Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
In fact, I propose a new rule of thumb: For any proposed feature where:
1: Matt doesn't object, and
2: No existing functionality is lost
it should go in.
I don't agree. Matt of course has a veto, but the community itself should also
agree that this is a feature
Dnia 17-03-2007, So o godzinie 00:05 +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert
napisał(a):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) add support for openwall tcb - the alternative to shadow (with pam
module) which is more secure than pam_unix and pam_pwdb, because tools
like 'passwd' or 'chage' don't neet SUID,
Dnia 16-03-2007, Pt o godzinie 18:58 -0700, Matthew Dillon napisał(a):
Well, hmm. Kinda out of the blue, and I don't want to discourage anyone
who is this enthusiastic, but I have a few buts of my own.
1.
a) chg default password_format do blowfish since there are known
algoritm
Grzegorz Błach wrote:
Brute-force algoritm with collision can take password 100 time faster
than brute-force without brute-force.
How do you prove this claim? AFAIK collision attacks need to know the plain
text. Trying to brute-force a password means not having it in plain text.
Hence
Matthew Dillon wrote:
I personally believe that postfix is superior. I personally do not
mind running GPL'd code. But I also would prefer to have as little
GPL'd code in our managed code base as possible.
What does this mean? I would dearly like to integrate portions
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:26:21PM +0100, Grzegorz B?ach wrote:
Brute-force algoritm with collision can take password 100 time faster
than brute-force without brute-force.
Again, password hashes are *not* simple MD5 hashes. They are not even
simple salted MD5 hashes. That doesn't mean that a
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:30:11 +0100
Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already the move to NetBSD pkgsrc
has cost DFLY division by 3 of the number of available ports with respect
to FreeBSD for an advantage that i have hard time to even discern.
The advantage is simple to see, as
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:30:11PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote:
Another excellent statement! Maintaining a decent ports system is a task for
hundred people. FreeBSD has aroud 200 people doing that, Debian, around
1000.
To be fair, Debian *needs* the thousand people because the approach to
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:58:58PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
What does this mean? I would dearly like to integrate portions of
pkgsrc managed packages into our buildworld and installworld
system, that is have the buildworld create a little package building
jail and build
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
One has to be totally unaware of realities to suggest tools from
obscure Linux distributions, wether they are good or bad, when such
distribution may collapse at any moment. Already the move to NetBSD
pkgsrc has cost DFLY division by 3 of the number of available
On 17.03.2007, at 19:09, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:ftp://ftp.estpak.ee/pub/DragonFly
:http://ftp.estpak.ee/pub/DragonFly
:rsync://ftp.estpak.ee/DragonFly
^^
I know its a silly question, but what country should I list in
our mirrors section for your mirror?
I'd say
Hi!
Im looking for *working* dc++ client for DragonFly.
dc_gui2 is NOT working properly.
Any ideas?
--
Sincerely Yours,
Vladimir Mitiouchev
What FreeBSD and NetBSD lack is a good system for
management of binary packages. Marc has very well understood that,
and has made every effort so that updates work smoothly. To my
knowledge OpenBSD is the only BSD which has a working update
mechanism, fully integrated.
I completely
13 matches
Mail list logo
