mqyOn Wed, 29 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Send plug mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of plug digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? (Johann Vincent Paul U. Tagle) > 2. NFS over *FS WAS>> Re: [plug] XFS and ReiserFS (Ian C. Sison) > 3. [OT] HP Servers (Jimmy) > 4. Re: sendmail mailbox problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 5. Re: KDE 2.2 vs GNOME 1.4 (Raymund dos Remedios) > 6. Re: Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? (Holden Hao) > 7. Re: Re: teaching C with gcc (Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla) > 8. Re: [OT] HP Servers (Mike Blancas) > 9. Re: Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? (Mike Blancas) > 10. frontpage extension server ? (Jose I. Punongbayan Jr.) > 11. Re: Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? (Reynald I. Ngo) > 12. Re: frontpage extension server ? (Mike Blancas) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:04:12 +0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johann Vincent Paul U. Tagle) > Subject: [plug] Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi. We're looking for a firewall solution. An officemate of mine seems > uncomfortable with using a linux-based firewall to protect servers running > proprietary/commercial unix. I think given good hardware, proper > configuration, and maybe to increase comfort level, using commercial (with > vendor support) but still linux-based firewall software, we should be fine. > > It would help my case if I can give them a live setup that has similar > configuration. Anybody here doing that? Suggestions on what > distribution/software to use are also most welcome. Also, know of any > firewall solution that can be configured for high availability/clustering? > > Thanks a lot. > > Johann > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:36:23 +0800 (PHT) > From: "Ian C. Sison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Philippine Linux Users' Group Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: NFS over *FS WAS>> Re: [plug] XFS and ReiserFS > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Jijo, > > Do you have any news from the XFS front about getting nfs stable over XFS > or any other *FS? So far the only 'true' support nfs has is with ext2 and > recently reiserfs. > > NFS is very important when dealing with file servers, really IMHO, the > implementation of kernel-nfs in linux very problematic... > > Ian > > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > > > Willie, > > (cc PLUG) > > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 at 13:59, W I Marifosque wrote: > > > you mentioned you use reiserfs for your squid cache, is this on the > > > same system with XFS? > > > > Yes, ReiserFS, ext2, and XFS coexist nicely on my server. Those of you > > into "snooping" may check <http://mrtg.leathercollection.ph/phpSysInfo/>. > > I use the latest CVS copy of the XFS-enabled Linux kernel, that is > > currently 2.4.9. ReiserFS is supported because it's in the mainstream > > kernels. > > > > I haven't heard any success stories about getting ext3fs and XFS on the > > same system, but there is news about JFS in > > <http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#jfsplusxfs>. > > > > --> Jijo > > > > -- > > Federico Sevilla III :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc. > > GnuPG Key: <http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/jijo.gpg> > > > > _ > > Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph > > To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:48:45 +0800 > From: Jimmy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: PLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [plug] [OT] HP Servers > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi guys, sorry for this off topic,. > > Is there a local distributor of HP , Dell or Micron Servers? > What do you recommend for a branded Server box? > > > TIA > > > Jimmy Lim > Operation & Support Team Leader > Tricom > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:08:48 -0800 > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [plug] sendmail mailbox problem > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > When I tail -f /var/log/maillog the error below keeps on appearing. > > > > Mailbox vulnerable - directory /var/spool/mail must have 1777 protection > > > > check out this url: baka makatulong :) > http://www.moongroup.com/archives/mailhelp/2001-03/msg00091.html > > http://www.linuxarkivet.nu/mlists/redhat-list/0009/msg02628.html > > hope it helps > > +manuel > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > From: Raymund dos Remedios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Meridian Telekoms, Inc. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [plug] KDE 2.2 vs GNOME 1.4 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:31:53 +0800 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tuesday 28 August 2001 21:51, Orlando Andico wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gideon N. Guillen wrote: > > .. > > > > > What do you mean it's slow... it's as fast as GNOME on my box... OK so > > > I have a 1.2 GHz box. ;) Have you tried importing GTK themes to KDE? > > > Maybe you should try it. I think it's under the System Menu, the > > > Legacy Theme Importer. :) > > > > I dunno.. KDE screens pop up faster than GNOME screens. But the individual > > *controls* feel less responsive. I just can't explain it, but even in KDE > > 0.2 I had that feeling. Maybe Qt controls are just slower than GTK. > > > > And there are annoying visual artifacts like when I hide the taskbar. > > > > btw I have an almost-1.0GHz box with 0.5G of RAM. So it's not the > > hardware! > > > > I used KDE 2.1 on a 233mhz celeron machine with 196mb of ram, and a 2.4.6 > kernel. I didn't experience any sluggishness, I was using the machine also > as in in-house ftp server. I now am using an Athlon 900mhz with 256mb of ram > and notice it is a little bit snappier ;-). > > I do not have any problems with artifacts. Actually, I was initially a GNOME > user in the KDE 1.0 days. I switched because of the artifacts that I > encountered on my screen back then. I haven't tried GNOME lately, but, I do > believe that it has improved a lot from when I last tried it. I know people > who use GNOME and are perfectly happy with it too :) > > At any rate, my KDE install performance did improve substantially when I > enabled the tmpfs on the /tmp directory. Apparently, KDE does uses the /tmp > directory quite a bit. Removing the disc I/O helped in my case. > > > .. > > > > > KDE 2.x is reall slower than GNOME, but, at least in my opnion looks a > > > lot more cool than GNOME. That's just my opnion anyway. > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:41:43 +0800 > From: Holden Hao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [plug] Linux firewall protecting proprietary unix hw? > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Try Netmax, a linux based firewall. All the configs you need to set are > browser based. I think the reluctance of your companion lies with the > difficulty involved in the setup process due to unfamiliarity to Linux. > Netmax should help. Check out http://www.netmax.com > > I, however, do not know how solid it is. But I know a company who uses it > as firewall. So far it has served them well =) > > Holden > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:56:45 +0800 > From: Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [plug] Re: teaching C with gcc > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 02:00:39AM +0800, Gideon N. Guillen wrote: > > Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla wrote: > > > DDD's a great program. Only problem is it's a memory hogging debugger > > > and it uses Motif! I use it as a last resort, for programs that have > > > complicated data structures. > > > > What's wrong with Motif? ;) I still use some Motif apps even though I use a > > lot of KDE and GNOME apps. One of 'em is nedit. I use nedit most of the time > > for text editing and writing programs. I don't know, perhaps it's because I > > got used to it. ;) > > > > What is wrong with Motif is that it's a fat library that does way too > much indirection (it is probably the second, and last toolkit library > that used Xt Intrinsics), is full of memory leaks, and is nowhere near > as sophisticated as more modern GUI toolkits; it's evolution has > lagged way behind. I'm happy that Mozilla switched to GTK+ at first > opportunity; probably half the bugs and fat in the original Netscape > came from its use of Motif. The only reason why Motif is still used > at all is because it's something of an industry standard... > > _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
