Graham Menhennitt wrote:
Christopher Hilton wrote:
If it's at all possible switch to using public keys for authentication
with ssh and disallow password authentication. This completely stops
the brute forcing attacks from filling up your periodic security mail.
Are you sure about
Václav Haisman wrote:
I have just noticed that ipfw list shows one rule twice. It could be that I
have run a script that adds it twice:
That's expected behaviour. Rule numbers are not unique.
Think of the rule number as a tag attached to the rule.
It's perfectly legal that two rules can have
[Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
similar comments]
On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
THAT is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and 6.1 and begging for
4.11 support to be
Hi mark, i just happened to lurk around and read the thread.
Did you try to run iozone on both systems?
Benchmarks like this are designed to test performance
of filesystems on a rather wide domain of all related values
(block size, file size, etc...)
It also produces graphs so that someone can
On 2006-12-22, Peter Jeremy wrote:
[Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
similar comments]
On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
THAT is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and 6.1
You know, if people really do run FreeBSD-4.11 servers which are
mission critical (and, hopefully, making money in the process) then
please consider donating money to the project to get FreeBSD-6 sorted
out.
You could perhaps sponsor a FreeBSD developer for a few months to run
through the bugs
In response to Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(I have the same problem with the Squid project. Lots of people want
Squid to do everything, noone's willing to hire programmers to fix up
Squid to do these things and release the work back to the public. Then
people complain that Squid doesn't
On Friday, 22. December 2006 03:59, Garrett Wollman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
was.
Why do people continue to say this?
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. Just like .0
and .1 releases
On Friday 22 December 2006 09:43, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
On Friday, 22. December 2006 03:59, Garrett Wollman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
was.
Why do people continue to say this?
Because everybody knows that
On 22/12/06, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
is every 5 minutes. The result is that it's just hitting home for a lot
of people now that it's
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
I've been 20 years in electronics comouting and thats the first
time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or
evenness of it's numbering
In response to Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 22/12/06, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
is every 5 minutes. The result is that it's
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22-Dec-2006 13:18
Subject: Re: Communicating with the public (was Re: Possibility for FreeBSD
4.11 Extended Support)
To: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point being that you really have to use The Big Hammer to
On Friday 22 December 2006 10:13, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 22/12/06, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
is every 5 minutes. The result is that
Could be a reference to the Linux world, where every odd kernel
version number (e.g. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5...) are considered
experimental/development kernels. When a kernel is suggested to be
stable, it gets a new version number. 2.5.X becomes 2.6.0
eventually, which marks the end of the V2.5
grr, i really hate the way gmail replies to the sender of the message rather
than to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It doesn't have that problem with my local
lug mailinglist...
Jeff
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22-Dec-2006 14:26
Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support
To: Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22/12/06, Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because everybody knows that odd numbered
On 12/21/06, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/20/06, Abdullah Al-Marrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello guys,
I have problem with my laptop Acer Aspire 5102 WLMi which has AMD
Turion™ 64 X2 dual-core TL-50 1.6 GHz with 1.5 GB of ram.
I'm running i386 6.2-RC1 upgraded to
On Dec 21, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Graham Menhennitt wrote:
Christopher Hilton wrote:
If it's at all possible switch to using public keys for
authentication
with ssh and disallow password authentication. This completely stops
the brute forcing attacks from filling up your periodic security
Pete French wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
I've been 20 years in electronics comouting and thats the first
time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
is well known, but suspecting
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete French wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
I've been 20 years in electronics comouting and thats the first
time I
On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pete French wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is unstable. After all,
it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the
^
Not
On Friday 22 December 2006 02:15, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
FreeBSD 4.11 can survive a simple burn-in test. FreeBSD 5.X and
6.1 can not. Here's what I wrote earlier.
burn-in usually is a hardware test and not a software test
Take a server. Configure for SMP, add quotas within jails and
On Friday 22 December 2006 16:06, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pete French wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is unstable. After all,
it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pete French wrote on 12/22/06 8:43 AM:
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
I've been 20 years in electronics comouting and thats the first
time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
is
I can tell you what I do about these, which may not suit your situation
especially if this is on a high profile server, but if you are just
running FreeBSD for your own purposes I found this to be a great tool.
It's called BlockHosts and can be found here
http://www.aczoom.com/cms/blockhosts/
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
[Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
similar comments]
On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
THAT is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Graham Menhennitt wrote:
Christopher Hilton wrote:
If it's at all possible switch to using public keys for authentication
with ssh and disallow password authentication. This completely stops
the brute forcing attacks from filling up your periodic security mail.
28 matches
Mail list logo
