Odd behaviour with portmaster -r gnutls
From /usr/ports/UPDATING --- 20110605: AFFECTS: users of security/gnutls and any port that depends on it AUTHOR: no...@freebsd.org gnutls has been updated to 2.12.6.1 and all shared libraries' versions have been bumped. So you need to rebuild all applications that depend on gnutls. Do something like: portupgrade -rf gnutls portmaster -r gnutls --- pkg_info -Rx gnutls shows that gnutls is required by 92 of my installed ports so before running portmaster -a I duly ran portmaster -r gnutls. This ran without any errors but only 4 ports were updated... curlew:/root# portmaster -r gnutls [snip] === Done displaying pkg-message files The following actions were performed: Re-installation of GeoIP-1.4.7 Upgrade of python26-2.6.6_1 to python26-2.6.7 Upgrade of gnutls-2.8.6_2 to gnutls-2.12.6.1_1 Upgrade of wireshark-1.4.6 to wireshark-1.4.7_1 curlew:/root# Should I worry about this huge discrepancy? I haven't got round to running portmaster -a yet and I haven't come across any problems so far, apart from having to add an entry for libgnutls.so.40 in /etc/libmap.conf to keep cups happy. pkg_version -vL= shows that 70 ports are due for updating, only some of these depend on gnutls so even after running portmaster -a there will be a considerable number of ports depending on gnutls which will not have been updated. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: versions of software
On 6/15/2011 11:20 AM, spidey wrote: Good morning. I have never used Freebsd. For that matter, I have not used Linux since the early 1990s (1993 to be exact) Anyway... BTW - I have your logo on my xwindows on the Linux box I am trying to setup. I think it's great. OK, so, you haven't ever used FreeBSD, and you decided that you would sign up for a FreeBSD mailing list to say that you have the logo on the machine while trying to install Linux on it? OK, Intrigued... I have a need to use sendmail and DNS bind. Can someone tell me which versions of sendmail and DNS Bind are in the current Ubuntu 10?? In your opinion, are they going to be hard to install. I was going to use (Linux) Redhat but, could not figure out where the files were not to mention, I see there are some security issues with the version I have and updating looks like it would be hard as trying to pull teeth from Godzilla when he's got tooth ache and motheras flying around his head while smacking him in the head with a wing. In other words.. on a bad day it looks hard. Not real good with analogies are we? This is a FreeBSD mailing list, and asking whicih version of Linux to use, which, by the wya, no one is ever going to give you a straight answer too, since that CAN'T be answered (Mostly because basically, there are around 12,000 versions of Linux, and they all do something a little different). If you'd like my OPINION; Ubuntu is African for I can't install Slackware or Debian and sucks. So does Red Hat. So does Fedora. Debian, Slackware, and SUSE are the best you'll get from Linux. That being said, I have a Dell 2650 dual 3200s, with 6 gig of memory and 36gig hard drive space. I only need it for a test and was wondering how this would work under Freebsd. If someone could let me know, I would really appreciate it. A! Finally, we get to something related to the list this is posted to! OK, basically, FreeBSD is like Linux since both are Unix like or based Operating systems. However, even though Linux is getting better and better all the time, it still isn't nearly as fast as FreeBSD. FreeBSD is regarded as one of THE MOST Stable Operating Systems ever written, and even people who like Linux more would admit that. FreeBSD is an excellent choice for any Server task you might need, and it's very fast. You can literally do anything your hardware and mind can come up with, as those are basically the only two limitations to FreeBSD. It's the reason I spend money on FreeBSD when I can easily get it for free. FreeBSD can also run a lot of Linux Applications just fine with the Linux_Enable=YES added to /etc/rc.conf and, not only that, I've heard many MANY times that somehow, FreeBSD manages to run Linux apps faster than Linux itself can. So if you'd like advice; INSTALL FREEBSD And, you can also do what I did with MY Ubuntu Installation CDs; Coffee Cup Coaster :) Thanks much for your time You're very welcome. And please enjoy my playful sense of humor at 6:37 AM while still being awake, and having not slept :) lol. Andre -gore (I have a thing for Horror Movies, lol). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: versions of software
FreeBSD can also run a lot of Linux Applications just fine with the Linux_Enable=YES added to /etc/rc.conf and, not only that, I've heard /etc/defaults/rc.conf has it in lower case linux_enable=NO Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with ; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Going STABLE in 64bit
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net wrote: On 6/16/2011 11:49 AM, Andy Wodfer wrote: Hi, I'm running 8.2 REL. Are there any specific things to be aware of when compiling kernel and making world in 64bit? Required kernel modules etc? I sometimes forget that the kernel config is in cd /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/ and not cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/ ... so I will be editing the wrong kernel config file, rebuilding, and not understanding why the changes are not reflected in my kernel as loaded. But other than that and a little longer build times, all is pretty much the same Just to be clear, you have an existing 64bit 8.2 system you are just updating to stable right ? Thanks for your email Mike! Yes, my system is currently running in 64bit. /Andreas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: OT: Strange memory reading (hardware)
-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: 17 June 2011 00:06 To: Chuck Swiger Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OT: Strange memory reading (hardware) On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:11:22 -0700 Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote: On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Robert wrote: I have tested with all of the sticks installed and with one at a time. When all of the sticks are installed, BIOS show a total of 2752 MB of RAM. If any of the sticks are installed alone in any of the four slots, BIOS then shows 960 MB instead of the 1024 one would expect. Sounds like the BIOS is stealing 64MB for video RAM. There's likely a BIOS setting which governs the size of this. As for not being able to access all 4GB, this is a FAQ. If you run a 32-bit system, the top gigabyte or so of address space is reserved for memory mapped I/O reservations like AGP, PCIe, etc. If your hardware is capable of running in 64-bit mode, do that. Regards, Chuck Thanks for the reply. I should have been clearer. During POST only 2752 MB is shown. Also, I am running the amd64 version of freenas. As I said, I am 100% sure this is a MOBO hardware problem and I was just trying to compute the math. Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org The BIOS if it has shown 4096mb at post in the past would suggest that it is up to date at least enough to deal with 4gb of ram. I would say the likely hood of all 4 ram sticks developing the exact same problem at the same time while not impossible is highly unlikely. Do you have another machine you can test the ram in or stick of ram you can test on this motherboard? Not sure if your board will let you do this or not, but try 1 stick in bank 1 rather than bank 0, and see what it shows, you might also want to repeat the same test with 1 stick in bank 2 and then in bank 3. Bios settings for on board video will reserve some ram, some boards report the main ram figure less this figure others do not. You might want to try doing a bios reset with the jumper on the motherboard its self. Also give the ram slots a blow out with some aero duster could be there is some dirt in them. Other than running memtestx86 or the 64bit equivalent I am pretty much out of ideas. Regards Graeme ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
At 04:12 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: At 12:56 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: snip out a lot Sorry to return with one more question about upgrading to apache22 from apache2. A note of concern was that apache22 changes the path to the document root by inserting ../www/apache22/data versus the previous ../www/data doc root. Of course my vhosts and a bunch of other things of importance now reside within the ../www path. I suppose I can change the doc root within the apache22 config file(s) but I can forsee some possible breakage in things on a production server when before, when moving from apache-1.3 to apache2, web things were put in the same path and without any modifications needed. I suppose this only affects the main host server stuff and things left in the ../www placement will still work as before according to the present setup. In examining the apache22 Makefile I see some places that the path might be changed, but don't know if that is the best idea vs maybe changing the doc root in apache22 config. A 3rd choice is to move stuff contained in the ../www/cgi-bin phpMyAdmin ...etc things that the main host needs to find in the new location. What did you fellows do about this issue that worked best for you assuming y'all had vhosts and similar stuff to worry about? Methinks this is my last question before moving to production servers. Appreciate your further comments (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
At 04:12 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: At 12:56 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: snip out a lot Sorry to return with one more question about upgrading to apache22 from apache2. A note of concern was that apache22 changes the path to the document root by inserting ../www/apache22/data versus the previous ../www/data doc root. Of course my vhosts and a bunch of other things of importance now reside within the ../www path. I suppose I can change the doc root within the apache22 config file(s) but I can forsee some possible breakage in things on a production server when before, when moving from apache-1.3 to apache2, web things were put in the same path and without any modifications needed. I suppose this only affects the main host server stuff and things left in the ../www placement will still work as before according to the present setup. In examining the apache22 Makefile I see some places that the path might be changed, but don't know if that is the best idea vs maybe changing the doc root in apache22 config. A 3rd choice is to move stuff contained in the ../www/cgi-bin phpMyAdmin ...etc things that the main host needs to find in the new location. What did you fellows do about this issue that worked best for you assuming y'all had vhosts and similar stuff to worry about? Methinks this is my last question before moving to production servers. Appreciate your further comments (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
At 04:12 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: At 12:56 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: snip out a lot Sorry to return with one more question about upgrading to apache22 from apache2. A note of concern was that apache22 changes the path to the document root by inserting ../www/apache22/data versus the previous ../www/data doc root. Of course my vhosts and a bunch of other things of importance now reside within the ../www path. I suppose I can change the doc root within the apache22 config file(s) but I can forsee some possible breakage in things on a production server when before, when moving from apache-1.3 to apache2, web things were put in the same path and without any modifications needed. I suppose this only affects the main host server stuff and things left in the ../www placement will still work as before according to the present setup. In examining the apache22 Makefile I see some places that the path might be changed, but don't know if that is the best idea vs maybe changing the doc root in apache22 config. A 3rd choice is to move stuff contained in the ../www/cgi-bin phpMyAdmin ...etc things that the main host needs to find in the new location. What did you fellows do about this issue that worked best for you assuming y'all had vhosts and similar stuff to worry about? Methinks this is my last question before moving to production servers. Appreciate your further comments (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
At 07:26 PM 6/17/2011 -0500, Jack L. Stone wrote: OUCH! I hipe my last email really didn't go out 3 times. Mail server wasn't resolving properly, so had tried different ones. Sorry (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
At 04:12 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: At 12:56 PM 6/16/2011 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: Jack L. Stone wrote: snip out a lot Sorry to return with one more question about upgrading to apache22 from apache2. A note of concern was that apache22 changes the path to the document root by inserting ../www/apache22/data versus the previous ../www/data doc root. Of course my vhosts and a bunch of other things of importance now reside within the ../www path. I suppose I can change the doc root within the apache22 config file(s) but I can forsee some possible breakage in things on a production server when before, when moving from apache-1.3 to apache2, web things were put in the same path and without any modifications needed. I suppose this only affects the main host server stuff and things left in the ../www placement will still work as before according to the present setup. In examining the apache22 Makefile I see some places that the path might be changed, but don't know if that is the best idea vs maybe changing the doc root in apache22 config. A 3rd choice is to move stuff contained in the ../www/cgi-bin phpMyAdmin ...etc things that the main host needs to find in the new location. What did you fellows do about this issue that worked best for you assuming y'all had vhosts and similar stuff to worry about? Methinks this is my last question before moving to production servers. Appreciate your further comments (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: OT: Strange memory reading (hardware)
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:18:53 +0100 Graeme Dargie a...@tangerine-army.co.uk wrote: Graeme Thanks for taking the time to reply. The BIOS if it has shown 4096mb at post in the past would suggest that it is up to date at least enough to deal with 4gb of ram. I would say the likely hood of all 4 ram sticks developing the exact same problem at the same time while not impossible is highly unlikely. Do you have another machine you can test the ram in or stick of ram you can test on this motherboard? Not sure if your board will let you do this or not, but try 1 stick in bank 1 rather than bank 0, and see what it shows, you might also want to repeat the same test with 1 stick in bank 2 and then in bank 3. Bios settings for on board video will reserve some ram, some boards report the main ram figure less this figure others do not. You might want to try doing a bios reset with the jumper on the motherboard its self. Also give the ram slots a blow out with some aero duster could be there is some dirt in them. Other than running memtestx86 or the 64bit equivalent I am pretty much out of ideas. Regards Graeme I cannot be sure that I have tried one individual stick in all slots but I know that I have had various sticks in various slots and all showed as 960MB. As far as I can tell this happened when I was converting this computer from a file server/desktop running 9 current to a freenas server. I rearranged all hard drives and removed some expansion cards (pci firewire, pci-e Sapphire) removed DVD drives and installed one CD drive. All in all I had my hands in the MB quite a bit and could have done something even though I was careful and always grounded myself. Of course, I had the power off whenever working inside the box. I will be taking the computer down in the next few days to add another drive to create a mirror. At that time I will do all that you recommended. i.e. Blow out the dust bunnies, double check all connectors, redress all cables and the run memtest. The MoBo is not new and has been in continuous use for many years. It is not inconceivable that I have a trace problem or a cold solder joint somewhere. Thanks again for your reply. Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Another PHP5 problem
That would explain the three different quote times in them. Yes it did, but I'm not concerned. On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Jack L. Stone wrote: At 07:26 PM 6/17/2011 -0500, Jack L. Stone wrote: OUCH! I hipe my last email really didn't go out 3 times. Mail server wasn't resolving properly, so had tried different ones. Sorry (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:14:03AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who would probably like to see archives that strip such information from headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam email list spiders to reap. Thanks for the advice, I've just made the setting (I'm using the Sylpheed MUA). I didn't pay much attention to that (although I'm aware of the topic) as mailing list publishing systems put in the From: datafield (directed at the list) automatically, so all the names and addresses are already in there. I will keep that setting as it sounds the right thing to do. Other possibly needed information (like addresses) are in the mail header anyway. Thank you. I appreciate it. Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of the art, as explained here: Code Reuse and Technological Advancement http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21 Interesting article, and helpful for further argumentation. Thank you! Exactly my point of view. Bookmarked. I'm glad you found it worthwhile. The part LA in EULA means license agreement, so I assume this indicates that I have to agree to something, and an agreement between two parties is a... contract. The vendor allows me to do certain things with the software _if_ I agree to the terms. If I do _not_, I am not legally allowed to use the software, will loose warranty or am even forced to return the whole computer system. The term Agreement in End User License Agreement does not actually imply that you have explicitly agreed to anything. It merely implies that the guy who invented the term is conversant in the ways of inventing terms of newspeak (q.v. 1984, by George Orwell). It's a term of propaganda, rather than of meaningful definition. There's a dish that many restaurants serve involving a tortilla wrapped around some set of common ingredients -- often involving beans, cheese, and possibly rice and/or meat, among other things. In the United States, we call it a burrito. The fact we call it that, however, does *not* mean it is in fact a small donkey (burro is donkey in Spanish, and burrito would mean small burro). By the same token, tax cuts are not subsidies, now matter how often Democrats in the US call them subsidies, and full disclosure IT security research is not cybertarrorism, no matter how much Republicans in the US call it cyberterrorism. Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and may therefore cultivate just one opinion about one topic (instead of two opinions). :-) Same here, of course. I'm not a lawyer, but I pay attention to the law. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp7agN2gsyVl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:59:57AM +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2011-06-17 00:20, Daniel Staal skrev: --As of June 16, 2011 11:21:34 PM +0400, Peter Vereshagin is alleged to have said: (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) Which is copyrighted, all databases are copyrighted where i live. Even the .se whois database. # The information obtained through searches, or otherwise, is protected # by the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729) and international conventions. # It is also subject to database protection according to the Swedish # Copyright Act. Holy crap. That's awful. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpRfgEDeXQEd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:22:31AM +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2011-06-17 06:53, Adam Vande More skrev: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Bernt Hansson wrote: Copyright you get without registration and without payment, and one can't give it up. Again, registration is pretty important if you want to an expanded ability to legally enforce it. Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. And you can assign your copyright away. Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. The fact this is not applicable everywhere is the reason for things like the CC0 waiver, however. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpFK5VBXJ2eR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. Sorry to contribute to this long thread that is only peripherally related to FreeBSD, but I have to ask -- does this trick really work? You can send yourself unsealed (or just very lightly sealed, or with manilla envelopes, just use the clasp, not the gum) envelopes whenever you like, and then insert contents seal at some later date. It seems a flimsy proof that the contents actually were in the envelope as of the postmark date. I'd be curious to find out whether courts have really accepted this, or whether it's more of an urban legend. Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what [ ... ] Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html There is no specific provision in the copyright law for disclaiming rights in copyrighted works, and of course, no obligation to do so. However, the Copyright Office will record a statement of your intention to relinquish rights in our official records because the document pertains to a copyright within the meaning of the statute. A statement of abandonment should identify the works involved by title and/or registration number. The office does not provide forms for this purpose. The legal effect of recording a statement of abandonment is not clear. Moreover, its acceptance for recordation in this office should not be construed as approval of the legal sufficiency of its content or its effect on the status or ownership of any copyright. Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html There is no specific provision in the copyright law for disclaiming rights in copyrighted works, and of course, no obligation to do so. However, the Copyright Office will record a statement of your intention to relinquish rights in our official records because the document pertains to a copyright within the meaning of the statute. A statement of abandonment should identify the works involved by title and/or registration number. The office does not provide forms for this purpose. The legal effect of recording a statement of abandonment is not clear. Moreover, its acceptance for recordation in this office should not be construed as approval of the legal sufficiency of its content or its effect on the status or ownership of any copyright. The effect has been, in any cases I have noticed, that waiving copyright makes it essentially impossible to assert copyright. Keep in mind that, if nothing else, such a waiver serves to demonstrate to the receiver an intent to let the receiver of the waiver to do whatever he or she likes with a copyrighted work similarly to an explicit license enumerating all the specific effects of such a waiver, and (unlike as in jurisdictions such as France) there does not appear to be any provision in law that disallows it. While it is always possible that someone with a better lawyer than you can turn these circumstances on their collective head in court, the implications are obvious, even to a lawyer. Don't take my word for it, though. My policy is to never just make bare public domain dedications. I much prefer detailed waiver licenses such as the CC0 waiver rather than dedication to the public domain, not only for local jurisdictions but for worldwide applicability as well. Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpog99SK2ABw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. Yes, I know the difference. You're welcome to cite a court case in the US where a judge decided that this poor man's copyright constituted valid evidence of copyright ownership. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? [ ... ] Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:48:25AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: Are you seriously trying to argue that evidence of copyright date necessarily won't constitute evidence of copyright date in court? Seriously? In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? Is there some part of the fact it isn't established case law does not change the fact it offers some proof of possession, and this not only has not been discredited by snopes but was actually pointed out by the UK IPO and is not specifically contradicted by what the USPTO has to say about it? You're generalizing from there's no case law that snopes has found, and the USPTO says it's not the same as registering copyright to there's no way to establish any date of copyright other than registering it, which is kind of ludicrous. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Are you willing to stop using straw men in place of my actual statements? I didn't think so. I'm not interested in perpetuating this ridiculous nascent flame war of yours. Please have your argument without me from this point forward, preferably off-list. You can email yourself if you like. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgptQ4Rz6AqEl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Second Network Almost but Not Quite Works.
The system in question has its primary NIC on one particular network and a default route to the gateway on that network and all of that works fine. I needed the system to communicate fully on two different networks so we enabled the second interface card and it works on that second subnet. You can connect to hosts there and hosts on that network see the new interface. The problem is that it doesn't know anything about the router on that second network. I don't want it to loose the default router but it needs to be fully connected from the second interface as it is a name server and it is about to move from one network to the other. I enabled the second interface as follows: ifconfig fxp1 inet 192.168.1.13 netmask 255.255.255.0 Is the route add command what I need to cause that interface to speak to the router and to hear packets addressed to it from that router? The routing issue seems to be the only connectivity problem that the second interface has. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Second Network Almost but Not Quite Works.
The system in question has its primary NIC on one particular network and a default route to the gateway on that network and all of that works fine. I needed the system to communicate fully on two different networks so we enabled the second interface card and it works on that second subnet. You can connect to hosts there and hosts on that network see the new interface. The problem is that it doesn't know anything about the router on that second network. I don't want it to loose the default router but it needs to be fully connected from the second interface as it is a name server and it is about to move from one network to the other. I enabled the second interface as follows: ifconfig fxp1 inet 192.168.1.13 netmask 255.255.255.0 Is the route add command what I need to cause that interface to speak to the router and to hear packets addressed to it from that router? The routing issue seems to be the only connectivity problem that the second interface has. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Strange memory reading (hardware)
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:09:30 -0500 Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote: It's quite simple really, it's another hidden tax - Redistribution of RAM. You see, even with all the entitlement programs poor people can't afford more than 512MB of RAM. As you are certainly aware that's not enough to watch YouTube and Hulu on their government funded (tax payer funded) ultra high speed internet connections. So, the government has taken some of your RAM (as you obviously can afford to buy more if needed) and will give it to those who really NEED it - so while they sit around collecting government aid (tax payer earnings) their streaming video's will play smoothly. What! I didn't even vote for those guys. :-) Woa - I guess I digressed a bit... Ummm, sorry - I don't know why this would be. Is there some memory mapped video (or disk controller?) stealing RAM? I guess I wasn't clear. Only 2752 MB is show during POST instead 0f 4096. It has always shown 4096 on this MB. Thanks for lighting up my day with the above humor. :-) Robert What does Memtest86 show, if you try running that? I've had issues in the past where one stick has a single bad bit (in a 512M stick) that caused all sorts of strange things with the BIOS, but not the OS!.. Memtest86 (eventually) found it, testing 1 stick at a time in each of 4 slots. Took ages... DaveB ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: versions of software
On 6/17/2011 7:58 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: FreeBSD can also run a lot of Linux Applications just fine with the Linux_Enable=YES added to /etc/rc.conf and, not only that, I've heard /etc/defaults/rc.conf has it in lower caselinux_enable=NO Yea I know, I'm still awake from yesterday, which is 24 hours as of now, and I hit Shift heh ;) Cheers, Julian -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Jun 17 12:22:42 2011 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:03:47 -0500 From: Alex Stangl a...@stangl.us To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. Sorry to contribute to this long thread that is only peripherally related to FreeBSD, but I have to ask -- does this trick really work? You can send yourself unsealed (or just very lightly sealed, or with manilla envelopes, just use the clasp, not the gum) envelopes whenever you like, and then insert contents seal at some later date. It seems a flimsy proof that the contents actually were in the envelope as of the postmark date. I'd be curious to find out whether courts have really accepted this, or whether it's more of an urban legend. OK, time for somebody who really knows about this stuff to wade in. Under 'modern' copyright law -- i.e. in any country that has adopted the 'Berne Convention treaty on copyright law: 1) Copyright protection attaches _automatically_ when an 'original work of authorship' is first 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression'. 2) The copyright belongs to the person who created the 'original work' in question, *unless* it is a 'work done for hire', which covers almost all work done by an employee, _and_ *some* work done by a contractor. In general, if using a contractor, the contract should specify that copyright is assigned to the person paying for the work. 3) In the U.S. 'registering' the copyright with the copyright officE (a part of the Library of Congress) gives you certain legal rights that are *NOT* available if you have not registered the copyright. T includes 'statutory' and 'punitive' damages, instead of just 'actual' damagers. Registration also 'conclusively establishes' the date of authorship as 'not after' the date of registraton. 4) In the U.S., one can officially register copyright on something up to SIX MONTHS _after_ first 'publication'. 5) To establish copyright infringement, there are several things you have to 'prove' (by a prepondernace of the evidence) in court: 1) that you authored the work in question. 2) that you authored it _before_ the infringer produced their 'copy'. 3) that the 'infringer' _had_access_ to your work. The 'mail it to yourself' approach does *not* give you the same legal protections as actual 'registration' does. The 'mail it to yourself' approach _may_ be used as evidence in an attempt to 'persuade' the court with regard to the date of authorship. It _is_ subject to challenge for the reasons cited above. In fact the 'old' wisdom was to have someone 'trustworthy', like your lawyer, mail it 'registered mail, return receipt', because the receipt was produced by the Post Office, and _not_ subject to manipulation by the putative 'author', and that reputable 'third party' can testify as to what they put in the envelope that was mailed. Of course, in _todays_ world, just sending registered mail is -more- expensive than a Copyright Office filing. Without even considering what you'd have to pay your lawyer. wry grin The 'mail it to yourself' approach is _not_ a slam-dunk for establishing authorship, *or* date of authorship. Nor is it automatically superior to other recordskeeping methods. I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. One final poinnt -- copyright law _does_ recognize that parallel *independant* development _can_ occur. Two people *can* write works that are virtually identical, *without* either having any knowledge of the other persons work. In this situation, they _both_ own the copyright on their own work, but -neither- can prevent the other from publishing that other, virtually identical, work. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Re: Another PHP5 problem
Jack L. Stone wrote: [snip] A note of concern was that apache22 changes the path to the document root by inserting ../www/apache22/data versus the previous ../www/data doc root. Of course my vhosts and a bunch of other things of importance now reside within the ../www path. I suppose I can change the doc root within the apache22 config file(s) but I can forsee some possible breakage in things on a production server when before, when moving from apache-1.3 to apache2, web things were put in the same path and without any modifications needed. I suppose this only affects the main host server stuff and things left in the ../www placement will still work as before according to the present setup. In examining the apache22 Makefile I see some places that the path might be changed, but don't know if that is the best idea vs maybe changing the doc root in apache22 config. A 3rd choice is to move stuff contained in the ../www/cgi-bin phpMyAdmin ...etc things that the main host needs to find in the new location. What did you fellows do about this issue that worked best for you assuming y'all had vhosts and similar stuff to worry about? Me I just bit the bullet and went with the new locations as they were installed as defaults. I moved my content to the location. None of my content cared about the underlying file system path, however there is code that does. When faced with this most of the time there is some configuration utility that can be run to make changes, with the actual data you enter being stored in a database backend. This then becomes a choice of is it easier to simply modify the docroot in the .conf files?, if you have this situation. I made the choice I did because none of my code cared. My thinking was it would be better to have this arrangement in place for catastrophe requiring a complete reinstall from scratch. Changing the docroot in the .conf files (vhosts have docroot and Directory directives as well) is not as dangerous as it sounds. For example, when you change httpd.conf and later attempt to pkg_delete or deinstall the port you'll see a message about it not matching the checksum of the original and it will be left intact and not deleted. Same goes for updating with portupgrade, it will not replace your changed files either. So my first choice would be use the new layout and move file content. If this creates more problems than it's worth because too much code relies on being aware of the underlying file system, changing the docroot in the .conf files is the lesser of two evils but not as dangerous as it sounds. Methinks this is my last question before moving to production servers. You're doing it right by testing with a test server first. I only have 7 FreeBSD servers at work (we're a winderZ shop) with 2 at home. The 2 at home are close to being exactly the same as the ones at work in that the same environment and apps are installed with configurations pretty much the same. I use portupgrade for maintenance and upgrades. I've learned over time one trick with portupgrade is to check often, and upgrade in very small batches. I've noticed a higher probability of a hiccup when too much time goes by and now a hundred things all need updating at the same time. Update policies and procedures will vary by shop, such as doing a dump for being able to roll back, etc. What I do is test out any potential update on the servers at home first. If I get the warm fuzzy and everything is smooth I will then do the ones at work. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:02:09PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: OK, time for somebody who really knows about this stuff to wade in. [snip] Thanks for much more clearly stating, in much greater detail, exactly what I was trying to say -- and for adding a bunch of additional detail. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpV9iKvE5EVU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
--As of June 17, 2011 5:02:09 PM -0500, Robert Bonomi is alleged to have said: 4) In the U.S., one can officially register copyright on something up to SIX MONTHS _after_ first 'publication'. --As for the rest, it is mine. Actually, you can register it at any time after it has been created, until the copyright period ends. (Even before it's been published.) Though you get certain benefits if you register within five years of it's creation. Also note that to file a _copyright suit_ your work has to be registered. But this registration can occur _after_ the infringement. (Although if it's done beforehand you'll have an easier time with your case, and some extra legal options.) Bare details available here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/16/2011 6:47 PM, Polytropon wrote: There is another important term, but I'm not sure how to translate it properly. In German, it's Schaffenshoehe, refering to the level of work you put into creating it. This finalizes in patent law. To make sure nobody can make money out of trivial patents, such as patenting the word or and forcing everybody to pay a license fee for using it, there is a certain barrier that prohibits copyright claims on too simple things. When a lot of people think of Unix as an OS these days they probably think of SCO; And another German word comes to mind when I think of SCO; Schadenfreude ;) -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/17/2011 1:57 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html Night of the Living Dead comes to mind. -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/17/2011 2:48 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. Yes, I know the difference. You're welcome to cite a court case in the US where a judge decided that this poor man's copyright constituted valid evidence of copyright ownership. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? [ ... ] Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Regards, I think the problem with you two is that it's really hard to get a real Lawyer to respond to any of this considering how hard it is to type on a keyboard with your hands in someone Else's pockets. -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
