On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> perhaps. either Mt is fairly new, or i never noticed it before. we could
> wholesale change stuff, but haven;t yet. it probably does make sense for
> folks who want stuff like html pages.
>
> i did add an Mt fairly recently, but there can;t be
On Nov 17, 2012, at 3:49 AM, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/524606/
>
> don't have a subscription but for those who do, enjoy.
I like Jonathan's work, but this article is ill-conceived. He picks
up on Marc's upstream vendor remarks, then turns this into an issue
of BSD does not
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Because they can just hack it on top of their crusty old ftp server
>> software, whereas using sftp would need much bigger changes?
>
> SSL/TLS makes everything more secure
And DPI-based products are slow to fix their issues caused by th
On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Michał Markowski wrote:
> 2013/1/13 Random, Eyes :
>> I have an OpenBSD 5.1 installed + a cable from my ISP. I have the
>> username/password for the PPPoE connection, but how can I configure
>> the connection to be permanent? (I have 1 interface on the machine.)
>
> h
On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-01-13, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> There should be a let-me-find-that-man-page-for-you for that sort of thing.
>
> There is - post the question to misc@!
>
>> Or if there only was a way to search in man pages
On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:
>
>> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
>> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
>
> You might find the cvsps package
On 07 Jun 2014, at 08:38, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Contributing code upstream would have been a way more productive
> approach;
It's already been stated that working with upstream is out of
the question for at least the following reasons:
* Bugs linger unattended for years.
* The code style is
On 28 Jun 2014, at 19:55, frank ernest wrote:
> wanted to know, before assuming that it is the case everywhere, do people
> really not like systemd and is it really hurting bsd? If so, I'd be
> interested in doing something about it. Thanks, David
A fact is that systemd slowly tears the open sou
On 29 Jun 2014, at 13:43, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Why are people poluting our lists with systemd rants??? There is nothing to
> discuss since we do not want and will never have systemd. If you don't
> understand what the systemd-utl GSoC is about then move along.
First of all, this is misc@.
On 05 Jul 2014, at 23:42, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
> I have immense respect for Matt as a user of his code since Amiga C
> compiler. I probably speak for lots of people both in OpenBSD and
> DragonFly camp if I say that I would prefer him to finish HAMMER2 and
> leave concurrent threading in PF t
On 08 Jul 2014, at 04:55, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Franco Fichtner [2014-07-06 00:29]:
>> Missing SMP support is the fork in the road. The window of opportunity
>> seems to be closing. A penny for Henning's thoughts on this...
>
> my thoughts are only worth pennies
On 06 Jul 2014, at 01:01, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
> The rumors are that npf is a vaporware.
npf(4) is a chain of clever data structures. How well that translates
to the actual requirements of the networking domain I can't see.
> DragonFly community is tiny.
You mean alive and well. That's a
On 08 Jul 2014, at 09:58, Henning Brauer wrote:
> this has NOTHING to do with the problem or the question at hand.
So then what has it to do with? You tell me I missed the obvious
but don't provide your arguments.
Lucky, I've been asked to leave this mailing list so you don't have
to bother.
Shut up and take my money. And keep up the great work.
Hi Richard,
On 05 May 2014, at 14:21, Richard Thornton wrote:
> Does anybody know of any integration between PF and ndpi?
the previous consensus[1] was that pf(4) and DPI do not mix very well, but
you can probably use relayd(8) and run e.g. NDPI on top[2]. Grabbing all
traffic is not really fa
On 06 May 2014, at 19:32, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:50, Dustin Lundquist wrote:
>> Does anyone have any information that can share?
>>
>>http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gjkivAf3
>
> OpenBSD isn't affected, so no need to worry.
Thanks, now I do worry.
Hi Stefan,
On May 24, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Stefan Wollny wrote:
> Question:
> "3. Is the technique used also able to at least in part decode and/or
> analyze encrypted communication (e.g. by SSH of PGP)?"
>
> Answer:
> "Yes, the technique used is in principle able to do this, depending on
> the way
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 02:14:08PM -0400, Chris Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>>> The original post had nothing to do with OpenBSD, some nitwit hijacked
>>> the comment thread. I don't think the author has any
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:43, Holger Glaess wrote:
>
>> i dident wont start about smp on openbsd but
>>
>> what about this porject ?
>
> Did you read the part below? I think it's pretty clear this project
> isn't going to have much relevance f
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Ryan McBride wrote:
> No, there is no single mutex around PF specifically in OpenBSD, the
> whole kernel is wrapped in a biglock.
>
> I think if they work out all the nits and dead-ends we may have
> something to learn from this effort, but I don't see this code comi
On Jun 20, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Peter Laufenberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Jay Patel wrote:
>>> Hi all users,
>>>
>>> I am users too. Thanks cody. I am learning C too. from "C primus
>>> plus" any thoughts from devs. which we should read?
>>
>> Udacity.com had a good python clas
On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>>> A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
>>> between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
>>> have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
>>>
>>> Among other things.
>>>
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:13 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jiri B wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:29:04AM +0200, C. L. Martinez wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I wonder if with OpenBSD is possible to create virtualized firewalled
>>> implementations of conventional phys
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Franco Fichtner [2012-07-04 11:43]:
>> No, the great catch here is that VSX offers you tools to manage up
>> to 250 of these virtual monsters in a centralized fashion. You can
>> also give control of these firewalls t
On Jul 17, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2012, at 13:50, Gerald Thornberry wrote:
>
>> For those of us who don't have the hardware, is there a "shipping
>> fund" we could donate to? I wouldn't mind chipping in to help get the
>> hardware where it's needed.
>
> I need t
On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer:
Thanks, Marc. Good listing! I wonder what CVS brings to the table on the
bright side?
I understand everything that's been said. I've even come to hate GPL'ed
software just because of u
26 matches
Mail list logo
