LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Can two hosts in the same LAN have the same local hostname? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/can-two-hosts-in-the-same-lan-have-the-same-local-hostname-4175450255/)

stf92 02-15-2013 07:38 AM

Can two hosts in the same LAN have the same local hostname?
 
Hi:

Can two hosts in the same LAN have the same local hostname?

acid_kewpie 02-15-2013 07:46 AM

yes, unless there's winbind or somethign broadcasting it, it's irrelevant what thte internal machien name is.

WiseDraco 02-15-2013 07:46 AM

i think, without problem, unless you try run samba server, or using hostname to work with it via network ( like a ping hostname.com and so - it may be involve problems with which host in which conditions really answer on that )
but why you need the same hostname for two machines? :-O

stf92 02-15-2013 07:51 AM

It was before I began with networking that I put them that name. Besides, slackware puts it by default.

acid_kewpie 02-15-2013 07:53 AM

internal hostnames really have nothing at all to do with networking 99% of the time

WiseDraco 02-15-2013 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stf92 (Post 4892186)
It was before I began with networking that I put them that name. Besides, slackware puts it by default.

you easy change it any time. get edit files /etc/HOSTNAME and /etc/hosts for change a local machine name.

stf92 02-15-2013 08:46 AM

Thanks guys. By the way, I'm reading The Linux Network Administrator's Guide, 2nd edition from The Linux Documentation Project and wondered if it is up to date. I mentions LInux 2.0!

WiseDraco 02-15-2013 08:54 AM

many things in linux is unchanged for many, many years ;)

stf92 02-15-2013 09:07 AM

Yes but slackware being so traditional, the book, which is not intended specifically for it, mentions /etc/rc.d/*, which is relatively new (perhaps not so new).

acid_kewpie 02-15-2013 09:14 AM

the rc.d directory is not new in any way at all. 15 years I've been using Linux (holy crap!) and it's always been there on Redhat

WiseDraco 02-15-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stf92 (Post 4892242)
Yes but slackware being so traditional, the book, which is not intended specifically for it, mentions /etc/rc.d/*, which is relatively new (perhaps not so new).


rc.d not new. in my first slack, 4.0, if i remeber correctly, always be rc.d .
in distros like a red hat and so on startup scripts look strong different and not that easy as in slack.
also todays many distros is more and more like to microsoft products in philosophy.
for example: in slack you can give user any password without pain. if you give too simple password, i e "abc", slack warn you, but entering the same pass twice, it allow you to use that password, what you want.
in redhat is differently situation - it is like a microsoft product. it has think, it know better than you, what you want - you cannot give simple password in easy way - system ping back to you with "password is too simple, choose another password!".
that is one of key moments between good systems, like a slackware, and bad," build for idiots, who, expectly, do not know any, so be them be cannot be given full control" :D

stf92 02-15-2013 09:18 AM

Well, I maybe was wrong because there is a whole new class of *.d/ directories now, as in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/.

acid_kewpie 02-15-2013 09:24 AM

certainly .d directories as a more generic thing has come of age somewhat. They're a great convention to follow. Makes deploying software so so much easier

stf92 02-15-2013 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiseDraco (Post 4892251)
rc.d not new. in my first slack, 4.0, if i remeber correctly, always be rc.d .
in distros like a red hat and so on startup scripts look strong different and not that easy as in slack.
also todays many distros is more and more like to microsoft products in philosophy.
for example: in slack you can give user any password without pain. if you give too simple password, i e "abc", slack warn you, but entering the same pass twice, it allow you to use that password, what you want.
in redhat is differently situation - it is like a microsoft product. it has think, it know better than you, what you want - you cannot give simple password in easy way - system ping back to you with "password is too simple, choose another password!".
that is one of key moments between good systems, like a slackware, and bad," build for idiots, who, expectly, do not know any, so be them be cannot be given full control" :D

Very well said. The microsoft mentality is general. For example the VHS recorder went to the tape end and then, without asking anything, it rewinded and ejected while me, in the middle of the night, was in the deeper slip!

Worst even, why does the dvd burner eject the disk after burning! I now pass by and ... kiss good by to the tray.

acid_kewpie 02-15-2013 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiseDraco (Post 4892251)
good systems, like a slackware, and bad," build for idiots

That makes you look *really* daft. There's nothing wrong with some sane defaults in certain places.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.