I have been asked to nominate some people and products for "the most" or
"the best" for 2008.
Now I am happy to do this, but I also am a firm believer in the concept
that (for the most part) a group of people usually gives a better answer
than a single person, so I am going to open this up to the
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:46:26 -0500
> From: "Ben Scott"
> not to. There are orders of magnitude more bots then web servers.
That's quite a claim. Do you have evidence for this?
In order for the scenario you're suggesting to take place, vulnerable
hosts would have to be attacked by *multip
DISCLAIMER: I always speak only for myself, unless otherwise
explicitly indicated.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM, wrote:
>> > They would just come back or go bother someone else.
>>
>> This is not a effective deterrent.
>
> How so?
What part of "come back or go bother someone else" is unc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:59:01PM -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
> > Not recommended yet unless you're willing to deal bug reports.
> > I suggest waiting until beta1 at minimum, end of March. See:
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Charron wrote:
>> Anyone using Kubuntu Jaunty? Considering moveing from Intrepid, I
>> *really* want to get some of the newer versions of KDE apps.
> Not recommended yet unless you're willing to deal bug
Not recommended yet unless you're willing to deal bug reports.
I suggest waiting until beta1 at minimum, end of March. See:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Charron wrote:
> Anyone using Kubuntu Jaunty? Considering moveing from Intrepid, I
Anyone using Kubuntu Jaunty? Considering moveing from Intrepid, I
*really* want to get some of the newer versions of KDE apps.
--
-- Thomas
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:35:05 -0500
> From: "Ben Scott"
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Larry Cook wrote:
> > They would just come back or go bother someone else.
>
> #ifdef CURMUDGEON
>
> They'll do that anyway.
>
> This is not a effective deterrent.
How so? If you're keeping a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Cole Tuininga wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:41 -0500, jk...@kinz.org wrote:
>> IIRC that effort was shut down by concentrated counter attacks
>> by the spammers. As for the name, all I can recall was it had
>> the word blue in it, I think.
> I believe Blue Fro
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:41 -0500, jk...@kinz.org wrote:
> IIRC that effort was shut down by concentrated counter attacks
> by the spammers. As for the name, all I can recall was it had
> the word blue in it, I think.
I believe Blue Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Frog) is what
you're spe
> > dependencies. I have to be sure I get releases of gcc
> and binutils
> > that were part of the same tools release.
> >
> > mno...@nolin-ws:/local/gnu>
> > binutils-2.17/ gcc-4.1.0/ gdb
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Nolin
> >
> >
> >
>
> How does one match them up? Is there a binutils
Michael Nolin wrote on 01/12/2009 12:14:42 PM:
>
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to get a more modern version of gcc on my
> > Cell Blade, so I
> > thought I'd compile it. I've run into an error
> > right away in the
> > configure stage.
> >
>
> > configure:4573: gcc -o conftest -g O2 -I/usr/local/
fftw3.2-alpha3 for the past 4 months. The library was not updated, to my
knowledge.
or
fftw3.2 ==> it does the same thing.
-Bruce
"Thomas Charron"
01/12/2009 12:01 PM
To
bruce.lab...@autoliv.com
cc
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Subject
Re: Unrelated C runtime error
On Mon, Jan 12,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:53:19AM -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> I remember what I considered one of the most effective efforts to
> shut down spammers, by simply taking away the cost insentive to use
> the service. Unfortunatly, it was considered a counter attack, and
> hence shut down..
>
>
> I'm trying to get a more modern version of gcc on my
> Cell Blade, so I
> thought I'd compile it. I've run into an error
> right away in the
> configure stage.
>
> configure:4573: gcc -o conftest -g O2 -I/usr/local/include
> -I/usr/local/include conftest.c -L/usr/local/lib
> -L/usr/loca
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:23 AM, wrote:
> For some reason, unknown to me, a previously running program now has a
> runtime error. Here is the error snippet:
> It appears in my program when I used the fftw3 call to free up memory. It
> is somewhat puzzling, since I have used this for 4 months n
bruce.lab...@autoliv.com wrote:
> /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/local/lib/libmpfr.so when
> searching for -lmfpr
> .
> .
> .
> /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/local/lib/libgmp.a when searching
> for -lgmp
>
> Yes, it says it is incompatible. How does one make it compativble?
For some reason, unknown to me, a previously running program now has a
runtime error. Here is the error snippet:
*** glibc detected *** ./bladefftw: double free or corruption (!prev):
0x00. ***
Backtrace:
/lib64/libc.so.6
/lib64/libc.so.6(cfree-0xed5c8)
/usr/local/lib/libfftw3.
Ben Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Larry Cook wrote:
>> They would just come back or go bother someone else.
> This is not a effective deterrent. It's the security equivalent of
> masturbation. It may make you feel good, but that's all it's doing.
It felt good until you poin
I'm trying to get a more modern version of gcc on my Cell Blade, so I
thought I'd compile it. I've run into an error right away in the
configure stage.
Two of the pre-requisites for gcc are libgmp and libmfpr. I compiled them
according to their respective instructions and passed all the make
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Ben Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Larry Cook wrote:
>> They would just come back or go bother someone else.
> #ifdef CURMUDGEON
> They'll do that anyway.
> This is not a effective deterrent. It's the security equivalent of
> masturbation. It
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Larry Cook wrote:
> They would just come back or go bother someone else.
#ifdef CURMUDGEON
They'll do that anyway.
This is not a effective deterrent. It's the security equivalent of
masturbation. It may make you feel good, but that's all it's doing.
If
virgins...@vfemail.net wrote:
> I was thinking about accepting the connection, maybe sending out a few
> headers, and then the stalling the connection.
A friend, back in 2003, was having problems with bad bots so I wrote him
the following script which accepts the connection, logs and emails some
23 matches
Mail list logo
