Hi!
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:07:53AM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:21PM +, james wrote:
Include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox in the ldconfig line and run the ldconfig
command through /usr/local/mozilla-firefox/run-mozilla.sh (or manually set
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:20:01PM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
On my main desktop, I use debian.
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
Seamonkey?
Also, (for the rest of you on misc) as far as security goes, the
OpenBSD development team
on obsd 4.2 SM is 1.1.4... there are some issues
But in any case I absolutely agree with you that fatfox is very
resource-unfriendly
I think I'm going to switch to links
Is there a flash plugin for it?? ... hehe
By the way... why is lynx default page openbsd.org? I thought all
packages were
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
I use Seamonkey. It works.
Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
Both are starting in about the same - long - time: 20 seconds... :/
(Pentium II 400, 256 MB RAM, SATA drive, OpenBSD
Hi!
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
I use Seamonkey. It works.
Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
Both are starting in about the same - long -
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:15PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
There should be the other ones; on the NetBSD 3.1 Firefox is ready to work
in about 4 seconds... quite a difference, isn't it?
Do they already do prebinding?
AFAIK they have something called RelCache (aka ELF prebinding),
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty wrote:
I use Seamonkey. It works.
Why use Seamonkey? It is more resource friendly than running
Firefox+Thunderbird+whatever.
Both are starting in about the same - long -
In my case this does help
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /usr/X11R6/bin
and has never been a problem
2008/4/8, Dale Rahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Dusty
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:03:43PM +0200, Pau wrote:
In my case this does help
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /usr/X11R6/bin
Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
--
pozdrawiam / regards
It's made to be secure, it's prone to be installed on a server not just
a fuckin desktop o.s.
Well, it depends. I use OpenBSD as a critical-mission server and as a
common daily desktop. I'm very happy in both cases.
A secure, funcional and free desktop, of course.
--
Thanks,
Jordi Espasa
Zbigniew Baniewski writes:
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
/usr/X11R6/bin
Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
Not suprising as the firefox binary is not in any of the given
paths.
// marc
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:29PM -0700, Marco S Hyman wrote:
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
/usr/X11R6/bin
Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
Not suprising as the firefox binary is not in any of the given
paths.
Zbigniew Baniewski zb at ispid.com.pl writes:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:29PM -0700, Marco S Hyman wrote:
ldconfig -SP /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin
/usr/X11R6/bin
Just tried the sequence - can't see any difference, unfortunately.
Not suprising as
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Zbigniew Baniewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:15PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
There should be the other ones; on the NetBSD 3.1 Firefox is ready to work
in about 4 seconds... quite a difference, isn't it?
Do they already
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:21PM +, james wrote:
Include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox in the ldconfig line and run the ldconfig
command through /usr/local/mozilla-firefox/run-mozilla.sh (or manually set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include /usr/local/mozilla-firefox)
I think, the latter method is
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:29PM +0200, Daniel Horecki wrote:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2002/12/04/0017.html
You mean, exactly this is making a difference?
If I recall correctly, it was never commited to the sources. Anyway,
NetBSD haven't any prelink/prebind
Matthew Szudzik wrote:
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
/usr/bin/lynx is actually pretty good for a lot of things, and if you
rebuild it with '--enable-externs', it can launch scripts or another
browser on the current page or current link. It even has an almost
foolproof
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:20:01PM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
On my main desktop, I use debian.
I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, We believe in
security my ass.
OpenBSD 4.3 will have 2.0.0.12, unfortunately 2.0.0.13 is out, and that fixes
yet another security problem... so, manual
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:43:43AM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, We believe
in security my ass.
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy,
* Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080407 08:57]:
I back ported Firefox 2.0.0.12 to OpenBSD 4.2+patches, I can't believe the
OpenBSD team is letting people use the insecure 2.0.0.6 version, We believe
in security my ass.
OpenBSD 4.3 will have 2.0.0.12, unfortunately 2.0.0.13 is out, and that
Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's a
hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to show up
in that time frame.
OpenBSD
Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's
a hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to
show up in that time frame.
Unix Fan wrote:
Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
That's a stupid outlook on things... 2.0.0.6 was released in July, that's a
hell of a long time between April, exploits in depencies are bound to show up
in that
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
or, quit using firefox. it's security record is rather lousy, wouldn't
you agree?
What alternatives to firefox do you suggest?
Nick Templeton wrote:
Didn't you participate in this flamefest already:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119750317632017w=2
You already know the reasons for this.
-Nick
Why yes, it would seem I did previously participate in an almost identical
discussion... the things you learn.
Devin Smith wrote:
Why not use Dillo? Fast, light weight. If your site doesn't work
in Dillo, why not make it work? http://www.openbsd.org renders in
it.
You're welcome to submit patches to the dillo team.
Because it's the worlds must lamest browser, next to lynx of coarse.
None
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Devin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're welcome to submit patches to the dillo team.
To a project that has a two year old changelog, and hasn't updated
their website in approximately the same timeframe? Is dillo
development active on some underground level
...providing resources for OUR security...
what, like untrusted binaries from an unknown anonymous source, sent via
some file sharing site? If I ran 4.2 on boxes where I use a web browser,
I'd sooner take my chances with slightly older OpenBSD-provided packages
and noscript.
You do realise that
You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
the very people you're suggesting do the work, right?
I don't think they realise
Stuart Henderson wrote:
..
You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
the very people you're suggesting do the work, right?
Yes, I realise that, and I'm not trying to offend...intentionally.. *sigh*...
I'll stop posting, the developers have already made it clear
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:44PM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
...
I'll stop posting, the developers have already made it clear to us
end-users...
We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it.. it
won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure again.
On Monday 07 April 2008 14:00, you wrote:
We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it..
it won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure
again. briefly.
The developers provide a secure system that can be downloaded completely
free of charge. If you
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Daniel A. Ramaley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 April 2008 14:00, you wrote:
We'll provide you with a secure system, but.. hell, once you get it..
it won't be secure anymore, wait another 6 months, it'll be secure
again. briefly.
The developers
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:07AM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
OpenBSD developers are intentionally putting their users at risk by not
providing security updates
bullshit. -current ports gets security updates all the time.
and yes, I am saying to use -current if you need ports and can't/don't
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:44PM -0700, Unix Fan wrote:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
..
You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
the very people you're suggesting do the work, right?
Yes, I realise that, and I'm not trying to offend...intentionally..
Unix Fan ha scritto:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
..
You do realise that with your abrasive posts, you're pissing off
the very people you're suggesting do the work, right?
Yes, I realise that, and I'm not trying to offend...intentionally.. *sigh*...
I'll stop
38 matches
Mail list logo
