Hello,
I'm looking for a way to view L2 frame CRC errors on an interface. I've
scoured netstat, but found nothing (from what I've seen it's all Layer 3
anyway).
I googled and came up rather empty ("FCS error openBSD", "ethernet frame
CRC errors openbsd", etc.) .
The purpose for this is to
Hello,
I'm looking for a way to view L2 frame CRC errors on an interface. I've
scoured netstat, but found nothing (from what I've known of it it's all
Layer 3 anyway).
I googled and came up rather empty ("FCS error openBSD", "ethernet frame
CRC errors openbsd", etc.) .
The purpose for this is to
Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Hello
gtk-gnutella shipped with OpenBSD 4.0 is now obsolete and obsolete versions are
banned after 1 year from the Gnutella network.
If you are wondering, why it's suddenly not working, uninstall gtk-gnutella,
download the official one, delete ~/.gtk-gnutella, do Configure
I cannot see any traffic on bridge0 with "tcpdump -i bridge0", so that's
why I don't see any alerts on snort.
My physical interfaces are already configured and have their own IP
addresses. I need to assign different IPs to all 3 cards (LAN, WAN1,
WAN2). And here is what I run on the command line t
Have a Soekris with and Atheros AR5212. Wirelessly, out to the internet
packets get dropped. Wired, out to the internet, no problem. This is
with the same laptop using the same outbound internet connection.
Wirelessly, from this laptop to the router no packets are dropped. From
the router to s
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?
> They're not going to make any money off their
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
[..]
> Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> allowing access to the source code.
Not exactly. The c
On 4/9/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> Broadcom will get a driver that actually works
Hallo, VRIJDAG 13 april 2007, gaat de ULTIMATE DANCE NIGHT terug door na een
stilte van 3 jaar in EXPO GOWALT (Wetteren) naar aanleiding van het 10 jarig
bestaan
Optreden van SYLVER (rond half 1 voorzien)
Dj's;
RENEGADE (Extasis)
RENIER (pancho villa, Vita)
KRIS (Enjoy)
BREMZY (Insomnia)
BJORN (
Hi Claudio,
I have double check on my lab and everything work fine for the OSPF
part, sorry for my mistake.
But at the end, I'm still having the same problem: the server didn't
know the right route.
OSPF see all the route correctly but the system didn't seem to be
updated. If I do "route show"
Darren Spruell gmail.com> writes:
> Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely
> short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison,
> both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset.
What does any of this have to do with the license?!
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the
code to
you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
The problem is the word
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
> > about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
> > compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released
> > under the GPL.
> That
fastmail.net> writes:
> >
> > To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his
> > efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
>
> A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
> of code for anyone to use.
Exactly.
> So no code was rele
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"
> as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".
Don't believe RMSs FUD. You can't turn code "
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
>> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
>>
>> For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
>
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to int
I was wondering if anyone out there has used OpenBSD with RBAC. From
what I have found out so far RBAC is only deployed with FreeBSD. If
anyone has any info about this please let me know.
Thanks,
Banji
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 11:09:55AM -0600, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Instead of separating the obtaining of the pid from the actual
> reaping, you can instead separate the blocking from the return of the
> pid+reaping. That lets you lock the datastructure only when you know
> wait() won't block. To
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 02:46:32PM -0500, Lawal, Banji wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone out there has used OpenBSD with RBAC. From
> what I have found out so far RBAC is only deployed with FreeBSD. If
> anyone has any info about this please let me know.
You are right, that doesn't work on O
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> I'm not saying that anything is actually wrong with the code you've
> provided; rather, that it's difficult for me to understand the subtleties
> involved in asynchronous signal-driven programming. And that's with a copy
> of the Stev
On 4/9/07, Brian Candler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Suppose child 1 dies, causing a SIGCHLD to be pending, and then a second
child dies, before sigsuspend() unblocks the signal. sigsuspend returns, and
one child is reaped. Next time around the loop, will the second child be
reaped? If so, why
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Jessie D wrote:
fastmail.net> writes:
To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his
efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
of code for anyone
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.
That statement also is a matter of perspective. ;-) If you mean by
"freedom", the liberty to do whatever you want, then BSD is freedom.
If you mean by "freedom", th
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"
as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".
If the message is not formated, please copy below link in your browser
http://www.cruisemaster-me.com/promo/alaska.htm
Experience Alaska
April 2007
Alaska's pristine lands
Hi all.
I have noticed that the OpenBSD team puts a lot of emphasis on using binary
packets rather than building from ports, which I think IMHO is good, but why
is it that there is no binary kernel updates, rather than patching the kernel
from source?
I am asking this not from a point that we fin
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:08AM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
>
> >It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.
blah blah blah
I have to reply to this horse shit.
> Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really
> change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when
> it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use
> it if they offer it under the same restrictio
Hi there,
On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
have given you a practical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenBSD has really made a cool solution with pkg_add -u, but why not kernel
and basesystem binary updates as well?
You can do binary updates. On your build machine just update to -stable
and do make release, then upgrade your machines.
Hi,
Try this URL:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=openbsd+binary+upgrade
# Han
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:43:56AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have noticed that the OpenBSD team puts a lot of emphasis on
> using binary packets rather than building from ports, which I
> think IMHO is good, but why is it that there is no binary kernel
> updates, rather than patching the
> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
> have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without
> even consi
I have two hosts in a CARP group.
on router-meus-cd1, i have the following network configuration:
router-meus-cd1# ifconfig xennet1
xennet1:
flags=8963 mtu
1500
capabilities=2800
enabled=0
address: 00:16:3e:71:ef:6f
inet 10.10.10.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.1
On 4/9/07, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perce
On 4/9/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
> have given you a practical examp
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:
Unfuckingbelievable. Is there something in the GPL water that messes
with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
The real hypocrisy is this:
GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from
stealing their freedom.
On 4/9/07, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:
> Unfuckingbelievable. Is there something in the GPL water that messes
> with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
The real hypocrisy is this:
GPL advocates claim their license prevents
"Greg Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> > GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> > What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> > allowing access to the source c
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
>
> > GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the
> > code to
> > you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
> >
> > For people wanting true
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective.
No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free. The english language has
had the word for a long time, and
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:20:33PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> It is because you do not understand the definition of free. Let me
> quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:
> * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.
> * able to do something at will
> * ex
darren kirby wrote:
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
community.
Wide-sweeping incorrect generalizations are awesome. Can I make one too?
All GPL developers are morons. See? That was fun, wasn't it? Who cares
if it's correct, two wrongs make a right, doesn'
Just extracted - all new DENTIST Directory
Fields: Dentist/Clinic Name, Postal Address, Phone, Fax, Email and Website
Breakdown:
597,959 Total Records
6,494 Emails
6,000 Faxes
Special price until Apr 13 - $249
For more information or to place an order please send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me?
I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me?
---
Lars Hansson
Hi eveyrone,
I am having a bit of trouble installing DSPAM with Postfix. The
problem seems to be with the unix socket (and my lack of knowledge on
the subjecT).
Here is a small snippet of the config fordspam and postfix:
-
I have 2 older desktop computers (old Pentium 1 processors), and I would like
to create a simple network to allow them to ssh each other and share data.
Problem is that one of them doesn't have USB, but only a serail port. I did a
search of the archives, as well as a google search for "serial po
Investigate PPP. You can start a PPP server on one and a PPP
client on the other and they will immediately be able to to talk
and share data.
If all you need is remote login from one to the other investigate
putting a console on the serial port of one machine then using
something like Kermit or
Don Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have 2 older desktop computers (old Pentium 1 processors), ...
slip or ppp. You won't be doing much file sharing this way though,
unless you're *very* patient.
usb doesn't do peer<->peer networking, so I don't see what
good that does you.
You'd be *much
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:40:06PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> > I'm not saying that anything is actually wrong with the code you've
> > provided; rather, that it's difficult for me to understand the subtleties
> > involved in asy
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition
> > of free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and
> > perspective.
>
> No, its the FSF trying to re
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:36:08 -0400
"Jean-Daniel Beaubien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi eveyrone,
>
> I am having a bit of trouble installing DSPAM with Postfix. The
> problem seems to be with the unix socket (and my lack of knowledge on
> the subjecT).
>
>
> Here is a small snippet of the c
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I have to reply to this horse shit.
:-)
*snip*
Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with
GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if
Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a
closed sof
53 matches
Mail list logo
