Re: take threads off the table
--- Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: threads is a particular programming model of multiple execution contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable software. Only because people design threaded programs like single threaded/forked programs. This has obvious results. Once programmers finally start thinking in threads when they program threaded programs, the benefits will start to take hold. As has been said before, the hardware produced today will force this issue. Multi-core CPU's certainly aren't going away. Nor, unfortunately, are programmers that refuse to enter (intelligently) into this new way of doing things. Quite frankly, I find it rather sad that people who are in an industry that requires perpetual learning refuse to learn (at least this). Why? Because, it's difficult? Seriously, adapt or die. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. We require you to use, for your program that contains our code, a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users. That defends real freedom. You mean your twisted definition of freedom. Btw, your own FAQ states that I can't BSD my code if I link to a GPL'd lib. Contrary to what you said I might add. I think you need to read your own FAQ. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html And find out what freedom actually means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom I would comment further, and on other things, but I believe that you're too far gone to warrant any more time spent on this. At least from me and as it seems others as well. That is, until you gain some sanity. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it becomes hard when you address the details. You're confusing full understanding with an intuitive meaning. People can get what's going on at a high level, without having a wtf when looking at the details, because the spirit of free is retained. The details merely being the implements. But, with your usage, this is not retained, AGAIN, see below. But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. How does that equal freedom for me again? Are you deliberately missing the point? best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. What planet are you on? best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that
method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not
always
checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems
that
have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully
with
them.
You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and
then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning
that you can reconcile this.
There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't
come from me.
You said:
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
But, we have seen very much inaccuracy from things that you've said was
researched. I recall OpenSolaris being among them in this thread.
This is something that you've had to go back, check on and change, etc.
This means that your research methods are inefficient because you have
to do them over and over.
Wow, look at that! The two statements are actually related!
When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.
See above. I will also recommend that you re-read much of this thread
because there are... many more examples.
In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
research. I might have just taken the developers' word that the
system is free. It was years ago and I do not know what happened.
\begin{sarcasm}
Taking someone's word for it. Yah, that's responsible...
\end{sarcasm}
Btw, not keeping an endorsement list up to date is wildly irresponsible
for a person in your position. If you don't have the time or energy to
maintain a list, then don't have one.
However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
endorse a program.
I want you to seriously think about this statement and why it is
horribly wrong. Consider it homework in critical thinking. Something
which you sorely need.
Research can only check the present, not the
future. For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past. (It is possible
that this happened with AROS too.) Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
problem. I think this occurred in several others too.
If you're checking wiki sites instead of reading the licenses
themselves?!?!? Just stunning.
My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
problems and how to avoid them.
What, like actually do research? Are you sure you're up to it?
best regards,
Reid Nichol
President Bush says:
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Completeness consistency, was: A sad threa
--- Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You insist on me giving examples even when I have already done so, repeatedly. I have acquiesced to your request. Now I would ask that you give specific examples of my unreasonable conclusions and specify why they are unreasonable. You don't seem to understand what inconsistent means with regards to mathematics. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Consistency.html As in, Euclidean and non-Euclidean are two DIFFERENT systems. Saying that the two are mutually inconsistent is a meaningless statement to make and implies the misunderstanding on your part stated prior. Btw, with that email, I killed two birds with one stone. The first part was directed at Ingo Schwarze, and after your quote, that was directed at you. Though the separation was obviously non-obvious and a mistake. I'll try to watch that in the future and I apologise for the confusion. I'll also apologise for the rudeness in it and but I'll stand by the effective content aside from that. At any rate, I hope that this puts this OT divergence to bed. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you redefine your own language. It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria for what that should mean in practice. But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. The problem with your definition is that this is not so. Your definition does not stay true to the spirit of the word (as used in reality). But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox. --- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk. Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor point it out. To say so is asinine (above as well). I already poiinted out that both sides need to do something than accuse the other of non-free. Didn't my first reply say 'everybody'. Then someone made it 'somebody' apparently biasing that statement. Which is why I fought back against that argument. Does that answer your question? Well, I didn't actually ask a question. But, (we'll call them) the OpenBSD people have supported there arguments (which I'd say is more than just accusing). Whereas the other side has not. You'd know this if you would have read at least some of the thread before you put in your (non) two cents. For the record, somebody is within everybody. So, when you say everybody, one can reply with a counter example of somebody to such a sweeping statement. You also didn't reply to what I wrote. You made something up and replied to that. In all honesty, I really believe that you really *really* need to read those links that I sent. Please, go do that now or at your earliest convenience. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Roberto J. Dohnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop (with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD for my server and NetBSD for my Firewall. I never consulted anyone on my two Windows machines either, Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER endorsed a BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now? I'm sure some of you care what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run. Does it really matter? To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take from either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to open source Windows. I definitely care what RMS thinks. I most certainly care that his nutter values, etc NOT be associated with OpenBSD. I would request the devs make not one move to satiate his extremist desires. But, to spend that time doing what they have always done; make OpenBSD better and better and... best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox. --- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise. To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-) And you've continued to try... and failed utterly. I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage people to use non-free software, but I see that happening anyway. Where? Are you refering to the FAQ? Are you aware of what FAQ means? Yes, I do. You can join a channel like: freenode #openbsd. When something goes wrong and you ask questions, the first thing you're told is to read the FAQ and the man page. What's your point? Besides, I'm not anti campaigining for OpenBSD. Remember, I want both sides to clear off this bs. This thread could possibly be the end, as we know it. I hope you understand. Read my earlier posts: they were neutral; I cry FUD where I see it. The end? What? I read them and the ones since... I won't reply further on that because others have said what I would have (and more) much better. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
--- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice. Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g). Any specific references? Or something else that would yield results. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Completeness consistency, was: A sad thread
Setting the record straight because I can't in good conscience have such nonsense sitting in public not refuted. You haven't pointed to an instance of an inconsistency in Mathematics. Which, I'll point out, was what I explicitly asked for. Basically, you're referencing a choice in Mathematics that we have, that we can go for either consistent OR complete. And you seem to be saying that Mathematics is neither? You don't seem to understand the issues involved and/or have incomplete knowledge/understanding of the history of Mathematics. What is flabbergasting me is that you haven't a clue and/or lack the attention to detail to answer questions that were explicitly asked. Point of fact, Mathematics has been proven to have the option to be either consistent OR complete. From what I've learned, we've chosen to be consistent. Which, IMO, was a very very wise decision. If you don't agree, point to a specific instance of an inconsistency in modern Mathematics. Eliah Kagan wrote: Tony Abernethy's example of non-Euclidean geometries being inconsistent with Euclidean geometry is a good one. This is so very wrong it isn't even funny. You deserve to be ridiculed publicly into oblivion for making such nonsensical statements. I mean seriously, Euclidean geometry assumes a perfectly flat plain whereas non-Eucliden geometry does not. Do you think they'll go in different directions? Do you think that it is even remotely reasonable to compare the conclusions after such a divergence without considering limiting cases? Though a couple of the statements you make after the above statement are reasonable, you take it in a direction and make conclusions that aren't (meaningless?!?!?). This mixture of reasonable with unreasonable, including such logic makes such statements erroneously compelling, which is very dangerous for those learning this stuff for the first time. Please stay away from making any statements on the foundations of Mathematics in the future as you seem to be at least partially ill equipped to speak on this topic. In other words, you have enough knowledge and speak well enough to convince students/others and perhaps yourself, but at the same time, lack the necessary knowledge/logic to come to reasonable conclusions. regards, Reid --- Ingo Schwarze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reid Nichol wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:02:19AM -0800: Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. Eliah has beautifully demonstrated this for both Mathematics and Physics. What is flabbergasting me about such questions is that these are extremely old facts - essentially, known for more than 70 years - and many people still believe that formal science can be both complete and consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki - nicely narrating how the attempt to transform mathematics into a single unified and consistent theory miserable failed http://wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem - explaining why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del (1906-1978) - One of the most significant logicians of all time, GC6el's work has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century, a time when many, such as Bertrand Russell, A. N. Whitehead and David Hilbert, were attempting to use logic and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics. Still, many people appearantly never heard of the problems he described, even though we are now well into the 3rd millenium... Reply-To: poster set, we are *terribly* off-topic. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your computer and ethics. Please cite a piece of software that can harm my computer merely because it is non-free in the FSF/GNU sense. And you should probably qualify that ethics remark with: Should you be an extremist of sorts... On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk. Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor point it out. To say so is asinine (above as well). On a more general note, I'd (and I imagine a lot of people on misc@ too) would appreciate before any more replies are sent from the religious people, please religious people, read: Pay special attention to the Fanaticism type: http://criticalsnips.wordpress.com/category/postman/ Link to full text within: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_bullshit And really really reflect on this before you reply. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Shane J Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/01/2008, at 3:28 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote: If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.' Huh? OpenBSD is built from free software and allows users the freedom to do what they please, even if that means running non-free software. You have a strange idea of free. An OpenBSD user exercising freedom of choice, by choosing to use some non-free software, does not make OpenBSD non or less free. No shit! They go ahead and redefine what 'free' means and they try to criticise people for still using dictionaries. Kinda says something about the level they're working on. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 6, 2008 1:06 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your computer and ethics. Please cite a piece of software that can harm my computer merely because it is non-free in the FSF/GNU sense. And you should probably qualify that ethics remark with: Should you be an extremist of sorts... How about nvidia proprietary drivers on OpenBSD? Unless I'm mistaken, these don't exist. Of course, if I'm wrong, you'll be able to provide documentation that they do. I won't hold my breath though. Should you be an extremist of sorts, you should put it in the ports tree and call it free. I'm certain that there was some inner dialogue going on while you wrote this that you're not letting me in on. Because, I have no idea what you're talking about here. On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk. Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor point it out. To say so is asinine (above as well). No, it isn't. If you're simply preaching to the world that you're free, it only makes you political. And that includes you, OpenBSD. Well OpenBSD is fine here. But, are you sure about RMS? Because he has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread alone. Not to mention his actions, both past and present everywhere. But, in his mind (and I imagine yours) it's probably easy to not see this when what you believe/preach changes from second to second to avoid any criticism that comes your way. But, I'll also mention that you didn't actually comment on what I wrote. You commented on something you made up. Please read what I wrote and comment on that should you reply again. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in a stupid web page until you live up to them. Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise. We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals, which you do not want to read. I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage people to use non-free software, but I see that happening anyway. Where? Are you refering to the FAQ? Are you aware of what FAQ means? I am not uninformed. What makes you say that? You, sir are biased towards OpenBSD and you can say what you want but it doesn't make your version of the truth any better. It is the truth though. But, I'll mention that what you just said doesn't make your delusion true. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Richard, I have followed this thread for the first couple hundred mails. But, as the noise is getting to much for me, someone that is just a lurker, so I feel I must make a couple comments and a request. As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical open-source community (I call it reality). You have also made, to be polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected in great detail. But, your response has only been to become a slimy politician and change your views (or those that you have presented on list) as the previous views have failed. Furthermore, you have flat out ignored some corrections and I can only assume that this conflicts with your core values to the point that you refuse to change (much like fundamentalist evangelical *insert religion here*'s) one iota. But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour. You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here. Even your cronies have made, to be polite, little headway because there views are pretty much as extreme as yours. Not to mention the inherent sophistry therein. I think that at this point it is obvious that OpenBSD is /not/ going to change its views because of RMS. And I for one thank the devs because OpenBSD suits me just fine the way it is. IMO, to change it in any way toward your extreme views would only detract from an otherwise clean and free OS. Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace. regards, Reid Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: they say openbsd is not as scalable as others
--- Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we need to keep in mind, is that techincally, just because we keep our mind in security for the first concern, it should not take as an excuse for delivering slow processing. Sacrifice correctness for speed is completing nonsense. I cannot even try to understand it: what is the value of a program processing tasks fast and devilering wrong results. So, the next time some justify openbsd being less faster than X, or even Y because of its security oriented models, i wonder that's the real motivation behind the scenes. One good example, the the qmail, extremely fast and secure. So, secure is not a trade off for speed. Just my opnions so far. It's not an excuse, it's a matter of how correctness is done. As in, things must be properly error checked, etc. This requires more processing time. So, speed /is/ a sacrific of correctness. Qmail is fast compared to what, sendmail? That bloated piece of software with config files the technical equivalent to black voodoo magic? I'd attribute the faster qmail to a leaner program. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Port collection missing...
As well, since this is your first install, I'll point out afterboot(8). Also, just FYI, 3.9 is released Monday. --- Peter Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.7/ports.tar.gz On 4/28/06, S t i n g r a y [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well i just installed my First OpenBSD BOX :) feels good !!! but to install packages i cannot find ports collection in /usr how can i get them ? i am using 3.7 version. regards *:$., 88,.$:*(((*$ Stingray *:$., 88,.$:*((*$ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: C++ textbooks: recommendations?
I taught from C++ How to Program by Deitel Deitel and found it to be a good book. Anything from O'Reilly is typically gold. As has been mentioned, there is also the book written by the creator of the language. All in all, I recommend going to a book store and looking through the suggested books and see which one speaks to you most. best regards, Reid Nichol --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i need to learn C++, but do not know where to begin with textbooks or online docs. since, AFAICT, there are a great many skilled programmers on list, i would appreciate any recommendations that can be made about introductory and intermediate texts on C++. my motivation for asking this is to avoid purchasing texts that will sit on my shelf and collect dust. there are a great many introductory texts on nearly every subject that do just that and/or don't cover enough material in sufficient depth. are there any texts on best practices for writing exploit-free code? if you feel this is insufficiently openbsd related, please reply off-list to reduce chatter. cheers, jake Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: why is there . [dot] in default PATH?
--- Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:35:32AM +1000, Andrew Dalgleish wrote: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:56:39PM +0100, Jon Kent wrote: Can see your point here, but I prefer to play on the paranoid side of fence hence my dislike of this. I'm not sure it should be there by default, rather if you like it you should add it. Inexperienced users might add it to the beginning of PATH, so having it at the end by default is a reasonable compromise. For that it'd be enough to have a line with dot at the end of the path in there, commented out, perhaps with a line like #If you really want the current directory in your path, you should #at least add it at the end, like this: #PATH=foo:bar:. ^^^ Here copy the path you set by default, w/o . Anyone with enough experience to know why they want it removed also has enough experience to remove it themselves. Secure by Default. Regards, Andrew Dalgleish Kind regards, Hannah. If my suggestion is completely ridiculous, sorry. But, if . is removed from the default path, wouldn't it make sense to add in a comment in afterboot (8)? It does seem to be a deviation from the way that the other *nix's have there defaults. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
--- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias Kilian a icrit : a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6). No, it is 1 :) Explanation : a prime number can only be divided by two different numbers : 1 and itself. 1 can only be divided by one number, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
--- Jean-SC)bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reid Nichol a icrit : --- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias Kilian a icrit : a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6). No, it is 1 :) Explanation : a prime number can only be divided by two different numbers : 1 and itself. 1 can only be divided by one number, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. No no not wrong, indeed I didn't talk about being positive. But being prime is being positive (should have said it I agree) and have EXACTLY TWO different divisors. And if 1 were prime you wouldn't have only one unique decomposition in prime numbers ;) (for exemple, is 45 = 3x3x5 or 1x3x3x5 or 1x1x1x3x3x5 or... ?) It would crush many things down about arithmetics. Luckily I have learnt some things during my two year special scientific studies (heard about Classes priparatoires in France ?) and this is one of those. Point of fact, your definition did /not/ state that a prime number had to be positive. Point of fact, your definition did /not/ state that the divisors must be positive as well. Perhaps you should've spent more time listening in class. Or even just listening to me. Or look it up at mathworld, or wikipedia. They all prove that your definition is *wrong*. Perhaps those classes that you supposedly took should teach something about mathematics aside from just using them. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
I find it interesting that you didn't send this entirely condisending superior reply to the list. Now why is that? --- Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reid Nichol wrote: I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. You might want to look into same, especially if you think you've already looked into number theory enough to discuss the subject. #1: he didn't say what a number was. We are talking about mathematics, NOT philosophy. In elementary number theory, numbers are usually the set of positive integers, including or not including 0 depending on circumstance. And you even use the usually. Perhaps you should check out the definition of divisibility and what a divisor is before you make such a comment. Even sticking to the positive integers if a divides b (written a|b) if and only if there is an integer d such that ad=b. Notice the work integer in there. Notice the word positive is NOT in there. So, -7 is a divisor of 7 because (-7)(-1)=7. We /must/ restrict the divisors to positive numbers. Which is what the original poster didn't do. Or didn't you notice that? And what does 0 (another special case) have to do with this conversation? #2: these definitions are fluid - by some definitions, '1' *is* prime, and by others it isn't. The question really depends on a particular mathematical writer's view, because it really has no impact on the interesting results of elementary number theory. Really. Point to a reference. Because the wikipedia and mathworld agree with my definition. Not to mention all my professors and every text that I've come across. #3: you are a lot more condescending than your demonstrated knowledge warrants. Deja vu. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone who puts hacker into there signature to describe themselves really shouldn't be making such comments. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: manual vs. crontab execution
As a shot in the dark, it might have something to do with environmental
variables or lack thereof. Are you sure everything is setup *exactly*
the same?
At any rate, that's the first thing that popped into my head.
Good luck :)
best regards,
Reid Nichol
--- Peter Bako [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a weird problem I cannot find a solution to. I've written a
small
script (attached below) that I put on the dozen or so systems that I
maintain for friends and clients, that daily sends some basic
information to
my web server. This data is then stored in a MySQL database and
viewed via
another script. All the systems are running OpenBSD version 3.5 to
3.8, and
the one in question here is 3.8.
The problem is this. On one remote system (identical in every
respect to
about 8 others out there), the script when executed manually (either
as root
or as a non-privileged user) runs normally and uploads its data as it
should. However when the cron job hits at midnight the script always
fails
and without any error message that I can get. As you can see the
script is
quite simple, the only active component is a call to CURL which hits
a
specific address. The local log entry lists my error message but
$result is
always empty so I have no specific error to go by. By looking
through the
logs of my own web server at the same time that the local log entry
is made,
I know that the connection to my system is never established.
Here is the script:
--
#!/bin/sh
name=`uname -n`
ip=`ifconfig sis0 | grep 'inet ' | awk '{ print $2 }'`
space=`df | tail -1 | awk '{ print $4 }'`
ver=`uname -r`
data=http://xxx.yyy.com/fw/fwin.php?NAME=$nameIP=$ipFREE=$spaceVER=$ver;
result=`/usr/local/bin/curl -s $data`
case $result in
good)
`logger Info sucessfully logged!`
exit 0
;;
*)
`logger Unable to log system info! Error: $result`
exit 1
;;
esac
-
The cron job that launches it is added to root's crontab (crontab -u
root
-e) and looks like this:
-
@daily/usr/local/fwreport
-
I've tried leaving the -s flag off of the CURL call to get some kind
of an
error out, but whatever might come back does not make it out to the
$result
variable. Again this identical script works on over a dozen other
systems,
most totally identical to this unit down to the hardware and OS
version, so
it has to be more or less correct.
Any suggestion, ideas, etc. are appreciated.
Peter
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
pf rdr problem
out on $int_if from $int_if:network to $int_if:network keep state
queue std
pass out on $ext_if proto tcp all modulate state flags S/SA queue
std_out
pass out on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to any flags S/SA \
keep state queue(std_out, tcp_ack_out)
pass out on $ext_if inet proto { udp, icmp } all keep state queue
std_out
pass out on $ext_if inet proto { tcp, udp } from any to any port domain
\
keep state queue(dns_out)
pass out on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to any port ssh \
flags S/SA keep state queue(std_out, ssh_out)
best regards,
Reid Nichol
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: pf rdr problem [Solved]
Thanks for the tcpdump switches. I don't know what was going on with the switches that I was using, but when I used yours, I started to get debugging info, which revealed some strange behaviour. From there I started to re-read (again) the docs and found and tried TCP Proxying which worked like a charm. Next time I'll try to keep my posted rules to a minimum as requested. Thanks for the help. best regards, Reid --- Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006/02/26 14:13, Reid Nichol wrote: inet -- andrew -- xander | users Everything is working, NAT, RDR for the other stuff, just not the web server. I've tried some variations for rdr used rdr pass, etc, but nothing in the logs. I use: a simple 'tcpdump -n port 80' on xander will show if the packets arrive there or not. Here is andrews pf.conf: rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 80 - $xander port 80 I couldn't identify whether you were using the 'log' rules to debug where a basic problem with the redirect lies, or whether the problem is that the logging isn't working. But this creates an implicit 'pass' rule so if it's the latter, you probably wanted to write 'rdr pass log'. Just my #0.02, but it's quite a complex ruleset to be looking at while debugging a problem. You might want to simplify and just use the bare minimum rules for the problem you're trying to fix. It might help illuminate the problem and, even if it doesn't, it's easier for people to help if they have fewer rules to read. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PF problem? Connection reset, but only from behind NAT.
No set options in pf.conf, i had scrub in, then changed to scrub in on $ext_if, then commented out at all. Quite simple NAT, couple rules redirecting incoming traffic, pass out keep state. Or should I paste the whole thing? 3.9 GENERIC#597 i386, snapshot from 5th/6th Feb, or should I paste the whole thing? I'll have to reboot for that, as for now it got filled with messages about me trying to write to a full system, eh, the habit of mirroring whole install sets of various distributions... ;) Thanks in advance for any help, pointers, or kicks in the right direction. I think i saw someone with a problem like that, but didn't manage to find anything in the archives... -- viq (I am subscribed to the list) I had something like this problem awhile ago. It had to do with something regarding the default max-mss values. Don't know the exact details, but changing the scrub lines to the below solved my issue, perhaps yours too. scrub in all max-mss 1452 scrub out all max-mss 1452 Hope that helps, or at least gives you something else to look at. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Why Perl (a request to the developer sof the Ports-System)
--- Sebastian Rother [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I scrited with pdksh all the time lon for now. Now I'm interested into learning another Scripting-Language. I can't decide between Perl and Python. Perl has a lot modules but it's GPLed. Python on the other hand is under a BSD-compatible License and has less modules. I would like to know some facts why Perl is in the base system on a BSD even Python is a BSD-licensed alternativ. Does it have some advantages I don#t know? I read a lot papers about both languages. Also CS-related Papers but I can't decide. I would be happy if some developers would tell me why they prefere Perl. Even if the answer would be: It's more common or: It existed at first. Kind regards, Sebastan My recommendation is to stop reading the CS-related papers and start poking around with the code. There are tonnes of tutorials for both languages that will help you in this endeavour. You're also going to have to think about what you are going to use it for. A language is something of a tool. You _can_ get the job done with pretty much any language, but some are better than others for certain jobs. ie parallel. You wouldn't want to dig a foundation of a house with a screw driver. So, Perl, Python or neither might be the one for you. But, keeping it restricted to Python/Perl. There is also the esthetic quality of the language. I find Python *far* more pretty than Perl. I also find Python *far* easier to code and read than Perl. Though I'm certian someone, somewhere will disagree. I'm also not certain as to why the license of the language interpreter is coming into play. The code you write is yours, and Perl's or Python's license is rather moot. That is unless you plan to embed the interpreter. IMO, the more languages you know (and I mean actually know, not just familiar with), the better programmer you are, the better you can get the job done. You really should be learning both. Just start with the one that'll be more useful to you right now. What is it that you wanted to accomplish? best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Why Perl (a request to the developer sof the Ports-System)
--- Alexander Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/2/05, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Sebastian Rother [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is it that you wanted to accomplish? Just talk ;-) I know this is just a poke, but it does bring up a point about an ambiguity in my phrasing. I meant what needs to be done programmatically. Wasn't trying to start anything. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Something hosing my msdos/FAT32 file system
I can confirm this behaviour. But, I can still mount and use the partition. I'm using 3.7. What I get is: 1) say /mnt/ms/ directory contains 1, 2, 3 directories with a bunch of stuff in them. 2) cd /mnt/ms/; mkdir 4; mv * 4 3) cd 4 4) ls and 1, 2, 3 gets listed. But, if I cd into any of these directories I get: ls: .: No such file or directory Still able to mount it and everything. And the filesystem still tells me the space is used. Just can't see any of it. I was waiting till I was able to form a proper report (ie upgrade to 3.8 at least) on this, but since we're talking about it already thought I'd add in my report. best regards, Reid Nichol --- Andreas Bihlmaier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to heat up this discussion even further, BUT mount a FAT32 partition somewhere and cp /some_folder /mnt/fat There should be files (the more the better) in the directory (they should NOT be empty). Now use cmp or diff to compare the directories. Everything still correct ? Good because it should be! BUT NOW move that directory INSIDE the FAT32 Partition, something a long the lines of mkdir -p /mnt/fat/foo/bar/foobar/ mv /mnt/fat/some_folder/ /mnt/fat/foo/bar/foobar/ NOW use diff again. Should be hosed up like hell. At least that is what I get/got 1 week ago on i386 AND amd64. With a 1 week old snapshot. Had the same issue with 3.7 stable. Don't have a FAT parition anymore since! Was this information helpful ? try to reproduce it. Greetz, ahb
Re: lowering the securelevel?
In rc.securelevel there is: securelevel=1 man securelevel --- Matt Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to (temporarily) lower my kern.securelevel so that mbmon (or healthd) can be used. I.e., when I try to run mbmon (even as root), I get the following message: InitMBInfo: Operation not permitted According to the mbmon readme http://www.nt.phys.kyushu-u.ac.jp/shimizu/download/xmbmon/README-xmbmon202.html I need to decrease the securelevel. I understand that kern.securelevel cannot be lowered while the system is running. However, I tried editing /etc/rc.securelevel and rebooting, yet the system still boots into securelevel=1. Is there some other step I'm missing? Thanks, Matt -- Matt Garman email at: http://raw-sewage.net/index.php?file=email best regards, Reid Nichol Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through you window. -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: lowering the securelevel?
No you didn't. You stated that you edited rc.securelevel; you didn't say how. I took this to mean that you placed the init code there. Thus my message. If you don't write exactly what you think/did, how am I supposed to know? Reid --- Matt Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:00:24PM -0700, Reid Nichol wrote: In rc.securelevel there is: securelevel=1 man securelevel As I said in my original post, I edited the securelevel parameter in /etc/rc.securelevel, and rebooted, yet the change had no effect. --- Matt Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: system is running. However, I tried editing /etc/rc.securelevel and rebooting, yet the system still boots into securelevel=1.
