AllowUsers root@192.168.1.0/24" or similar [08:50] As a matter of course, you should restrict sshd to a whitelist of trusted users/origin tuples. [08:51] twb: where do i put AllowedUsers? [08:51] dayo: /etc/ssh/sshd_config [08:53] twb: what about whitelisting? does that affect only internet ssh or lan, too? [08:55] dayo: sshd cannot see the difference between your "LAN" and "the internet" [08:55]