Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a way to enable the netbios name in a Linux without using Samba?
What I want is that I would like the hostname (or whatever) to appear when other computers (MS Windows) is scanning the device through ethernet.
This is achieved by netbios. Samba has an application called nmbd that will do the trick. But Samba will take up more that 0.5MB in my compressed image. Which is bursting my partitions. And I don't want to spend that much flash and ram on such a trivial function anyway. (I'm using an embedded linux device btw.)
Does anyone know another way? An alternative to nmbd perhaps?
I'm not aware of any free software alternatives to nmbd. The nmbd from older versions of Samba might be smaller in size. Alternatively, you might be able to use the nmbd from Samba-TNG .
Or if you're really feeling adventurous, you might be able to write your own (if you just care about the name appearing). See http://ubiqx.org/cifs/NetBIOS.html.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I know, I know. I'm biting off more ethics than I'd like to chew with this question but there is an importance to it. I'm selling a very limited software package to an immensely small market. The thing is, most machines running this software will be in the same building and sharing a totally open exe is not something I'd like to have happen. The user base is not going to be adept with computers, let alone piracy. What low-level options exist for copy protection? I first thought to buy encrypted and locked USB thumb drives but I'm hoping to avoid that if possible, seeing as a direct download would be much more convenient for all. I'm not trying to punish customers, just trying to keep this on a small number of machines.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am fairly of familiar with Ubuntu and I have used it a lot in the past for programming purposes, but right now I would like to try something different. Instead of doing a dual boot on my computer, I am going to do my PHP development in a Virtual Machine, probably using VMWare or whatever.
The problem is, that with only 4GB of RAM, it seems like recent versions of Ubuntu are a bit too heavy to run really smoothly on this computer. So instead, I am searching for a Linux system that can easily run with only 1/2 or 1 GB of RAM assigned to it.
What would you suggest for this?
I'm not really sure if it makes a difference, but here's a list of the things I'll really need to be using in it:
apache2
php5
php5-memcache
php5-sqlite
memcached
postgresql
php5-pgsql
phppgadmin
I understand that this is not really the typical kind of questions you find on stackoverflow, but I'm very certain that it may be useful to somebody someday.
Take a look at Vagrant. It will share your current directory with the guest. So you use your native editing tools and your native browser to test things. That way the VM stays small with no GUI.
I recommend Puppy Linux if you're looking for a lighter Linux distribution.
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/MinimumSystemRequirements
http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%20and%20Getting%20Started.htm
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
How many I/O paths would a virtual machine -- like an EC2 instance or a Linode instance -- have available? I'm interested in learning more about this because I don't know an appropriate value for PostgreSQL's effective_io_concurrency setting. Thanks!
You don't know what's behind the mountpoints of your virtual machines. So the best thing you can and, actually, should do: test the performance of the disks alone and then testing it with different values of effective_io_concurrency.
I would took each /dev/* device that is used in your mountpoints as a separate IO path, at least this can be a good start.
I also think, that this configuration parameter has more value on the dedicated physical servers, rather then virtual ones (provided externally of course).
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been using dropbox to sync between 8 different Linux machines. I use BasKet notepads to keep track of projects and it as well as many other applications seem to have problems syncing due to permissions, claiming 'can't sync "such and such file": permission denied.' There are plenty of guides on how to fix this temporarily, involving using the hidden "fix permissions" button in the interface, or using chmod, but the problem comes back because of the umask creating permissions that can't be synced between systems.
What is the best practice for solving this issue? Is there another system such as perhaps Isync with Google Drive, OwnCloud, or Ubuntu One that would be better than Dropbox in this case? Do I just need to host my Dropbox on a FAT partition? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to periodically check out if several linux machines are alive.
My idea is to have a main computer that receives a periodic message from every machine, so if any of them stops messaging, the main one will know something's going wrong with that particular equipment.
I want to make it as "lite" as possible, I mean, using the less data transmission possible, because some of the machines I want to look after are placed on installation with a not so good internet connection. So, if it's possible, I'll prefer not to use email or ftp.
Any idea?
Thanks in advance.
You should use a dedicated piece of software for monitoring your infrastructure. Inventing something from scratch will probably take longer and be much less powerful than such a product. nagios for example is something that is commonly used for this purpose.
Well, you could connect to the main machine on a specific port and keep sending one byte periodically. Is that "lite" enough? :)