On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 07:55:47PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-09-23 11:14:57, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Doug.
- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:13AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Linux's target is the modern desktop and the focus is on keeping up with
new hardware. The BSDs keep the drivers for old hardware but patches
require building and that building relies on gcc which isn't optimized
for use on old
Am 2007-09-22 11:29:09, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
I run a bunch of old machines.
Now that SELinux is integrated (compiled in) to various pieces of
Debian, is there a penalty even if its not activated?
Thanks,
Doug.
- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE
Am 2007-09-24 10:01:12, schrieb David Brodbeck:
Same basic problem, I think. To apply security patches you have to
recompile. To recompile, you have to use GCC, which is a resource
hog. You'd get old and die waiting for make world to finish on a
machine with 64 megs of RAM.
One
Am 2007-09-24 18:16:32, schrieb Mike McCarty:
I beg to differ. One of the selling points of DSL is that
it has a small RAM footprint. I have run it on a 486 with
16MB of RAM.
I was runnin Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 Slink on a Tohiba T1950CT
with a 486dx50 and 12 MByte of Ram.
in 2005 I have up
Am 2007-09-23 11:14:57, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Doug.
- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE -
Look at http://www.ebay.com/ to get FPM's for
Hi John and *,
Am 2007-09-23 20:08:04, schrieb John Hasler:
consultores writes:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe...
Has it occurred to you that if NSA wanted to slip a backdoor into Linux and
thought that they
Am 2007-09-24 17:26:01, schrieb Ron Johnson:
On 09/24/07 15:46, David Brodbeck wrote:
But if you're worried that the NSA is targeting you, you've got a lot of
more serious concerns. Your monitor is radiating signals that can be
picked up and decoded.
Even LCD monitors?
YES. Even
Am 2007-09-24 22:16:02, schrieb Mumia W..:
However, the dependency upon SElinux is more recent. There may be time
to remove it before it becomes too entrenched and before its tentacles
probe too deeply into Debian.
I hope it's not too late. I wish I'd educated myself about SELinux
Am 2007-09-25 03:11:39, schrieb Mike McCarty:
It would take more than just kernel, of course. I am investigating
LFS. Gentoo seems to have accepted SELinux as well, though since
it is a source distro most of the work would be easier in that
case, perhaps.
And where is the problem with Debian?
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-09-25 03:11:39, schrieb Mike McCarty:
It would take more than just kernel, of course. I am investigating
LFS. Gentoo seems to have accepted SELinux as well, though since
it is a source distro most of the work would be easier in that
case, perhaps.
And where is
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-09-24 10:01:12, schrieb David Brodbeck:
Same basic problem, I think. To apply security patches you have to
recompile. To recompile, you have to use GCC, which is a resource
hog. You'd get old and die waiting for make world to
El jue, 27-09-2007 a las 19:54 +0200, Michelle Konzack escribió:
Am 2007-09-22 11:29:09, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
I run a bunch of old machines.
Now that SELinux is integrated (compiled in) to various pieces of
Debian, is there a penalty even if its not activated?
Thanks,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:54:34 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Firstly: Very few packages have been actively patched to link
Something
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:11:39AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:54:34 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/07 22:16, Mumia W.. wrote:
On 09/24/2007 07:52 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
even 708 old hardware seems to be running it fine for me.
My objection is to having on my machine at all.
I object to having
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:11:39 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:54:34 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava
on pathname
don't get you there. There is no system view in AA, just a bunch of
disconnected profiles.
Bad security is dangerous, really dangerous.
As an aside on the penalty of SELinux, the upfront labeling cost
of labeled MAC is not characteristically different
On 09/25/2007 08:41 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 09/24/07 22:16, Mumia W.. wrote:
[...]
Your Debian machine is probably not dependent upon tcl, but Debian has
been dependent upon python for a long time.
Base install is dependent on Python? I find that very hard to believe.
Well what do you
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:11:39 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
packages. It is fewer than that. Compared to 10k source packages,
however, even the bloated figure of 50 is few. BTW, I count 29
packages.
I was using the published figure for Red Hat.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:28:13 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As I said, it might be a good starting place. If the patching of the
source is done right, it's dependent upon a define anyway. I don't
have high hopes for that.
All the patches I have
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:30:38PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 03:43:11PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:13AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
I know there are minidistros like DSL but DSL is small as in how much
can they
On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:27 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/23/07 10:13, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
[snip]
My biggest problem is that there is not OS designed to be great for a
stand-alone old small computer. An OS that can both fit on small
resources,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/07 12:01, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:27 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/23/07 10:13, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
[snip]
My biggest problem is that there is not OS designed to
give me some sex clips
--
This message was sent on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] at openSubscriber.com
http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/debian-user@lists.debian.org/7633342.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:13:59 -0700, consultores agropecuarios
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe;
This is one place I differ. I know and like Stephen
On Sep 24, 2007, at 1:24 PM, John Stumbles wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:13:59 -0700, consultores agropecuarios
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well
known
untrusted organization around the globe;
This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/07 15:46, David Brodbeck wrote:
[snip]
But if you're worried that the NSA is targeting you, you've got a lot of
more serious concerns. Your monitor is radiating signals that can be
picked up and decoded.
Even LCD monitors?
On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
But if you're worried that the NSA is targeting you, you've got a
lot of
more serious concerns. Your monitor is radiating signals that can be
picked up and decoded.
Even LCD monitors?
Them too:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Its not their thing either.
I know there are minidistros like DSL but DSL is small as in how much
can they pack onto a small CD, not how to shoehorn into 16-32 MB ram.
I'm also not sure how they keep up with security fixes.
I beg to differ. One of the selling points
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:14:57 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Firstly: Very few packages have been actively patched to link
consultores agropecuarios wrote:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe; and if the Debian Team accep it
blindly, Debian is going to become as Windows; remember that, who
I don't think anyone has accepted SELinux blindly.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:24:10 +0100, John Stumbles [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:13:59 -0700, consultores agropecuarios
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well
known untrusted organization around the
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:14:57 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Firstly: Very few packages have been actively patched to link
Something like 50 or so. ls, mv, cp, etc.
Source packages. All those are from coreutils, no?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/07 17:43, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
But if you're worried that the NSA is targeting you, you've got a lot of
more serious concerns. Your monitor is radiating signals that can be
picked up and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/07 18:23, Mike McCarty wrote:
consultores agropecuarios wrote:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe; and if the Debian Team accep it
blindly, Debian is going to
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
even 708 old hardware seems to be running it fine for me.
My objection is to having on my machine at all.
I object to having python and tcl on my machine.
-Miles
--
`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your
Miles Bader wrote:
I object to having python and tcl on my machine.
I can understand TCL but Python, c'mon, that's just crazy talk!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 09/24/2007 07:52 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
even 708 old hardware seems to be running it fine for me.
My objection is to having on my machine at all.
I object to having python and tcl on my machine.
-Miles
Your Debian machine is probably not
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:54:34 -0500, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:21:16 -0500, Mike McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Firstly: Very few packages have been actively patched to link
Something like 50 or so. ls,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:16:02 -0500, Mumia W [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 09/24/2007 07:52 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
even 708 old hardware seems to be running it fine for me.
My objection is to having on my machine at all.
I object to having python and tcl
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:51:52PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 09/22/07 20:44, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Well, it speeded up somewhat by ditching the install-by-default locales
stuff and sticking with 'C'. I use icewm. On Etch, xorg takes a lot
more memory than on OBSD. Enough that with
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:38:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:29:09 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I run a bunch of old machines. Now that SELinux is integrated
(compiled in) to various pieces of Debian, is there a penalty even if
its not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/23/07 10:13, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
[snip]
My biggest problem is that there is not OS designed to be great for a
stand-alone old small computer. An OS that can both fit on small
resources, and be kept up-to-date without a separate build
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Ever looked at just how many 'non-essential' libs we link (from a
small-system PoV)?
Debian is *not* the distro for anyone that needs to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:14:57 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Firstly: Very few packages have been actively patched to link
with selinux. Second, the selinux
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:13AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:51:52PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 09/22/07 20:44, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Well, it speeded up somewhat by ditching the install-by-default locales
stuff and sticking with 'C'. I use icewm. On
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:13AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:51:52PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 09/22/07 20:44, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Well, it speeded up somewhat by ditching the install-by-default locales
stuff and sticking with 'C'. I use icewm. On
El dom, 23-09-2007 a las 14:41 -0500, Manoj Srivastava escribió:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:14:57 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On small systems, what about the penalty of just larger binaries? I
have some older boxes with 16-64 MB ram.
Firstly: Very few packages
consultores writes:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe...
Has it occurred to you that if NSA wanted to slip a backdoor into Linux and
thought that they could slip it past all the prying eyes that they just
might be
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:13:59 -0700, consultores agropecuarios
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The real problem with SELinux is that it come from a really well known
untrusted organization around the globe;
This is one place I differ. I know and like Stephen Smalley,
and I do not look at
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 03:43:11PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:13AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
I know there are minidistros like DSL but DSL is small as in how much
can they pack onto a small CD, not how to shoehorn into 16-32 MB ram.
I'm also
I run a bunch of old machines.
Now that SELinux is integrated (compiled in) to various pieces of
Debian, is there a penalty even if its not activated?
Thanks,
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Now that SELinux is integrated (compiled in) to various pieces of
Debian, is there a penalty even if its not activated?
Apart from one copy of the libs on RAM that is shared by all other stuff,
and (maybe) some extra grow in the data segments, no.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 07:39:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Now that SELinux is integrated (compiled in) to various pieces of
Debian, is there a penalty even if its not activated?
Apart from one copy of the libs on RAM that is
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Apart from one copy of the libs on RAM that is shared by all other stuff,
and (maybe) some extra grow in the data segments, no. And if you care about
that, you'd better be pissed off at something else than SE Linux, which is
small... we have
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:44:36PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I know. my 486 won't run debian anymore. Not enough ram. Runs great
with OBSD. My P-II runs quite slow with Etch (OK with Sarge). Also
runs great with OBSD.
Etch should run great on a P-II, as long as you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/07 20:44, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:44:36PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I know. my 486 won't run debian anymore. Not enough ram. Runs great
with OBSD. My P-II runs quite slow with Etch (OK with
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:29:09 -0400, Douglas A Tutty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I run a bunch of old machines. Now that SELinux is integrated
(compiled in) to various pieces of Debian, is there a penalty even if
its not activated?
Not that one can discern. An active SELinux running in
60 matches
Mail list logo
