Re: Why are there no PKG_PATH defaults?
Just to point out if you do an install where you do select a mirror your mirror settings do seem to persist beyond the install, so it sounds like the problem is solved and user education is in order. *washes hands of the problem* -- Jason Barbier | jab...@serversave.us Pro Patria Vigilans
Re: kvm on OpenBSD?
True. Theo de Raadt: You've been smoking something really mind altering, and I think you should share it. x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes. That is Theo on thinking you could use virtualization for security. As I recall through that whole thread he had no real issues if you were foolish enough to want to maximize utilization of a system just donât try to call it more secure. And yes the KVM stuff is not there. -- Jason Barbier | jab...@serversave.us Pro Patria Vigilans
Re: Why anyone in their right mind would like to use NAT64
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it. In theory you could do it with routing tables but I could be retarded also so. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: You have IPv4 only applications, that need to talk with the IPv6 internet. On 2012 Oct 24 (Wed) at 12:43:12 -0400 (-0400), Daniel Ouellet wrote: :Hi, : :Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I :am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in :their right mind would actually want to use this? -- Pascal, n.: A programming language named after a man who would turn over in his grave if he knew about it. -- Datamation, January 15, 1984 -- Jason Barbier Pro Patria Vigilans
Re: Why anyone in their right mind would like to use NAT64
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Simon Perreault sperrea...@openbsd.orgwrote: Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit : Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it. I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my IPv4-only printer speak IPv6. Simon Well man there are several stable implementations of 4 to 6 and 6 to 4 bridges. -- Jason Barbier Pro Patria Vigilans
KMS/GEM status for Intel cards
Hey, its been a while since I have seen any update about how KMS and support for the Intel HD 3000 (the sandy bridge Intel card). Anyone know what happens to be going on with that? -- Defendere vivos a mortuis
Re: UEFI BIOS
Yeah, honestly Microsoft has even said already, there will be no nagging the only feature you lose by not using secured booting is the swift boot. if you flip secured UEFI off it just makes windows 8 go into standard boot. fear mongering is not needed, and in the end if a secured boot loader is needed all some one would have to do is like Intel for example, get a signed cert from grub and hand it to manufacturers so then there is a secured open boot loader. The secured EFI is just the same principal as the built in boot sector virus protection. On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:43 PM, john slee indig...@oldcorollas.org wrote: On 2 October 2011 08:03, LeviaComm Networks n...@leviacomm.net wrote: First off, the UEFI boot will *not* prevent other OS's from booting, it will only pop up a message saying that the boot process was not secure, just like how you can run unsigned code and it will only pop up a box stating as much. It would be impossible to prevent an 'insecure' OS from booting since that would prevent you from booting a newer version of the Windows Installer. Ideally UEFI would post a warning stating that the OS signature is not on the list and allow you to add it. ... would it? I should think that they could simply sign the new installer with the existing keys. OTOH it's quite possible that someone will extract the private key(s) from the hardware, too. It already happened for Apple's Airport Express, no? On balance, I really don't think this is worth the angst and scaremongering. John -- Defendere vivos a mortuis
