On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:40:20PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
My memory (768 MB) is running at 133 MHz and it takes less then 3 secs
on my computer (1.44 MHz Celeron), so you could be true there. But that
would mean approx. 50 MB transfer? While /var/lib/dpkg/available is less
then 10
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:04:24PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still pingable,
running Debian? What about not pingable?
Hmmm... I'm sure the 386 I installed years ago is still somewhere, but
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 02:19, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote:
Another question:
Is there any version of nmap or another good port scanner that supports ipv6?
Serial-ATA is not, as far as I know, based on IPv6.
cheers
-- vbi
--
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp
signature.asc
Description:
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 22:45, David Dumortier wrote:
Hello
Does anybody know: is there an easy way to monitor cache efficiency in
Linux? (x86)
If it exists, it must to laws of Heisenberg. Who know h value ?
It would require hardware support - that's why I specifically asked
about x86. I
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 01:31:33PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
said:
Serial-ATA is not, as far as I know, based on IPv6.
Yes, but is it backwards-compatible? Or is there some kind of adapter
for the cable? Answers, man, we need answers! How can I use Debian to
increase my
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 13:49, Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 01:31:33PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder said:
Serial-ATA is not, as far as I know, based on IPv6.
Yes, but is it backwards-compatible? Or is there some kind of adapter
for the cable? Answers,
On 18 Jan 2003 20:33:03 +0100
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 13:49, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Hmmm. This reminds me of my old project of a transatlantic SCSI
cable...(after all, there are some IP-over-SCSI patches floating
around, I believe).
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 22:45, David Dumortier wrote:
Does anybody know: is there an easy way to monitor cache efficiency in
Linux? (x86)
If it exists, it must to laws of Heisenberg. Who know h value ?
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:01:42 -0500
Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:39:04PM +0100, Philippe Seidel said:
Anyway, I think [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the best use for such computers. This
is even the peer group for the SETI project =)
distributed.net. In that
Another question:
Is there any version of nmap or another good port scanner that supports ipv6?
--
Julen Landa Alustiza
mundurat.net eko administraria
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:19:59AM +0100, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote:
Is there any version of nmap or another good port scanner that supports ipv6?
from: http://www.insecure.org/nmap/data/CHANGELOG
Nmap 3.10ALPHA1
o IPv6 is now supported for TCP scan (-sT), connect()-style ping
This one time, at band camp, Julen Landa Alustiza said:
Another question:
Is there any version of nmap or another good port scanner that
supports ipv6?
What's the matter with with nmap -6?
--
--
| Stephen Gran
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 01:47, Martin Baehr wrote:
You're talking to someone who uses a Celeron 400 as Gateway, Firewall,
Samba and mailserver and thinks this is a pityful waste of computing
power. The thing is: I haven't got anything which is slower any more =)
i'd be willing to trade
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:40, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 11:43, Otto Visser wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 08:40:57AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt said:
So it serial-ATA backwards compatible?
Yes, I think.
--
Shawn McMahon| Emacs: It's a nice OS, but to compete with
AIM work: spmcmahonfedex | Linux or Windows it needs a better text
AIM home: smcmahoneiv| editor.
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 10:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
the system is reasonably fast. Dselect still
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 11:43, Otto Visser wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 06:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn McMahon [2003-01-13, 08.16 -0500]:
Serial-ATA 150 drives and controllers are available now.
SATA controllers and drives include DRM functionality, don't they?
I think I read something like that a couple of weeks ago (and
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:32, David Dumortier wrote:
Hello,
At work, I had installed several 486 as gateway (three and there 3 others
servers on potato an 1 old 386 with 8 cdrom's on slink).
Nethermind
[cutcotcut]
Here's some suggestions:
Think there're some better cut to do ...
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
the system is reasonably fast. Dselect still uses about 10 seconds every
time
I go to the 'select' screen, but otherwise it is very workable... I just
That's not too bad,
This mail didn't go to the mailing list.
-Forwarded Message-
From: Stephan Schmieder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Philippe Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: debian-trivia
Date: 11 Jan 2003 01:49:40 +0100
On 11 Jan 2003 00:46:36 +0100
Philippe Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well
Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still pingable,
running Debian? What about not pingable?
Hmmm... I'm sure the 386 I installed years ago is still somewhere, but
it's been plugged off the net for quite a while. But even that would
be
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
the system is reasonably fast. Dselect still
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:43:01PM +0100, Otto Visser wrote:
My memory (768 MB) is running at 133 MHz and it takes less then 3 secs
on my computer (1.44 MHz Celeron), so you could be true there. But that
Sweet! should go well on my handspring then!
Mike.
--
Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 07:51:38PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
If the CPU were the bottleneck, the Athlon should be much faster. I
guess it's memory access, which would explain the roughly equal time for
a machine with roughly a factor 3 difference in raw CPU speed (yes,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:29:17AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
Just under 6 seconds here. Pentium II (Deschutes) @ 400 MHz (800
BogoMIPS), 384 MB RAM (66 MHz SDRAM), and an overwhelmingly cool
WD1200JB (120 GB, 8 MB buffer, ~8000 RPM, UDMA 33) hard drive. The
bottleneck appears to be the
HM == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM Are UDMA 133 controllers available yet? I've had a Maxtor
HM drive capable of it for nearly a year, but no controller.
I just picked up a Promise 133 controller yesterday, along with a
couple of 40Gb Maxtor 133 drives. So, yes, they
Evan Prodromou wrote:
HM == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM Are UDMA 133 controllers available yet? I've had a Maxtor
HM drive capable of it for nearly a year, but no controller.
I just picked up a Promise 133 controller yesterday, along with a
couple of 40Gb Maxtor 133
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:46:36AM +0100, Philippe Seidel wrote:
On Mit, 2003-01-08 at 22:47, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
It even takes too long (considering the task of 'simply' display a list)
on a PII
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:01:55 +1100
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:46:36AM +0100, Philippe Seidel wrote:
Well I'm using a PII 350 for almost four years now and it serves me
perfectly.
Well, don't get offended because I said your computer was old.
Debian
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 22:47, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
It even takes too long (considering the task of 'simply' display a list)
on a PII 350MHz with enough RAM. And I don't consider this an old
machine.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:22:58PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:47:14AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt said:
Well in all fairness it would be at least four years old.
We use works better on old hardware as a selling point for Linux.
We can't have it both ways.
It works
Florian Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hmm, woody on a 386sx25 running here :)
10mb ram, 40mb swap
180mb hdd,
online, but no static ip
booting until bash prompt takes 6 minutes,
without starting apache 4min. :)
unfortunately i dunno how to deploy this baby, it sits
right beside
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
It even takes too long (considering the task of 'simply' display a list)
on a PII 350MHz with enough RAM. And I don't consider this an old
machine.
Last night I was playing with Debian on a Psion 5MX. You
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:00:25PM +, Hugh Saunders said:
this whole thread is a tribute to how linux makes old hardware usefull,
the last posts are sugguestions for how we can make old hardware even
more usefull by tuning stuff.
Except the one to which I replied, and which I quoted,
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 08:46:27 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
Running woody, on this SS1 (although BenC mused aloud about dropping
support for the sun4c-arch :( - so it may well go the OpenBSD route
when sid becomes stable).
Is this akin to dropping i386 support in favour of i686?
Judging
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:47:43PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 08:46:27 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
Running woody, on this SS1 (although BenC mused aloud about dropping
support for the sun4c-arch :( - so it may well go the OpenBSD route
when sid becomes stable).
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:13 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
So what kind of machines are sun4c? How old are they?
Sun SparcStation 1/1+, IPC are the ones I know of, built around 1990
AFAICT, bICBW.
Seems like a dangerous precedent to me.
hmm.
cheers,
rw
--
-- Q: What is the difference
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 21:21, Andreas von Heydwolff wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
How do you install a Debian machine with e.g. only 8 MB?
What a great thread! Am not feeling alone any more with my 486/25 or
some such laptop, 8MB RAM, 200MB hdd which almost makes me feel like a
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
the system is reasonably fast. Dselect still uses about 10 seconds every time
I go to the 'select' screen, but otherwise it is very workable... I just
That's not too bad, it takes nearly 5 on my 1.2 GHz Athlon machine!
Hamish
--
AH == Alexander Hvostov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AH That should be a good start. Anyone care to comment?
Yes.
I'm no genius, but even to a dunderhead like me, it seems like the
Debian package mechanism is getting quite creaky with age. Something
that scaled well for a package catalog in
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
It even takes too long (considering the task of 'simply' display a list)
on a PII 350MHz with enough RAM. And I don't consider this an old
machine.
Well in all fairness it would be at least four years old.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:47:14AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt said:
Well in all fairness it would be at least four years old.
We use works better on old hardware as a selling point for Linux.
We can't have it both ways.
--
Shawn McMahon| Emacs: It's a nice OS, but to compete with
AIM
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:22:58PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:47:14AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt said:
Well in all fairness it would be at least four years old.
We use works better on old hardware as a selling point for Linux.
We can't have it both ways.
this
I also make no claim to genius, but I have long felt that a system that
was based on ideas of relational database with a multiple descriptor
attributes that could be searched using a query language would be great
for the user. The present system has a purely hierarchical structure.
This
I read that and thought god bless you
and I'm a devout atheist
:)
--- Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:51:22PM +0100, Amaya
wrote:
Steve M. Robbins dijo:
Since July of 2000, it's been running Debian
linux as my firewall at
home.
That's SO
For the record, when I wrote that, I was thinkig
single piece of machinery
now?
i don't care
--- J� Fahlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Son, 5. Jan 2003, 08:45:38 -0800 schrieb Josh
Narins:
How about the most expensive?
http://helics.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de maybe. It's a
cluster at
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 04:33:47PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 08:45:38AM -0800, Josh Narins wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
I've got an old 386 machine that I bought in early 1992
Le dim 05/01/2003 à 17:45, Josh Narins a écrit :
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
Not pingable (behind a proxy/firewall of my university) but fully
functional, a 5x486dx33 cluster running debian potato (you can see him
here
PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:19:15 +0100
Subject: Re: debian-trivia
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 08:45:38AM -0800, Josh Narins wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
How about the least expensive machine, in real
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
Well, there are still plenty of sun4c-machines around ;)
cpu : Fujitsu MB86900/1A or LSI L64831 SparcKIT-40
fpu : Weitek WTL3170/2
promlib : Version 0
Thomas PARIS wrote:
On Sun Jan 5 at 08:45 (-0800), Josh Narins wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
For a friend of mine I installed potato on a 386/4MB/100MB. Had to cheat
to do it, that is to put the hard drive in
How do you install a Debian machine with e.g. only 8 MB?
The 'installing debian on 4MB RAM - HOWTO':
http://squat.net/puscii/doc/debian-lowmem.html
Mk
http://squat.net/puscii/doc/debian-lowmem.html
I forgot to say that it's in very broken english, but i left it unedited
as the writers frenchy english is very funny.
Mk
On Mon Jan 6 at 11:58 (-0800), Alexander Hvostov wrote:
For a friend of mine I installed potato on a 386/4MB/100MB. Had to cheat
[...]
You know, you don't have to install Debian to do that. Rolling a
customized system with exactly what you need and nothing else might be a
better solution.
hmm, woody on a 386sx25 running here :)
10mb ram, 40mb swap
180mb hdd,
online, but no static ip
booting until bash prompt takes 6 minutes,
without starting apache 4min. :)
unfortunately i dunno how to deploy this baby, it sits
right beside my dsl-gateway, so perhaps it could serve
the apache.
On Sunday 05 January 2003 23:51, Amaya wrote:
Steve M. Robbins dijo:
Since July of 2000, it's been running Debian linux as my firewall at
home.
That's SO cool, but, is it running Woody?
How do you keep up with security in hardware that old?
My lapton is younger (P-200 MMX) and crawls with
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
How do you install a Debian machine with e.g. only 8 MB?
What a great thread! Am not feeling alone any more with my 486/25 or
some such laptop, 8MB RAM, 200MB hdd which almost makes me feel like a
king among the low end guys 3:-)
Anyway, the tarball method always
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:45:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
How about my Boyfriend's set-up? (http://winterwolf.co.uk/linux)
In particular the Amiga 1200 (circa 1992) and the Sparcstation 1
(circa
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:49:19PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
Running woody, on this SS1 (although BenC mused aloud about dropping
support for the sun4c-arch :( - so it may well go the OpenBSD route
when sid becomes stable).
Is this akin to dropping i386 support in favour of i686?
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 07:11:40PM +0100, Florian Zimmermann wrote:
hmm, woody on a 386sx25 running here :)
10mb ram, 40mb swap
180mb hdd,
online, but no static ip
I don't think the oldest Debian box competition would be won buy a PC..
there must be some others which are older, perhaps some
JN == Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JN Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
JN pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
I've got a pre-release (92, maybe) Jensen alpha machine running
potato. It's not currently pingable, but should be back online soon.
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 13:06, criggie wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
No idea - but I have a 0.96r1 debian CD, and a 100 Mbit ISA
Am Son, 5. Jan 2003, 08:45:38 -0800 schrieb Josh Narins:
How about the most expensive?
http://helics.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de maybe. It's a cluster at position
35 on the top 500. Unfortunately they don't mention Debian on their
homepage anymore. I'll go and ask them.
Jö.
--
Das Leben ist
On Monday 06 January 2003 09:39, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 13:06, criggie wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
On Monday 06 January 2003 09:41, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:35, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Running dselect on that machine is an exercise in patience, let me
tell you ...
Simple solution: don't run dselect. ;) Perhaps some of the APT
front-ends are faster. Is anything
On Sun Jan 5 at 08:45 (-0800), Josh Narins wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
For a friend of mine I installed potato on a 386/4MB/100MB. Had to cheat
to do it, that is to put the hard drive in another computer as 4MB
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 06:32, Marius Gedminas wrote:
- Rather than storing data for each and every package in the single file
'/var/lib/dpkg/{status,available}', store each package's data in its own
file '/var/lib/dpkg/{status,available}/foo'.
IMHO that would be *less* efficient. Ever
On 06 Jan 2003 06:02:58 -0800
Alexander Hvostov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's high time dpkg received some serious optimization. The
way in which the package control info is stored and processed is
horribly inefficient. Here's some suggestions:
- Rather than storing data for each and
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 11:52, criggie wrote:
On 06 Jan 2003 06:02:58 -0800
Alexander Hvostov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's high time dpkg received some serious optimization. The
way in which the package control info is stored and processed is
horribly inefficient. Here's some
On Monday 06 January 2003 22:54, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:02:58AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
Perhaps it's high time dpkg received some serious optimization. The way
apt-get is also really slow on slow hardware, and it already has binary
cache files I think.
Hmm,
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:54, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:02:58AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
Perhaps it's high time dpkg received some serious optimization. The way
apt-get is also really slow on slow hardware, and it already has binary
cache files I think.
So I've
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 14:35, Yven Leist wrote:
On Monday 06 January 2003 22:54, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:02:58AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
Perhaps it's high time dpkg received some serious optimization. The way
apt-get is also really slow on slow hardware,
Hello,
At work, I had installed several 486 as gateway (three and there 3 others
servers on potato an 1 old 386 with 8 cdrom's on slink).
Nethermind
[cutcotcut]
Here's some suggestions:
Think there're some better cut to do ... perhaps don't install locale or
better, dictionnaries ... on ?86
For a friend of mine I installed potato on a 386/4MB/100MB. Had to cheat
to do it, that is to put the hard drive in another computer as 4MB is
not enough to install potato. And now that it is installed it can't do
much as as soon as you log in it starts using the swap. But it does
snip
i
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
How about the least expensive machine, in real or
nominal terms, ever/still running Debian?
How about the most expensive?
Just curious.
__
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Josh Narins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
No idea - but I have a 0.96r1 debian CD, and a 100 Mbit ISA nic and a 16
bit scsi HA waiting for the day I find
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 08:45:38AM -0800, Josh Narins wrote:
Does anyone know the oldest piece of machinery, still
pingable, running Debian? What about not pingable?
I've got an old 386 machine that I bought in early 1992 that still
runs well.
It ran exclusively on linux right from the start,
Steve M. Robbins dijo:
Since July of 2000, it's been running Debian linux as my firewall at
home.
That's SO cool, but, is it running Woody?
How do you keep up with security in hardware that old?
My lapton is younger (P-200 MMX) and crawls with SID.
--
.''`. Help a man when he is in
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:51:22PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Steve M. Robbins dijo:
Since July of 2000, it's been running Debian linux as my firewall at
home.
That's SO cool, but, is it running Woody?
Nope. I installed Potato and left it at that.
How do you keep up with security in
80 matches
Mail list logo
