Shell A.04.00 is based on the public domain OpenSSH
4.0p1.
is openssh public domain?
It would be interesting to diff the hp code against OpenSSH
Knowing HP my bet is that HP's Secure Shell IS OpenSSH. Heck, IIRC,
they even called it that way back when
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
drive? This isn't the prelude list but I'd
be interested in a quick assessment from an OBSD user.
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:27:33 +0100
Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 25 October 2005 10:19 -0600, Ken Gunderson wrote:
It would be interesting to diff the hp code against OpenSSH
Knowing HP my bet is that HP's Secure Shell IS OpenSSH. Heck, IIRC,
they even called
missing?
TIA--
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:43:26 +0200
Rogier Krieger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/23/05, Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now my question is whether there is some way to shorten
this delay that I'm missing?
Did you read through the list archives? This matter is well-discussed.
Other
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:42:35 -0400
Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote:
Greets:
I've been exploring root on raidframe w/a pair of mirrored disks. Once
I bring something like this up I then go ahead and do my best to break
it, test out recovery scenarios, etc
wrote a lame mua w/o bothering to read any rfc's, research
conventions, etc. prior to doing so. A point obvious to those who cut
their teeth on *nix rather than M$.
/rant
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply
in advance,
cheers
You might want to take a look at mrtg.
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:22:27 -0400
Bill Chmura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:10:53 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake:
On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
[ Redirecting back to misc@ where this belongs ]
From: Ken Gunderson [EMAIL
upgrade resolved it.
Thanks for the thought. That's one of the first things I checked,
however, and the BIOS is at most recent rev.
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:05:48 +0100
Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005/10/18 13:43:35, Ken Gunderson wrote:
This is driving me nuts. I've installed FreeBSD-6.0RC1 w/same result
about EEPROM.
The driver is originally from Intel (see the manpage), I wonder
if it's worth
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:01:58 -0400
Lawrence Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote:
Hello All:
I'm having some issues w/an Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Server Adapter
in an OBSD-3.7 box. The card is in the pci-x riser on one of
these puppies;
http://www.tyan.com
is 485622912
(237120 MB) as root dkcsum: wd0 matched BIOS disk 80
dkcsum: wd1 matched BIOS disk 81
rootdev=0x1300 rrootdev=0x3600 rawdev=0x3602
raid0: Device already configured!
raid1: Device already configured!
TIA--
--
Best regards,
Ken Gunderson
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:10:53 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
[ Redirecting back to misc@ where this belongs ]
From: Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pf@benzedrine.cx
I'm having some issues w/an Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual
16 matches
Mail list logo
