>On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:20:01PM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> > or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
>> > you agree?
>>
>> What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
>
>On my main desktop,
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:07:53AM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:21PM +, james wrote:
>> Include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox in the ldconfig line and run the ldconfig
>> command through /usr/local/mozilla-firefox/run-mozilla.sh (or manually set
>> LD_LIBRA
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:20:01PM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
> > you agree?
>
> What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
On my main desktop, I use d
Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
/usr/bin/lynx is actually pretty good for a lot of things, and if you
rebuild it with '--enable-externs', it can launch scripts or another
browser on the current page or current link. It even has an almost
foolproof advertiseme
Greetings,
On 07/04/2008, at 10:13 PM, Unix Fan wrote:
I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't
believe the OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6
version, "We believe in security" my ass.
OpenBSD 4.3 will have 2.0.0.12, unfortunately 2.0.0.13 is out
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:29PM +0200, Daniel Horecki wrote:
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2002/12/04/0017.html
> >
> > You mean, exactly this is making a difference?
>
> If I recall correctly, it was never commited to the sources. Anyway,
> NetBSD haven't any prelink/prebi
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:21PM +, james wrote:
> Include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox in the ldconfig line and run the ldconfig
> command through /usr/local/mozilla-firefox/run-mozilla.sh (or manually set
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox)
I think, the latter method is
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:15PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>
> > >There should be the other ones; on the NetBSD 3.1 Firefox is ready to work
> > >in about 4 seconds... quite a difference, isn't it?
> >
> > Do
Zbigniew Baniewski ispid.com.pl> writes:
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:29PM -0700, Marco S Hyman wrote:
>
> > > > ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
/usr/X11R6/bin
> > >
> > > Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
> >
> > Not sup
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:29PM -0700, Marco S Hyman wrote:
> > > ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
> /usr/X11R6/bin
> >
> > Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
>
> Not suprising as the firefox binary is not in any of the given
>
Zbigniew Baniewski writes:
> > ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
> > /usr/X11R6/bin
>
> Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
Not suprising as the firefox binary is not in any of the given
paths.
// marc
It's made to be secure, it's prone to be installed on a server not just
a fuckin desktop o.s.
Well, it depends. I use OpenBSD as a critical-mission server and as a
common daily desktop. I'm very happy in both cases.
A secure, funcional and free desktop, of course.
--
Thanks,
Jordi Espasa Clo
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:03:43PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> In my case this does help
>
> ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /usr/X11R6/bin
Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
--
pozdrawiam / regards
In my case this does help
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /usr/X11R6/bin
and has never been a problem
2008/4/8, Dale Rahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dust
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
>
> > I use Seamonkey. It works.
> > Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
> > Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
>
> Both are starting in about the same
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:15PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >There should be the other ones; on the NetBSD 3.1 Firefox is ready to work
> >in about 4 seconds... quite a difference, isn't it?
>
> Do they already do prebinding?
AFAIK they have something called RelCache (aka ELF prebinding)
Hi!
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
>> I use Seamonkey. It works.
>> Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
>> Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
>Both are starting in about the same - lo
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
> I use Seamonkey. It works.
> Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
> Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
Both are starting in about the same - long - time: 20 seconds... :/
(Pentium II 400, 256 MB RAM, SATA drive, OpenBSD
on obsd 4.2 SM is 1.1.4... there are some issues
But in any case I absolutely agree with you that fatfox is very
"resource-unfriendly"
I think I'm going to switch to links
Is there a flash plugin for it?? ... hehe
By the way... why is lynx default page openbsd.org? I thought all
packages were "
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
>> you agree?
>What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
Seamonkey?
Also, (for the rest of you on misc) as far as security goes, the
OpenBSD development tea
Unix Fan ha scritto:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
..
You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
the very people you're "suggesting" do the work, right?
Yes, I "realise" that, and I'm not trying to offend...intentionally.. *sigh*...
I'll sto
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:44PM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > ..
>
> > You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
>
> > the very people you're "suggesting" do the work, right?
>
>
>
> Yes, I "realise" that, and I'm not trying to offend...inte
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:07AM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
> OpenBSD developers are "intentionally" putting their users at risk by not
> providing security updates
bullshit. -current ports gets security updates all the time.
and yes, I am saying to use -current if you need ports and can't/don't
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Daniel A. Ramaley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 14:00, you wrote:
> >"We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it..
> > it won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure
> > again. briefly."
>
> The
On Monday 07 April 2008 14:00, you wrote:
>"We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it..
> it won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure
> again. briefly."
The developers provide a secure system that can be downloaded completely
free of charge. If you
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:44PM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
...
> I'll stop posting, the developers have already made it clear to us
> end-users...
>
> "We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it.. it
> won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure again.
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> ..
> You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
> the very people you're "suggesting" do the work, right?
Yes, I "realise" that, and I'm not trying to offend...intentionally.. *sigh*...
I'll stop posting, the developers have already made it
> You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
> the very people you're "suggesting" do the work, right?
I don't think they realise
...providing resources for "OUR" security...
what, like untrusted binaries from an unknown anonymous source, sent via
"some file sharing site"? If I ran 4.2 on boxes where I use a web browser,
I'd sooner take my chances with slightly older OpenBSD-provided packages
and noscript.
You do realise th
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Devin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're welcome to submit patches to the dillo team.
To a project that has a two year old changelog, and hasn't updated
their website in approximately the same timeframe? Is dillo
development active on some underground lev
Devin Smith wrote:
> Why not use Dillo? Fast, light weight. If your site doesn't work
> in Dillo, why not make it work? http://www.openbsd.org renders in
> it.
>
> You're welcome to submit patches to the dillo team.
Because it's the worlds must lamest browser, next to lynx of coarse.
No
Nick Templeton wrote:
> Didn't you participate in this flamefest already:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750317632017&w=2
>
> You already know the reasons for this.
>
> -Nick
Why yes, it would seem I did previously participate in an almost identical
discussion... the things you
Unix Fan wrote:
Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's a
hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to show up
in that tim
> Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
>> or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
>
>> you agree?
>
>
>
> That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's
> a hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to
> show up in that time frame
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
> you agree?
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
Jacob Meuser wrote:
> or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
> you agree?
That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's a
hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to show up
in that time frame.
OpenBSD
* Unix Fan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080407 08:57]:
> I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
> OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, "We believe
> in security" my ass.
>
> OpenBSD 4.3 will have 2.0.0.12, unfortunately 2.0.0.13 is out, and
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:43:43AM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
> I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
> OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, "We believe
> in security" my ass.
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lou
I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, "We believe in
security" my ass.
OpenBSD 4.3 will have 2.0.0.12, unfortunately 2.0.0.13 is out, and that fixes
yet another security problem... so, manual
39 matches
Mail list logo
