Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Conor Daly wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 06:51:19PM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, > Liese thought: > > > > > > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by > > >definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of > > >my PC, the only person liable for anything is that person: they are > > >criminally liable for unauthorised access to my data. > > > > I don't agree with this. When there is a problem with a computer, it is my > > job to fix it. Which means finding out what the problem is. If, at that > > time, i get exposed to porn-related material this offends me. It is > > belittleing (right word?) to me as a woman, it is rude and is it obscene. > > But my access is not unauthorised. > > Or if I'm working in the same office and offensive material is on display > on someone else's PC, I'm not involved in any "unauthorised access" but I > could be the object of harassment dur to the display of such material. If it's on display (i.e. visible to others), that's another matter; I was meaning the contents of the user's home directory or whatever, which is private to that individual. Obviously, the level of privacy of each user's PC will vary from place to place: I tend to think in terms of individual offices/cubicles, where what the user does on the PC is private unless they have a visitor. > Conor (Who harasses the NT admin by hanging up Tux and > userfriendly.org posters :-) LOL! You could try porting the login script my friend has - it tracks the top 10 uptimes on the network, and this machine's position in the chart. The highest listed is slightly under 203 days, on a 2.0 kernel; no 2.4 boxes listed yet... I wonder how many NT machines would make it into the top 10? ;-) James. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] uptimes ... ;)
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:09:13AM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > > LOL! You could try porting the login script my friend has - it tracks the > top 10 uptimes on the network, and this machine's position in the chart. > The highest listed is slightly under 203 days, on a 2.0 kernel; no 2.4 > boxes listed yet... in my home LAN I have an old 2.0.36 system with an uptime of currently 181 days -- seems to have been a particularly stable kernel version. I've had many Netscape Navigators running wild and trying to crash it, but I still always somehow managed to have it survive... This is the system I can always return to when I messed up everything else, but need to get something done. What a nice and warm feeling! And just in case you were wondering: 181 days ago, there was a power outage which my UPS wasn't able to smooth away ;) BTW, does anyone know of a way to upgrade the kernel while keeping uptimes? ... a question, the heart of which only real geeks do understand :) - Almut (being silly today) ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] uptimes ... ;)
To answer your question. There is no way to upgrade a kernel without rebooting the machine. My firewall has been up 127 days. Its not connected to a UPS though and the last three times it went down was a power failure. I use the power failures (about once every four months) as excuses to do maintenance on the firewall. The longest uptime I have seen was a 1.2.13 kernel (Slackware) 486 processor being used as a DNS server. It started up in 1996 and was retired in Jan 2000 when the power supply went. It was two months shy of 4 years. Bill On Sun, 27 May 2001 15:17:19 +0200, Almut Behrens wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:09:13AM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > > > > LOL! You could try porting the login script my friend has - it tracks the > > top 10 uptimes on the network, and this machine's position in the chart. > > The highest listed is slightly under 203 days, on a 2.0 kernel; no 2.4 > > boxes listed yet... > > in my home LAN I have an old 2.0.36 system with an uptime of currently > 181 days -- seems to have been a particularly stable kernel version. > I've had many Netscape Navigators running wild and trying to crash it, > but I still always somehow managed to have it survive... > This is the system I can always return to when I messed up everything > else, but need to get something done. What a nice and warm feeling! > > And just in case you were wondering: 181 days ago, there was a power > outage which my UPS wasn't able to smooth away ;) > > BTW, does anyone know of a way to upgrade the kernel while keeping > uptimes? > ... a question, the heart of which only real geeks do understand :) > > - Almut (being silly today) > > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] uptimes ... ;)
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Almut Behrens wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:09:13AM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > > > > LOL! You could try porting the login script my friend has - it tracks the > > top 10 uptimes on the network, and this machine's position in the chart. > > The highest listed is slightly under 203 days, on a 2.0 kernel; no 2.4 > > boxes listed yet... > > in my home LAN I have an old 2.0.36 system with an uptime of currently > 181 days -- seems to have been a particularly stable kernel version. > I've had many Netscape Navigators running wild and trying to crash it, > but I still always somehow managed to have it survive... > This is the system I can always return to when I messed up everything > else, but need to get something done. What a nice and warm feeling! > > And just in case you were wondering: 181 days ago, there was a power > outage which my UPS wasn't able to smooth away ;) UPSes are nice; one day, I'll probably get one, but somehow there's always something else more important to eat cash... > BTW, does anyone know of a way to upgrade the kernel while keeping > uptimes? > ... a question, the heart of which only real geeks do understand :) Actually, that question was asked for real earlier today on linux-kernel! To some extent, it's possible - you can upgrade individual modules - but you can't go from 2.4.2 to 2.4.3 without rebooting. Yet ;-) James. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts
(I'm taking out the attribution here, because the debate is about the ideas, not who said them) > > > > > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by > > > >definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of > > > >my PC, the only person liable for anything is that person: they are > > > >criminally liable for unauthorised access to my data. > > > > > > I don't agree with this. When there is a problem with a computer, it is my > > > job to fix it. Which means finding out what the problem is. If, at that > > > time, i get exposed to porn-related material this offends me. It is > > > belittleing (right word?) to me as a woman, it is rude and is it obscene. > > > But my access is not unauthorised. > > > > Or if I'm working in the same office and offensive material is on display > > on someone else's PC, I'm not involved in any "unauthorised access" but I > > could be the object of harassment dur to the display of such material. > > If it's on display (i.e. visible to others), that's another matter; I was > meaning the contents of the user's home directory or whatever, which is > private to that individual. Obviously, the level of privacy of each user's > PC will vary from place to place: I tend to think in terms of individual > offices/cubicles, where what the user does on the PC is private unless > they have a visitor. I don't think that the person who pays the rent on the office space, financed the PCs and pays for the bandwidth every month would feel the same way. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts
At 5/26/01 08:28 PM , Penguina wrote: > > Viewable by all! Only problem is the privacy issue. She may not be > > *allowed* to do that. > >Just put it in a passworded area (see the .htaccess thread) and only >give the password to the responsible people. Anyone who thinks this >is invasive, try keeping a company of your own afloat with employees >who surf and do private email on company time -- then get back to me. I agree with you that monitoring employees' access may be necessary on occasion, but the original poster may be forbidden *by EU law* from doing this. (Which may mean that the EU law is going to get lobbied against, heavily, by businesses in the near future... but doesn't help the original poster at the moment.) --Kai MacTane -- "But every night I burn,/Every night I call your name. Every night I burn,/Every night I fall again..." --The Cure, "Burn" ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] about zipslack...
Anyone have tried zipslack? Yeah, i know it sucks, but thatz all I got right now, and I need help with it cuz I can't get it to boot. So if you have any sugestions plz reply. Crunxie _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Bad surfing habbits part two
Liese wrote: > James wrote : > "Beware of driving your users to using a webmail service, though; if you > stop them using your mail system, they could switch to Hotmail or similar." > I have disabled Hotmail (and others) on our proxy server. This has saved us > huge amount of surfing time.. :) Really, some users were on this site for > more then 200 hours a month, refreshing often. mail.yahoo.com is the yahoo mail site. Maybe if you disallowed all the others but allowed this one domain than people could use that? That way, they can use the mail, but not peruse the incredibly huge amount of other features that yahoo intices people with. Is their a similar domain for hotmail or is it the huge query string dealy? If they had access to the other mail services, maybe that would prevent them from hogging all of your bandwidth. It might also encourage them to access all the questionable emails through those services. > Greetings, > liese > > Ps: im sorry for the occasional spelling error.. english isnt my native > language.. > I didn't even notice. :-) Elizabeth ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] about zipslack...
Anyone have tried zipslack? Yeah, i know it sucks, but thatz all I got right now, and I need help with it cuz I can't get it to boot. So if you have any sugestions plz reply. Crunxie _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
