[plug] Centos openvpn question if I could

[Ian Kent]

On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 13:34 +0800, Chris Griffin wrote:
> Sadly so. The main reason I am going away from Fedora though is what
> they have down with Gnome, especially, and to a degree KDE. systemd
> was because I could not work out how/where to set up and start
> openvpn. So much seems to be missing out of /etc/init.d and I could
> not work out where or how to do it now. And I had little interest in
> working it out given  I hated the new gnome interface so much.

Yeah, I need to change that on my own system, to be sure.

But an init script will still work fine in a systemd environment so
that's not a problem and I can help you find your way around systemd, to
the extent I have had to find out about it myself, at least.

> 
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Ian Kent <raven at themaw.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 11:50 +0800, Chris Griffin wrote:
> >> Systemd is the other reason i am bumping Fedora.
> >
> > Systemd will still catch up with you in CentOS-7 I expect.
> >
> >>
> >> On 31/01/2012 9:20 AM, "Andrew Cooks" <acooks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>         On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ian Kent <raven at themaw.net>
> >>         wrote:
> >>
> >>                 > It looks good but I have installed openvpn
> >>                 (openswan) and rpm tells me
> >>                 > it is there but the /etc/openvpn directory is not
> >>                 there nor is the
> >>                 > /etc/init.d/openvpn startup script.
> >>
> >>                 Obviously you won't find that in an openswan install
> >>                 since it would
> >>                 conflict with the init script in an openvpn install.
> >>
> >>
> >>         OpenVPN and Openswan will not necessarily clash, unless the
> >>         init scripts make incorrect assumptions about TUN/TAP
> >>         interfaces. Each service should have its own init script.
> >>         (systemd is yet another thing to trip you in Fedora 15).
> >>
> >>
> >>         As a side note, Openswan is an ipsec implementation which
> >>         works on the TCP/UDP layer of the network, whereas OpenVPN
> >>         works like any "normal application" on top of TCP/UDP. Ipsec
> >>         can be really hard to use in the NATed networks and dynamic
> >>         IPs that are common today, whereas an ssl-over-udp tunnel like
> >>         OpenVPN is relatively simple, so don't switch if you can help
> >>         it.
> >>
> >>
> >>         A.
> >>
> >>         _______________________________________________
> >>         PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> >>         http://lists.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> >>         Committee e-mail: committee at plug.org.au
> >>         PLUG Membership: http://www.plug.org.au/membership
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> >> http://lists.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> >> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.org.au
> >> PLUG Membership: http://www.plug.org.au/membership
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> > http://lists.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > Committee e-mail: committee at plug.org.au
> > PLUG Membership: http://www.plug.org.au/membership
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> http://lists.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.org.au
> PLUG Membership: http://www.plug.org.au/membership