Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Paul Mather
On Oct 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Oliver Hansen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > So asking the question is stupid > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the

Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)

2013-10-12 Thread Jens Kühnel
Hi again, >> So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would >> I have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to >> completion without filling the partitions? > How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it > is. Can't tell you where the exact

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson
On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Chris L wrote: > >> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > > Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. Sigh. As much as this doesn’t belong on the pfsense list… I actually k

Re: [pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson
On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Thinker Rix wrote: > Hello all, > > I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the "Auto update" feature in the web > UI, which worked flawlessly. > > When studying the Upgrade Guide > (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I could > not

[pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update

2013-10-12 Thread Thinker Rix
Hello all, I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the "Auto update" feature in the web UI, which worked flawlessly. When studying the Upgrade Guide (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I could not find any information about it. Is there a way I can update the g

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Bob Gustafson
+1 On 10/12/2013 12:41 PM, Adrian Wenzel wrote: I'm behind Jim on this. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Chris L
> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinf

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Oliver Hansen
- Original Message - From: "Adrian Wenzel" To: "pfSense support and discussion" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:41:40 AM Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > agree. I have been on this

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:41:40PM -0400, Adrian Wenzel wrote: > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > > agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) > > and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most > > members who write

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Adrian Wenzel
- Original Message - > From: "Oliver Hansen" > To: "pfSense support and discussion" > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:23:56 AM > Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix < > thinke...@rocketmail.com > wrote: > > On

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson
On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: >> Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the >> World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number >> is someone between 189 and 196. > > No k

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Oliver Hansen
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> So asking the question is stupid >> > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question >> in stroking their own ego. >> > > O

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Thinker Rix
On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number is someone between 189 and 196. No kidding! ;-) But you did not answer the question asked: Name th

Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)

2013-10-12 Thread Jens Kuehnel
Am 12.10.13 00:35, schrieb Walter Parker: Hi, > So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would I > have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to completion > without filling the partitions? How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it is. C

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Thinker Rix
On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: So asking the question is stupid On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in stroking their own ego. On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: Otherwise: get off my lawn. I'm no