On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:51:37PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2006-06-20 10:21, Tillman Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A long time ago I started working on an update to the Kerberos5 chapter,
> > which unfortunately I never completed and the "official&qu
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 09:59:06PM -0500, Michael D. Norwick wrote:
> I didn't get any replies on freebsd-questions for this one maybe
> someone here could help?
(Your line-wrap appears to be broken, I've reformatted it below)
I recommend checkign with the kerberos at mit dot edu list, this topic
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:01:51AM -0500, Branson Matheson wrote:
> Since there has been a plethora of negative.. i thought i'd add my 2cents..
> I think the new logo is pretty cool. Modern and artsy.
> Definately keeps with the roots of our Daemon .. while showing we can
> evolve and be more mod
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 08:14:18PM -0600, Doug Russell wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
>
> > If I'm remembering correctly - the historical way to
> > do this is to alias the "rm" command to something that
> > else that checks the arguments and complains appropriately
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 07:29:51PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tillman Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : It'll never work, though, that's the thing. At some point it'll rm
> : something it itself needs
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:16:08PM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> ...
> >>Exactly. Who would expect `rm -rf /` to actually succeed? It's not only
> >>dangerous, it doesn't work in a useful way ;-)
> >>
> >>If one is thinking about `rm -rf /`, `ne
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 08:55:17PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2004-10-02 10:51, Tillman Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If one is thinking about `rm -rf /`, `newfs` is probably the right
> > answer.
>
> And a hell of a lot faster too.
Exactly.
> T
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 04:48:46PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Of course, your work is commendable, but isn't is much simpler to just
> not type commands like that? I mean, "rm -rf /etc" or "rm -rf /bin"
> are just as bad, but do you really want to be checking for all
> possible `bad' deletions
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:42:16AM -0500, Sean Farley wrote:
> Why not default on? root will not run 'rm -rf /' on purpose very often.
> Once will be enough. :) Also, when and why would someone want to do
> this?
Exactly. Who would expect `rm -rf /` to actually succeed? It's not only
dangerous,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:56:36PM -0600, Michael Cacek wrote:
> I recently installed freebsd 5.2 on a local sunblade 100 system.
You probably want to try on the sparc64@ list.
FWIW, the last time I checked syscons improvements were still on the
TO-DO list for the sparc64 port. It's never really
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 09:43:46AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:11:05PM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
> > In addition to keeping your NAT translations (as suggested by
> > Wes), you need to also keep routes for those entries as well, so
> > t
11 matches
Mail list logo
