Dave,
Thanks so much for your help. I have never touched perl but I will give it a
try. Still, I have other questiones:
1. What software will I need to install on the firewalll in order for this
script to work?
2. Is there any danger in having this kind of software on a publically
accessable fire
Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> am having trouble getting samba on my 4.1-release machine to deliver
> more than 3-7 MBps transfer speed.
Just to eliminate the obvious, you *have* checked full/half duplex
mismatches?
- P
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 im
Why are you still talking?
Why are you topposting?
Why does it matter to the world at all what your one random friend does?
And the standard: What does this have to do with OpenBSD?
On 9/17/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques f
Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for "Leopard".
But market share has completely NOTHING to do with "OS X"'s security.
Apple always has and will be 100 % when it comes to their software for
OS X and OS X itself.
Only time will tell. "Leopard"'s release will solve
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
> > > derivative work from
> > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> > > elements
Yes fxp1 has been up'ed with ifconfig and I've ping'ed other machines
with it so it is working just can't figure out why bridge0 doesn't
want to bind to it, fxp0, or any device.
On 9/15/07, Jeff Quast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/07, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> -Original Message-
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if there was a way to name hosts in pf.conf
> so when I did a
> pfctl -s all I could see the STATES table with hostnames instead of ip
> addresses. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier
> espcially when the
> STATES table starts to ge
am having trouble getting samba on my 4.1-release machine to deliver
more than 3-7 MBps transfer speed. this is horribly slow, even on 100
Mbps, and i'm hoping there are folks out there who can assist me in
tuning this properly.
the following is set in smb.conf
read raw = yes
write raw =
The nic I'm trying to bind to (fxp1) DOES work in non bridge mode, I
can ping machines through fxp1 so I know I don't have a problem with
that card.
Here is my dmesg.
OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC.RAID) #0: Thu Sep 13 18:41:29 PDT 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.RAID
Hello guys, what is the best supported by OpenBSD project Subj now?
; thank you very much. Done a lot of tests with ral(4).
--
Sergey Prysiazhnyi
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
> > derivative work from
> > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> > elements in that work.
>
> Of course you can.
No you can't.
> What rights do you have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?
>> that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
>
> if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Li
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough
> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
>
> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
>
> The main reason of Theo's messa
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from
> receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> elements in that work.
Of course you can.
What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made avai
2007/9/18, Can E. Acar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
> > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
> > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
> > HAL --- if peop
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:28:47 +0700, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
don't worry, I will give 4.1 I try, since I also like my machine
up-to-date :D
Thanks Y'all,
On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote:
I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..
if you
On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Instead, however, they approached me with rage,
> trying to blame the FSF for whatever happened. I don't have to take
> that, and I don't have to cater to them.
It's more disturbing to me at 55 than it was at 35 that the free
software - op
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tobias Weingartner wrote:
[...]
> One thing your teacher may not know is that x86 assembly includes the
> 32-bit environment, and (now) also a 64-bit environment. However, running
> 16-bit code under OpenBSD i386 is going to be somewhat difficult. We
On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote:
> I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..
if you can move back to the 18-month-old code of a soon-to-be
-unsupported release, can't you at least try booting 4.1 or
preferably a snapshot and give some feedback so developers know
The only thing I know about this "incident" is that OpenBSD developers
are angry at someone I don't know, over events whose details I don't
know.
If they had approached me in a friendly way, asking me to look at the
issue and formulate an opinion, as a favor or for the good of the
community, I wou
Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200:
> But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then
> complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
> back is simply dishonest.
>
> Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
>> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
>> and by doing that creating something new I would not say muc
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:52:11 +0700, Matiss Miglans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi..
I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..
Hi!
I Have that motherboard with 4.0 Snapshot (I don't remember the date)
and all works good.
1. There were problems with second gigabit port
On 9/17/07, Steve B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a vendor that carries mini PCI
> cards that support hostap mode under OpenBSD?
man (4) ral is a good place to start. I bought a MSI MN54G
recently which worked.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
> and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
Number 1, some of the
I'd like to add a PCI card to by OBSD box in order to gain wireless support
(translation - lazy me wants to work from the couch). The local non-profit
for which I volunteer has tons of PC stuff donated but none of the PCI
wireless that have come in are capable of hostap mode. Recently someone
donat
Hello,
I was wondering if there was a way to name hosts in pf.conf so when I did a
pfctl -s all I could see the STATES table with hostnames instead of ip
addresses. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier espcially when the
STATES table starts to get real big.
Thanks a lot,
Pedro
Granada Spai
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Theodore Tso writes:
hardly
> Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need
> a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a
> bit differently but get the same effect.)
Really? I thought yo
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
> > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
>
> The BSD license
Hi misc@,
I just came across these notes on ACPI:
http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3 (search down for "acpi") and got
wondering what OpenBSD's take on securing ACPI is. Can AML code
actually be an attack vector, or are there safeguards in place in
OpenBSD against that?
I tried searching the arch
Also Paul,
Now that is working do me a favor and try to compile the userland and
kernel with that bsd.mp acpi enable kernel.
Also, try if possible to make transfer of huge files between two boxes
well connected to try to at a minimum get close to 100Mb/sec of
transfer, or more if you have Gb
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> Theodore Tso writes:
>
> > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
> > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
> > a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
> > Do you
Kryzstof Halasa writes:
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Theodore Tso writes:
>
> hardly
A apologize for the error in attribution.
> > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work.
> > You never need
> > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some cou
Paul Taulborg wrote:
Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch
that was kindly provided to me here:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=118975639013313&w=2
I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other
processors), and tada!
I had to a
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
>> The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical
>> that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate
>> greed,
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
> goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
The BSD license promotes goodwill.
The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
| > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
| > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
| > for them) trying to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
> > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
> > copyright and licens
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
| > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
| > they don't require it, so we don't have to".
| >...
|
| The GPL doesn't require to give
Chris wrote:
I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as well.
Is this the right way to do this?
You might as well give joeuser root password if you give him access to
pkg_add and pkg_delete tools.
package framework has ability to run scripts as root. All joeus
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
> | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
> | > they don't requi
On 2007/09/17 13:43, slug bait wrote:
> Bingo! I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading
> shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it.
it's not actually caused by offloading, but offloading means that
transfers from the nic to the motherboard aren't pro
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:17 -0400, Nick Guenther wrote:
> Besides tradition, is there any particular reason that netstart is in
> /etc? This has always confused me, I'd think it would be in /sbin.
> Further, why is it not exectuable?
You can always symlink it to /sbin and change the permissions to
Bingo! I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading
shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it.
Everything is working now and I hope I NEVER have to open these 1U cases
again. Jamming the SATA connectors back in after they're covered by the NIC
makes me c
On 9/16/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Taulborg wrote:
> > I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful
> > boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel:
>
> Paul,
>
> Not sure all the tests you did, but first do not run AMD64 on Intel
> processor. I would do t
On 7/22/07, Daniel Melameth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/22/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2007/07/20 15:20, Daniel Melameth wrote:
> > > then go back to the broken behavior sometime later. A reboot of the box
> > > or
> > > removing altq is the only way to resolve th
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your lice
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> What's a laptop user to do?
Run as root -- why not?
Be careful. Limit PATH. Keep the cat off the keyboard. (This
can be pesky if you're using vi at the time.)
Open a root xterm, make the background some weird color, use a font
and size you don't
Chris,
Hrmm...
Chris> Sorry for being vague. Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser.
Chris> joeuser is also in the wheel group.
[...]
Chris> I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as
Chris> well.
Chris>
Chris> Is this the right way to do this?
Um, these are
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> > void?
>
> Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other peop
On 2007/09/17 11:09, slug bait wrote:
> I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall. I have
> installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears
> to be broken. The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board
> GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.
load averages: 0.30, 0.08, 0.03
05:22:12
15 processes: 14 idle, 1 on processor
CPU0 states: 0.3% user, 0.0% nice, 0.7% system, 0.1% interrupt, 98.9%
idle
CPU1 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.9%
idle
CPU2 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.
On 9/17/07, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser.
> joeuser is also in the wheel group.
Why are you adding wheel group membership? Root access through
sudo(8) does not require the user to be a member of wheel, but su(8)
does.
Jim
Theodore Tso writes:
> Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
> the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
> a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
> Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
> the works MS Windows etc.
> And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
> | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
> | licence is that
* Erich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 17:27]:
> on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.
>
> one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in
> /etc/hostname.fxp0,
> no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started
> there.
> a
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts).
But not dynamic blacklisting.
I occasionally get log messages like:
spamd[12
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:52:06AM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> > If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system
> > with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in
> > operator).
>
> But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoyin
* Gregory Edigarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 17:12]:
> Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3
> fullview routing? I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and
> therefore does not do fullview routing.
there are many way bigger installations than that.
I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall. I have
installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears
to be broken. The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board
GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.
The first symptom I noticed was the inability
Catalin Stoian wrote:
Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of
cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is
installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't
understand what you mean with the radio thing.
Neither cat nor ls will show pk
On 2007/09/17 17:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3
> fullview routing?
yes.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > problem is. This is why people keep asking you to explain the problem
> > more.
>
> Sorry for being vague. Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser.
> joeuser is also in the wheel group.
>
> joeuse
Jacob Meuser wrote:
when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they
did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings
that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less "whateve
Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon:
>
> The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less
> free than the BSD.
>
> Free code + restrictions = non-free code.
The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited
by smashing the door adds t
James Mackinnon wrote:
Hi all
I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue
I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting
-authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf
Any suggestions?
assuming you've carefully gone through the two setup examp
hi,
on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.
one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in
/etc/hostname.fxp0,
no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session
started there.
after manual configuration of the second interface and
On 2007/09/17 16:22, Erich wrote:
> im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit
> older, but did a good job so far.
I definitely recommend updating, 4.1-stable is probably the best
choice for you (at least, until 4.2 is out).
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or that
> "OpenBSD != Linux kernel"
>
> was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they
> are both open source operating systems.
BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?
I did, not once :-)
--
Krzysztof
On 2007/09/17 09:52, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep.
You might find this useful:
$ grep bell /usr/src/etc/wsconsctl.conf
#keyboard.bell.volume=0 # mute keyboard beep
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>...
> Saying something like:
> "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU"
>
> is quite similar to saying:
> "Windows != Microsoft"
>
> In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are
> certainly related. Also in both cases,
Hi,
Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3
fullview routing? I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and
therefore does not do fullview routing.
--
With best regards,
Gregory Edigarov
On 9/17/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:39:12AM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote:
> > security features make the internet a safer place to be. If you are
> > working for a company, the BSD license is probably more favourable to
> > you because it pushes
> If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system
> with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in
> operator).
But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep.
When shutting down the laptop in a hushed boardroom or lecture ha
"Can E. Acar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code
> to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough
> to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright?
"Deserve"? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the
d
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
> additions/changes*.
Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output
of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works.
You may add a copyright _no
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Hannah!
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> >On Sun, Se
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
> especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
> copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
> BSD/ISC code.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
>> Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
>>> regardless of w
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
The only restrictions on
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:33:59PM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
| /sbin/halt
| Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything, or is it just a
| historical vestige? Would there be anything wrong with giving the
| operator enough hardware access to run the commands above?
If you're
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
> regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
> The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution
> must r
Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of
cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is
installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't
understand what you mean with the radio thing.
On 9/17/07, Darren Spruell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> O
Hi all
I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue
I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting
-authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf
Any suggestions?
James
--
James Mackinnon
President
Devante
On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the
code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
> >
> > JFTR,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
> > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
> > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
>
> NetApp does
Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
> choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
> altogether).
You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing
license notices, the other is about relicensing. One h
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
> >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
> >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
> >no one is allowed to g
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
> and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD community so upset.
when I see the
On 9/15/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.
>
Are you joking?
Where is you stand on ethics and freedom of software now?
Are you just another politician with great swelling words of emptiness?
I did sent a mail to misc@ and if you h
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>[...]
>What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
>"derivative work".
Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.
>Whether or not you can even make a deriva
EFFECTIVE TIME MANAGEMENT
Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman; 12 th - 13th November 2007
WHY NEEDED
Improving Time Management capability has been a popular training subject for
many years, for three very simple reasons:
' In the modern business life we are faced with an ever increasing number
of task
* Matthew Szudzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 04:41]:
> Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything
sure, taking dump(8)s
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated S
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
> you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
> brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc
--
Henning Braue
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these developer
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these developer
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which is
Hi!
I Have that motherboard with 4.0 Snapshot (I don't remember the date)
and all works good.
1. There were problems with second gigabit port.
2. There were problems with ACPI, and the system was unstable( Try to
compile anything).
But With this snapshot all works great.
I haven't tried 4.1
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
