When I run cmd.exe and type 'set' I have a %LIB% variable set. The value is pointing to a folder that doesn't exist, which causes warnings during Visual Studio compiles.
Here's the thing... If I go to System Properties->Advanced->Environment Variables it's not set in either User Variables or System Variables. It's also not set in my C:\Autoexec.bat.
I would like to know how to change my the location my $profile variable points to.
PS H:\> $profile
H:\WindowsPowerShell\Microsoft.PowerShell_profile.ps1
H:\ is a network share, so when I create my profile file, and load powershell I get the following:
Security Warning Run only scripts that you trust. While scripts from the Internet can be useful, this script can potentially harm your computer. Do you want to run H:\WindowsPowerShell\Microsoft.PowerShell_profile.ps1? [D] Do not run [R] Run once [S] Suspend [?] Help (default is "D"):
According to Microsoft, the location of the $profile is determined by the %USERPROFILE% environment variable. This is not true:
PS H:\> $env:userprofile
C:\Users\username
For example, I have an XP machine working how I want:
PS H:\> $profile
C:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\WindowsPowerShell\Microsoft.PowerShell_profile.ps1
PS H:\> $env:userprofile
C:\Documents and Settings\username
PS H:\> $env:homedrive
H:
PS H:\> $env:homepath
\
Here's the same output from the Vista machine where the $profile points to the wrong place:
PS H:\> $profile
H:\WindowsPowerShell\Microsoft.PowerShell_profile.ps1
PS H:\> $env:userprofile
C:\Users\username
PS H:\> $env:homedrive
H:
PS H:\> $env:homepath
\
Since $profile isn't actually determined by %USERPROFILE% how do I change it? Clearly anything that involves changing the homedrive or homepath is not the solution I'm looking for.
I have an apache2 server that is behind a firewall. The external address is 24.89.xxx.xxx and the internal address is 10.10.58.1
The server's hostname is 'myhost'. I don't have a DNS entry for the 24.89.xxx.xxx address because it's not live yet. The domain name that will resolve to it is currently in use for the existing site.
I would like the web-dev team to be able to access the site via the 24.89.xxx.xxx address. However, whenever they view the site, all the URLs get the local hostname inserted into them.
So, <a href="index.php?id=9">Link</a> produces a URL of http://myhost/index.php?id=9 However, I would like it to produce a URL of http://24.89.xxx.xxx/index.php?id=9
Apache is installed on Debian Lenny. I'm using the "default" site. I've tried variations of setting the NamedVirtualHost to the IP, ServerName to the IP, UseCanonicalName off, VirualHost, etc... Everything I do produces no change whatsoever. Yes, I'm reloading the config each time.
I've also tried cutting out the firewall, and I get the same result. I've also made a bunch of changes to the /etc/hosts file.
/etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1 localhost
10.10.58.1 myhost
24.89.xxx.xxx www.inusedomain.org
I'm setting up a Xen virtual machine server and I'm wondering which of these three options of disk setup is recommended. I'll be using a Linux host with Linux guests.
As I can see it I can do any of the following:
Number 1 has the advantage that you get LVM in the domU, but you lose the flexibility of LVM in the dom0. However, 2a & 3 give the flexibility of LVM to dom0, but take it away from the domUs.
The most flexible situation appears to be to give the domUs a Logical Volume, as their entire disk, then to create a LVM setup in the LV (option 2b). Would the LVM in LVM cause problems with performance, or something else that I'm not anticipating?
What setup do you use, and why?
In our environment we have a variety of scripts that we use on 30+ servers. Currently, we copy the scripts onto each server when the OS is installed. However, this has the problem that changes to scripts require a manual redeployment.
I'm considering setting up a NFS export, but this has some drawbacks:
Other options I have considered are Subversion (or any source control), rsync, and rpms. The benefit to svn is the version control off the scripts. Rsync's simple and allows local scripts. I don't think rpm would work because of our Solaris servers.
We have Solaris, Redhat Enterprise Linux, and Suse Linux servers, and we only have a small number (~10) of small scripts to deploy, so the simpler the better.
I was reading Ubuntu's documentation about root/sudo when I came across the following:
Isn't sudo less secure than su?
The basic security model is the same, and therefore these two systems share their primary weaknesses. Any user who uses su or sudo must be considered to be a privileged user. If that user's account is compromised by an attacker, the attacker can also gain root privileges the next time the user does so.
How can an attacker gain root privileges the next time the user does? Assuming sudo is disabled.
I would like to set up a Kerberos server to authenticate users on our various Linux servers. However, the network that the Kerberos server will be on already has a Windows 2k3 domain controller on it. Is there any way that this Kerberos server can interfere with the DC? We do not wish to have the Linux machines authenticate to the DC because of security concerns.
I have set the realm to be different from the Windows domain. However, the DNS domains are the same for both. Is that all that is necessary for the two to play nice?