On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 07:36:51 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 23:25:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:46:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 11:04:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:59:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:25:36 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:

I think anything that can run apcupsd can be networked easily to the box
controlling the UPS. Remakably painless. It's only worth using NUT
(which can allegedly follow an apcupsd server) if there's something like
a NAS you can't install apcupsd on. NUT is less painless.

sounds like a pain in the ....

So how would you do it, assuming you understood why it might be a
'good idea' to have say 3 machines (but only) on one UPS?

I take it you completely missed the moment of mild humour.

Ah, sorry. I got my 5 year old nephew to read your insightful and
humorous reply and he explained why it was 'funny'. ;-)

I didn't realise you were American ... ?

Cheers, T i m

you're making no sense.

Obviously someone is using the wrong side of their brain.

In this (and only on this sort of thing *ever*) you are sort right.

I was having a serious / technical discussion about UPS monitoring
software and NT jumped in with something that wasn't funny (to me
anyway, even if I had got that is was supposed to be) and it's quite
likely that NT would have found configuring APCUPSD or NUT 'a pain'
and so I responded to his comment literally.

So, I did allow my RBD to guide my response when I should have used
some LBD to 'study' the scenario closer (but I wouldn't have been
bothered to etc).

But well done to you for actually getting how L/RBD might impact how
someone might interpret something (rather than your normal completely
abstract weirdo BS).

Cheers, T i m