Re: HP ILO FreeBSD 8.3 Installation problem
Hi, USB memstick img file is solution for me. I try FreeBSD-8.3-RELEASE-amd64-memstick.img. I downloaded this img file and copy to USB, not burn it to USB. Then attach to İLO such as USB virtual image then sysinstall start, BUT I selected installation from usb install NOT CD/DVD installation. thanks for your answers. 05.07.2013, 02:00, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd: On 5 Jul 2013, at 00:01, bw.mail.lists bw.mail.li...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/4/2013 4:59 PM, Emre Çamalan wrote: Hi, I'm trying to install FreeBSD with an HP ILO 4 advanced, web interface. I tried to install FreeBSD 8.2, FreeBSD 8.3 and FreeBSD 8.4. I tried to use acd0 and cd0 as media. I got the same result. ERROR: I'm trying to add freebsd8.3iso from ILO such as virtual drive not from cd or dvd. We had a similar experience with Dell's DRAC and FreeBSD 9.1, after initial boot and kernel load it wasn't able to mount / from (virtual) cd. We ended up using an mfsBSD iso ( http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/ ), which doesn't mount from cd, but uses an .img loaded as memory disk. Didn't try the official bootonly iso or the USB image. Same here, boot from MFS, gpart manually, install manually, works like a charm. I actually do it for all our installs now, the procedure is quite scriptable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: SV: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/06/13 19:51, Leslie Jensen wrote: Smb is slow by design compared to nfs. Sure. As I said, I was expecting lower performance; not *this* lower, however. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
highest nice(1) -n increment value?
It is not clear from the nice(1) man page, i.e. for /usr/bin/nice, not a shell built-in nice, what is the highest increment value nice will accept. It seems it is limited to 20. I tried $ /usr/bin/nice -n 100 portmaster -a But all processes spawned by the portmaster have the nice value of only 20, as in: PID USERNAMETHR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIMEWCPU COMMAND 57586 root 1 52 20 13976K 4720K wait 0:00 0.39% sh 52729 root 1 40 20 13976K 4960K wait 0:02 0.00% sh 58239 root 1 92 20 35632K 8584K RUN 0:00 0.00% pkg 58237 root 1 52 20 9216K 1616K ppwait 0:00 0.00% make The root shell priority was 0. So is 20 the upper increment limit? Thanks Anton ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
routing issues to freebsd.org
On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org... Updating Index fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host www.freebsd.org.513 IN CNAME wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. 1690IN A 8.8.178.110 traceroute to 8.8.178.110 (8.8.178.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 -- 0.528 ms 0.462 ms 0.428 ms 2 490.net2.north.dc5.as20860.net (62.233.127.210) 0.267 ms 0.263 ms 0.263 ms 3 593.core1.thn.as20860.net (62.233.127.173) 111.922 ms 49.373 ms 1.125 ms 4 ae3-309.lon11.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.74.101) 1.080 ms 1.181 ms 1.081 ms 5 xe-9-1-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.53) 145.580 ms 145.746 ms xe-8-1-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.183.17) 145.216 ms 6 213.200.66.238 (213.200.66.238) 145.702 ms 188.823 ms ge-0-3-9.pat1.sjc.yahoo.com (216.115.96.10) 219.331 ms 7 bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org (216.115.101.227) 146.013 ms 146.385 ms ae-5.pat2.sjc.yahoo.com (216.115.105.19) 145.653 ms 8 * * bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org (216.115.101.227) 146.519 ms 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * Paul. -- - Paul Macdonald IFDNRG Ltd Web and video hosting - t: 0131 5548070 m: 07970339546 e: p...@ifdnrg.com w: http://www.ifdnrg.com - IFDNRG 40 Maritime Street Edinburgh EH6 6SA High Specification Dedicated Servers from £100.00pm ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
chrome does not refresh screen content
Hello :-) I have noted this nasty and disturbing problem with Chromium that it very often does not refresh screen/display so I get result after few seconds or need to refresh page to see a change. It does not happen with other browsers and/or x-applications. Did anyone notice that problem? I am using public pkgng binaries from http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd:9:x86:64/latest. I guess it might be related to some stuff with GTK... % pkg info -Bdo chromium chromium-25.0.1364.172 depends on: ORBit2-2.14.19 alsa-lib-1.0.26 alsa-plugins-1.0.26 atk-2.6.0 binutils-2.23.1 bitstream-vera-1.10_5 cairo-1.10.2_5,2 compositeproto-0.4.2 cups-client-1.5.4_1 damageproto-1.2.1 dbus-glib-0.100.2 dbus-1.6.8 dconf-0.12.1_1 droid-fonts-ttf-20110324 encodings-1.0.4,1 expat-2.0.1_2 fixesproto-5.0 font-bh-ttf-1.0.3 font-misc-ethiopic-1.0.3 font-misc-meltho-1.0.3 font-util-1.3.0 fontconfig-2.9.0,1 freetype2-2.4.12_1 gamin-0.1.10_5 gcc-ecj-4.5 gcc-4.6.3 gconf2-2.32.0_3 gdk-pixbuf2-2.26.5_3 gettext-0.18.1.1_1 gio-fam-backend-2.34.3 glib-2.34.3 gmp-5.1.1 gnome_subr-1.0 gnomehier-3.0 gobject-introspection-1.34.2 gtk-update-icon-cache-2.24.18 gtk-2.24.18 hicolor-icon-theme-0.12 inputproto-2.3 jasper-1.900.1_12 jbigkit-1.6 jpeg-8_4 kbproto-1.0.6 libICE-1.0.8,1 libSM-1.2.1,1 libX11-1.6.0,1 libXScrnSaver-1.2.1 libXau-1.0.8 libXcomposite-0.4.4,1 libXcursor-1.1.14 libXdamage-1.1.4 libXdmcp-1.1.1 libXext-1.3.2,1 libXfixes-5.0.1 libXft-2.3.1 libXi-1.7.1_1,1 libXinerama-1.1.3,1 libXrandr-1.4.1 libXrender-0.9.7_1 libXt-1.1.4,1 libXtst-1.2.2 libevent-1.4.14b_2 libexecinfo-1.1_3 libffi-3.0.13 libfontenc-1.1.2 libgcrypt-1.5.2 libgnome-keyring-2.32.0_4 libgpg-error-1.11 libiconv-1.14_1 libpci-3.2.0 libpthread-stubs-0.3_3 libtasn1-2.14 libvpx-1.1.0 libxcb-1.9.1 libxml2-2.8.0_2 libxslt-1.1.28_1 mkfontdir-1.0.7 mkfontscale-1.1.0 mpc-0.9 mpfr-3.1.2 nspr-4.9.6 nss-3.14.3 pango-1.30.1 pciids-20130530 pcre-8.33 perl-5.14.2_3 pixman-0.28.2 pkgconf-0.9.2_1 png-1.5.16 polkit-0.105_1 python27-2.7.5 randrproto-1.4.0 recordproto-1.14.2 renderproto-0.11.1 scrnsaverproto-1.2.1 shared-mime-info-1.1 sqlite3-3.7.17_1 tiff-4.0.3 xcb-util-renderutil-0.3.8 xcb-util-0.3.9_1,1 xextproto-7.2.1 xineramaproto-1.2.1 xorg-fonts-truetype-7.7 xproto-7.0.24 Best regards :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: routing issues to freebsd.org
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Paul Macdonald wrote: On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org... Updating Index fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host www.freebsd.org.513 IN CNAME wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. 1690IN A 8.8.178.110 Perhaps an issue on your end (probably on the reverse route)? Traces look fine from multiple networks: http://sprunge.us/JFeS -- staticsafe O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: routing issues to freebsd.org
Paul Macdonald schreef: On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org... Updating Index fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host www.freebsd.org.513 IN CNAME wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. 1690IN A 8.8.178.110 traceroute to 8.8.178.110 (8.8.178.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 -- 0.528 ms 0.462 ms 0.428 ms 2 490.net2.north.dc5.as20860.net (62.233.127.210) 0.267 ms 0.263 ms 0.263 ms 3 593.core1.thn.as20860.net (62.233.127.173) 111.922 ms 49.373 ms 1.125 ms 4 ae3-309.lon11.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.74.101) 1.080 ms 1.181 ms 1.081 ms 5 xe-9-1-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.53) 145.580 ms 145.746 ms xe-8-1-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.183.17) 145.216 ms 6 213.200.66.238 (213.200.66.238) 145.702 ms 188.823 ms ge-0-3-9.pat1.sjc.yahoo.com (216.115.96.10) 219.331 ms 7 bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org (216.115.101.227) 146.013 ms 146.385 ms ae-5.pat2.sjc.yahoo.com (216.115.105.19) 145.653 ms 8 * * bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org (216.115.101.227) 146.519 ms 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * Paul. I noticed FreeBSD was not accessable this morning. svnup gives me the following. svnup stable svnup: connect failure: Connection refused earlier i could not even open www.freebsd.org, so something is or was not right. Now www.freebsd.org works again gr Johan Hendriks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: routing issues to freebsd.org
Hi, On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:01:09 -0400 staticsafe m...@staticsafe.ca wrote: On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Paul Macdonald wrote: On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org... Updating Index fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host www.freebsd.org.513 IN CNAME wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org. 1690IN A 8.8.178.110 Perhaps an issue on your end (probably on the reverse route)? it was the same story in Indonesia. Erich Traces look fine from multiple networks: http://sprunge.us/JFeS ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Problems Installing /usr/ports/devel/pear
Is anyone else having problems installing pear with PHP 5.5? Or do I
just have a misconfiguration on my system that is causing the install
process to look at my /tmp directory. My ports tree is updated to svn
revision 322502, and the system is running FreeBSD 9.1p4, so everything
is up to date prior to this install.
root@webmail:/usr/ports/devel/pear # make
=== pear-1.9.4_1 depends on file: /usr/local/sbin/pkg - found
=== Fetching all distfiles required by pear-1.9.4_1 for building
=== Extracting for pear-1.9.4_1
= SHA256 Checksum OK for pear-1.9.4.tar.bz2.
=== Patching for pear-1.9.4_1
=== Applying FreeBSD patches for pear-1.9.4_1
=== pear-1.9.4_1 depends on file: /usr/local/include/php/main/php.h -
found
=== pear-1.9.4_1 depends on file: /usr/local/lib/php/20121212/xml.so
- found
=== Configuring for pear-1.9.4_1
root@webmail:/usr/ports/devel/pear # make install
=== Installing for pear-1.9.4_1
=== pear-1.9.4_1 depends on file: /usr/local/include/php/main/php.h -
found
=== pear-1.9.4_1 depends on file: /usr/local/lib/php/20121212/xml.so
- found
=== Generating temporary packing list
=== Checking if devel/pear already installed
Bootstrapping Installer...
Bootstrapping PEAR.php(local) ok
Bootstrapping Archive/Tar.php(local) ok
Bootstrapping Console/Getopt.php(local) ok
Strict Standards: Non-static method PEAR::setErrorHandling() should not
be called statically in
/var/ports/usr/ports/devel/pear/work/pear-1.9.4/go-pear on line 689
Extracting installer..
Using local package: PEAR.
Warning: file_exists() expects parameter 1 to be a valid path, string
given in /tmp/pear/Archive/Tar.php on line 1582
Error while opening {/tmp/pear/package2.xml} in write binary mode
sed: /usr/local/share/pear/peclcmd.php: No such file or directory
*** [do-install] Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/devel/pear
--
Thanks,
Dean E. Weimer
http://www.dweimer.net/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/07/13 00:52, Adam Vande More wrote: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html Thanks Adam. However: I'm using UFS, not ZFS, so the first part is not applicable. I have an nfe card, not an em; so again, the second part does not apply. The only tunable in that driver is hw.nfe.msi_disable and hw.nfe.msix_disable, which I never tried; I guess I could when I have physical access to the box, but again, they are enabled by default and I doubt I would get better performance by disabling MSI[-X]. In addition, I don't think I suffer from a NIC bottleneck, given the speed of NFS and a find shouldn't read the whole files, so shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth. The third section is interesting: still no change, however. This does not suprise me, since I had extensively tried these (and other settings from several Samba howtos) with different values in the past, the difference being always quite negligible. The last thing I'm considering is slowness due to the LDAP backend. This is what I'm currently investigating. All the literature on Samba seems to be quite Linux-centric; that's why I asked on the FreeBSD mailing list whether this could be normal. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
UEFI Secure Boot
Hi, according to distrowatch.com: FreeBSD developer Marshall Mickusick told IT Wire that the FreeBSD team would probably follow in the footsteps of cutting-edge Linux distributions. Indeed we will likely take the Linux shim loader, put our own key in it, and then ask Microsoft to sign it. Since Microsoft will have already vetted the shim loader code, we hope that there will be little trouble getting them to sign our version for us. http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/60498-freebsd-begins-process-to-support-secure-boot I am just wondering why Linus Torvald is concerned about Microsoft's role ... http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarifies-linuxs-windows-8-secure-boot-position-711918/ I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not to harm themselves. jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Stable/9 from today mpssas_scsiio timeouts
as of stable today im seeing alot of new mps time outs 9.1-STABLE FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE #0 r253035M: Mon Jul 8 16:34:28 UTC 2013 root@:/usr/obj/nas/usr/src/sys/ mps1@pci0:130:0:0: class=0x010700 card=0x30201000 chip=0x00721000 rev=0x03 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'LSI Logic / Symbios Logic' device = 'SAS2008 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 [Falcon]' class = mass storage subclass = SAS mps0: mpssas_scsiio_timeout checking sc 0xff8002145000 cm 0xff80021a6b78 (probe40:mps0:0:40:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 length 36 SMID 983 command timeout cm 0xff80021a6b78 ccb 0xfe002bb5f800 mps0: mpssas_alloc_tm freezing simq mps0: timedout cm 0xff80021a6b78 allocated tm 0xff80021587b0 (probe40:mps0:0:40:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 length 36 SMID 983 completed timedout cm 0xff80021a6b78 ccb 0xfe002bb5f800 during recovery ioc 8048 scsi 0 state c xfer 0 (noperiph:mps0:0:40:0): SMID 6 abort TaskMID 983 status 0x4a code 0x0 count 1 (noperiph:mps0:0:40:0): SMID 6 finished recovery after aborting TaskMID 983 mps0: mpssas_free_tm releasing simq (probe40:mps0:0:40:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 (probe40:mps0:0:40:0): CAM status: Command timeout (probe40:mps0:0:40:0): Retrying command mps1: mpssas_scsiio_timeout checking sc 0xff8002384000 cm 0xff80023e5b78 (probe292:mps1:0:37:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 length 36 SMID 983 command timeout cm 0xff80023e5b78 ccb 0xfe002be14800 mps1: mpssas_alloc_tm freezing simq mps1: timedout cm 0xff80023e5b78 allocated tm 0xff80023977b0 (probe292:mps1:0:37:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 length 36 SMID 983 completed timedout cm 0xff80023e5b78 ccb 0xfe002be14800 during recovery ioc 8048 scsi 0 state c xfer 0 (noperiph:mps1:0:37:0): SMID 6 abort TaskMID 983 status 0x4a code 0x0 count 1 (noperiph:mps1:0:37:0): SMID 6 finished recovery after aborting TaskMID 983 mps1: mpssas_free_tm releasing simq (probe292:mps1:0:37:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 (probe292:mps1:0:37:0): CAM status: Command timeout (probe292:mps1:0:37:0): Retrying command ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Errors building mysql55-client
On 06/27/13 03:13, C. L. Martinez wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Trond Endrestøl trond.endres...@fagskolen.gjovik.no wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:55-, C. L. Martinez wrote: Either the file named distinfo is messed up, or the maintainer has access to a different file than the rest of us. Maybe you should wait until the MySQL mirrors catches up. I'm going to confirm that this was a recent patch to the ports tree: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/databases/mysql55-server/distinfo?r1=320671r2=321789 It's pretty clear the versions the port is trying to download -used- to match the distinfo file, but they no longer do. This cryptic comment: Distfile rerolled to make it clearer the license of this community edition (GPLv2). seems to be the source of these errors which are biting me too. It would be nice for some clearer documentation on why distinfo was changed, what the real issue is, and what we can do to build this correctly. Naively speaking, the version available for download off the mysql site matches the old distinfo SHA checksum so I'm not sure why this was changed at all. I've CC'd the ports list and the responsible committer on this. I'll file a PR too if I get no response to this message. :) -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - d...@jetcafe.org *The opinions expressed above are entirely my own* Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
Hello, You can call me naive, but until today, I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or LInux AND windows in any machine I mount/sold, and I have mount it by the dozen, servers running FreeBSD, notebooks running a custom version of Arch Linux... In the freeBSD servers, when a user needs windows for some reason mainly access bank account or enterprise small business I use Virtualbox and I offer him NT2003 server (32 bits), windows 7(64) or windows XP(32). all work fine with a server running FreeBSD 9, 16GB of memory, 500GB of zfs mirrored disks. This small server, running on an AMD FX8120 (8cores) processor costs about U$600 and can hold 40 users running on the virtualbox NT 2003... without problem, and the FreeBSD part can hold gnome 2.32, pf, webserver, firewall, dhcp, printer server, scanner, wireless server, vpn, vlan, asterisk for telephony, even a cloud server running on top of apache using webdav... On the notebooks, the Arch linux runs like a charm, very fast integrated with the FreeBSD server. if a user needs access to the company software or bank software(that runs only on IE8) a rdesktop session is used (tsclient). Besides the FreeBSD does diskless stations too.. So the question: Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot??? Thank you for ANY comment... Sergio ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote: [snip] So the question: Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot??? From what I've read of UEFI Secure boot, I've parceled out into these nuggets: (correct any nuggets I got wrong) 1. UEFI Secure boot is actually UEFI + Secure boot. You can disable Secure boot and still have UEFI. 2. Windows 8 requires UEFI Secure boot to ... boot. 3. Any OS can work with UEFI Secure boot... you just have to sign your drivers (which puts a burden on development, testing, etc.) 4. FreeBSD today can work on a machine if you disable UEFI (implied disabling of Secure boot sub-feature) 5. FreeBSD could eventually support UEFI. 6. Don't know if we want to support secure-boot... but I think we should. It's really up to how the end-user wants FreeBSD to function. If they want FreeBSD to reject module-loads for custom-compiled modules, secure boot seems to be a way to go. But for me at least, I won't be enabling it (even if we support it). However, I know customers that might think it's a great idea (think financial institutions running FreeBSD on bare metal both as workstations and servers). Now, I must admit, when the conversation of UEFI and Secure boot starts turning toward involving M$, I get confused. To my understanding, it's a methodology to allow a customer to secure his/her box against root-kit. The OS does this by communicating with the UEFI framework the keys of modules to load. That's between the BIOS and the OS (whatever OS you may be running). -- Devin P.S. Again, correct me if I'm wrong on anything -- I'm still wrapping my head around this stuff too. _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:24:38 -0300 Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote: I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or LInux AND windows Some people don't want to delete a preinstalled copy of Windows so they can buy another and install it in a virtual server. There are also fairly obvious reasons why one may want Windows to have direct access to the hardware. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote: On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote: [snip] So the question: Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot??? From what I've read of UEFI Secure boot, I've parceled out into these nuggets: (correct any nuggets I got wrong) 1. UEFI Secure boot is actually UEFI + Secure boot. You can disable Secure boot and still have UEFI. 2. Windows 8 requires UEFI Secure boot to ... boot. Not entirely correct. Microsoft licensing requires UEFI Secure boot for PCs sold with preinstalled Win8 and the Windows 8 logo. Win8 itself boots and runs fine on legacy hardware without UEFI (and often outperforms XP or Win7 on the same hardware). But the real-world end result is the vast majority of future computers will be sold with UEFI secure boot enabled as the default. 3. Any OS can work with UEFI Secure boot... you just have to sign your drivers (which puts a burden on development, testing, etc.) 4. FreeBSD today can work on a machine if you disable UEFI (implied disabling of Secure boot sub-feature) 5. FreeBSD could eventually support UEFI. 6. Don't know if we want to support secure-boot... but I think we should. It's really up to how the end-user wants FreeBSD to function. If they want FreeBSD to reject module-loads for custom-compiled modules, secure boot seems to be a way to go. But for me at least, I won't be enabling it (even if we support it). However, I know customers that might think it's a great idea (think financial institutions running FreeBSD on bare metal both as workstations and servers). Now, I must admit, when the conversation of UEFI and Secure boot starts turning toward involving M$, I get confused. To my understanding, it's a methodology to allow a customer to secure his/her box against root-kit. The OS does this by communicating with the UEFI framework the keys of modules to load. That's between the BIOS and the OS (whatever OS you may be running). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR21sPAAoJEHIluGOd3V4FGmgH/2vcwWP5juy7txU7pS5oTPdA MXc29tAIpPcLuGILyFICKtjlZ3isINX8kwBA9xZKoSjiDSCng/I+90+dIjpukAt2 DwLuek6+7oC9dYaBDxobjhhoogw5txcKnqwVhC4LjpBdQMuTiJSIunQOOzqqEybU kvedi5nlmmso6GYVYEKLRS7NrbgMW9W+2TvwrYOcBJw3yTeN4XRcpk7rQRi/U0+/ oRqxy1W9z51T6sGdO5UrkdxQEcNT6UgJedIo/0QLNUPOPEzGbapqak1QCbDSpxDc G8GOPLZnSrTM/FnM8KMzFaM2C6yoMyJHqsCs4tsbu1sRGxpLbs3HUJF984HTRDw= =vozW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote: Not entirely correct. Microsoft licensing requires UEFI Secure boot for PCs sold with preinstalled Win8 and the Windows 8 logo. Win8 itself boots and runs fine on legacy hardware without UEFI (and often outperforms XP or Win7 on the same hardware). But the real-world end result is the vast majority of future computers will be sold with UEFI secure boot enabled as the default. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR21sLAAoJEHIluGOd3V4FmG0H/3a8yfrZOs0hhZmD2koIOBks ELNfNqvktBICX+7lhHFVQM9i10LIHWR2Vgb+0BZSYavGQ+TmE6tds3iIprDXzGF9 fKO1OHsD/5rCWPraus9uOBoeLrD9wQMirB3JV9f5p0hNLHqtiWYr1p0wsC9/vDYN q92JINJe80Aqznq746JIbIEibmCDDjVTrTgDB2xidi3ZlkD6nN3RKNJ+DDnj/O19 sHDCmRU/Daw+3OisjaVwmaJpksPJxSmNxIlFqWlbZ8nMgjwbB/2YxkELVaRnLJZG rBSeyxiOA7Y1m9OLGRZXCeraFedk8ccE2JXDbv7OBR/mC7066PZkNq/bpjZjlEA= =ZZRj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote: I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not to harm themselves. A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot (this is what Secure Boot basically is) you are no longer able to _ignore_ MICROS~1 and their products. A restrictive boot loader mechanism that requires signed and confirmed keys, handled by a major offender of free decisions and a healthy market - no thanks. What prevents MICROS~1 from revoking keys of a possible competitor? Or from messing with the specs just that things start breaking? Don't get me wrong: I don't even argument that a mechanism where a competitor requires you to pay money to run _your_ software instead of _their_ software sounds horribly wrong. This approach will introduce a philosophical or even legal context to the technical problem. I see interesting chances in UEFI per se. It can be called a kind of micro-OS which can be rich on features that could also be useful. But history has shown that if such an infrastructure is provided, it will lead to bloated, insecure and incompatible implementations quickly, and the worst, it will happen at a very low level. This is simly dangerous. Regarding UEFI + Restricted Boot: To obtain MICROS~1's sticker of approval for hardware, vendors need to implement those features. Even worse, on _specific_ platforms, they are not allowed to make it possible to _remove_ those features, so on by default is required - if I remember correctly (Intel vs. ARM architectures). As you see, I try to ignore this whole topic as I am not interested in using it. In the past, this has been possible. When building a new system, buying a blank disk and _no_ Windows was particularly easy. For systems that already came with some Windows preinstalled, simply deleting the partition was a solution; install FreeBSD boot mechanism, initialize disk, and be done. No more dealing with what MICROS~1 seems to insist is normal. When _their_ product decisions make _me_ invest time to find a way to remove and ignore them, I feel offended. I would like to see a way UEFI hardware, with or without Restricted Boot, can be used with FreeBSD _without_ involving the good will of MICROS~1. But as they have already gotten their fingers everywhere, this doesn't seem to happen all too soon... :-( -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: chrome does not refresh screen content
On 8 July 2013 05:59, CeDeROM cede...@tlen.pl wrote: Hello :-) I have noted this nasty and disturbing problem with Chromium that it very often does not refresh screen/display so I get result after few seconds or need to refresh page to see a change. It does not happen with other browsers and/or x-applications. Did anyone notice that problem? I am using public pkgng binaries from http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd:9:x86:64/latest. I guess it might be related to some stuff with GTK... Yes, no idea though what causes it. I build from source. I'm considering pkg delete-ing it, though, as it doesn't seem to offer any advantages (over xombrero, opera, midori, etc) any more. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200 Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote: I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not to harm themselves. A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot (this is what Secure Boot basically is) you are no longer able to _ignore_ MICROS~1 and their products. A restrictive boot loader mechanism that requires signed and confirmed keys, handled by a major offender of free decisions and a healthy market - no thanks. What prevents MICROS~1 from revoking keys of a possible competitor? Or from messing with the specs just that things start breaking? Don't get me wrong: I don't even argument that a mechanism where a competitor requires you to pay money to run _your_ software instead of _their_ software sounds horribly wrong. This approach will introduce a philosophical or even legal context to the technical problem. I see interesting chances in UEFI per se. It can be called a kind of micro-OS which can be rich on features that could also be useful. But history has shown that if such an infrastructure is provided, it will lead to bloated, insecure and incompatible implementations quickly, and the worst, it will happen at a very low level. This is simly dangerous. Regarding UEFI + Restricted Boot: To obtain MICROS~1's sticker of approval for hardware, vendors need to implement those features. Even worse, on _specific_ platforms, they are not allowed to make it possible to _remove_ those features, so on by default is required - if I remember correctly (Intel vs. ARM architectures). As you see, I try to ignore this whole topic as I am not interested in using it. In the past, this has been possible. When building a new system, buying a blank disk and _no_ Windows was particularly easy. For systems that already came with some Windows preinstalled, simply deleting the partition was a solution; install FreeBSD boot mechanism, initialize disk, and be done. No more dealing with what MICROS~1 seems to insist is normal. When _their_ product decisions make _me_ invest time to find a way to remove and ignore them, I feel offended. I would like to see a way UEFI hardware, with or without Restricted Boot, can be used with FreeBSD _without_ involving the good will of MICROS~1. But as they have already gotten their fingers everywhere, this doesn't seem to happen all too soon... :-( -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org If I have understood correctly, it is quite easy to disable secure boot on most current machines; it is just an option in the UEFI setup. The real danger is machines where it cannot be disabled. This includes some recent HP machines; whether by design or incompetence I cannot say. These are the real danger to non-Microsoft operating systems, and the free software movement needs to fight tooth and nail against them. I can all too easily see them proliferating in the marketplace, perhaps secretly 'encouraged' by Microsoft. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
Mike Jeays mike.jeays at rogers.com writes: On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200 Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote: I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not to harm themselves. A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot (this is what Secure Boot basically is) you are no longer able to _ignore_ MICROS~1 and their products. A restrictive boot loader mechanism that requires signed and confirmed keys, handled by a major offender of free decisions and a healthy market - no thanks. What prevents MICROS~1 from revoking keys of a possible competitor? Or from messing with the specs just that things start breaking? ... If I have understood correctly, it is quite easy to disable secure boot on most current machines; it is just an option in the UEFI setup. The real danger is machines where it cannot be disabled. This includes some recent HP machines; whether by design or incompetence I cannot say. As readers on distrowatch.com put it regarding Secure Boot: Secure Boot can be turned off completely or, custom mode entered and other keys added if so desired thus avoiding the need to deal with Microsoft. Although it does add extra steps to installing a Linux or BSD system it's not that difficult to deal with and Secure Boot is part of the UEFI specifications, not Microsoft's. In some cases Secure Boot CANNOT be turned off completely, and in other cases Secure Boot may be desired. In theses cases, an independent authority should be signing the key, NOT Microsoft. We shouldn't have to forgo the use of Secure Boot to avoid dealing with Microsoft. It deeply disturbs me that Linux and BSD projects must grovel before Microsoft to get their key signed to be allowed to install their OS. Why should MS have such power? There should be an independent entity to handle this. jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: UEFI Secure Boot
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote: I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not to harm themselves. A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot (this is what Secure Boot basically is) you are no longer able to _ignore_ MICROS~1 and their products. A restrictive boot loader mechanism that requires signed and confirmed keys, handled by a major offender of free decisions and a healthy market - no thanks. What prevents MICROS~1 from revoking keys of a possible competitor? Or from messing with the specs just that things start breaking? Don't get me wrong: I don't even argument that a mechanism where a competitor requires you to pay money to run _your_ software instead of _their_ software sounds horribly wrong. This approach will introduce a philosophical or even legal context to the technical problem. I see interesting chances in UEFI per se. It can be called a kind of micro-OS which can be rich on features that could also be useful. But history has shown that if such an infrastructure is provided, it will lead to bloated, insecure and incompatible implementations quickly, and the worst, it will happen at a very low level. This is simly dangerous. Regarding UEFI + Restricted Boot: To obtain MICROS~1's sticker of approval for hardware, vendors need to implement those features. Even worse, on _specific_ platforms, they are not allowed to make it possible to _remove_ those features, so on by default is required - if I remember correctly (Intel vs. ARM architectures). As you see, I try to ignore this whole topic as I am not interested in using it. In the past, this has been possible. When building a new system, buying a blank disk and _no_ Windows was particularly easy. For systems that already came with some Windows preinstalled, simply deleting the partition was a solution; install FreeBSD boot mechanism, initialize disk, and be done. No more dealing with what MICROS~1 seems to insist is normal. When _their_ product decisions make _me_ invest time to find a way to remove and ignore them, I feel offended. I would like to see a way UEFI hardware, with or without Restricted Boot, can be used with FreeBSD _without_ involving the good will of MICROS~1. But as they have already gotten their fingers everywhere, this doesn't seem to happen all too soon... :-( -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... To assume that UEFI with some magic numbers is a security provider with current hardware is only a day dream . Consider stolen security signing keys and other by-passing mechanisms . For me , I think , over time there will exist free , but really free operating systems which they are not enslaved themselves to some companies , and hardware ( mainly main boards ) which will not require such enslaving . Then , to do task is just plainly to switch to such hardware and software . Personally , I will never want to live under a restriction tried to be enforced by a company and blindly accepted by its followers . I think I am not the only one in the world . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
courier imap - unable to access shared folders: operation not supported
I'm really tearing my hair out here, this was working until I had to do a repair on the server hdd and rebuild it, and now I cannot work out why this has been working at all- no amount of googling even hints at what could be wrong. I'm trying to access shared folders on a courier-imap server and the client simply does nothing, the logs are very obscure as well, and it is on these that I have been focusing my searches on and then trying generalisations: Jul 9 12:59:29 server1 imapd: FAMCancelMonitor: Broken pipe Jul 9 12:59:30 server1 imapd: shared-folders/shared-folder/tmp/1373338770.M51083P2034_sync.server: Operation not supported Jul 9 12:59:30 server1 imapd: FAMCancelMonitor: Broken pipe Jul 9 12:59:30 server1 imapd: shared-folders/shared-folder/tmp/1373338770.M453207P2034_sync.server: Operation not supported Jul 9 12:59:30 server1 imapd: FAMCancelMonitor: Broken pipe Jul 9 12:59:50 server1 imapd: LOGIN, user=user1, ip=IP, port=[59585], protocol=IMAP Jul 9 13:00:12 server1 imapd: LOGIN, user=user2, ip=IP, port=[30542], protocol=IMAP Jul 9 13:03:44 server1 imapd: end from FAM server connection Jul 9 13:03:59 server1 imapd: FAMPending: timeout Jul 9 13:05:18 server1 imapd: couriertls: read: Connection reset by peer Jul 9 13:05:18 server1 imapd: DISCONNECTED, user=user2, ip=IP, headers=0, body=0, rcvd=314, sent=25847, time=306, starttls=1 I cannot find any references anywhere on this at all. The server has a mail store over NFS located on a ZFS fileserver, nothing has changed as such in the transition and it was working before the hdd repair was done. The only change I tried in the past 5 mins was turning the enhancedidle switch in the conf, and all that produced was the FAM errors you can see. Does anyone have any clues to this? Cheers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: chrome does not refresh screen content
On 08/07/2013 19:29, CeDeROM wrote: Hello :-) I have noted this nasty and disturbing problem with Chromium that it very often does not refresh screen/display so I get result after few seconds or need to refresh page to see a change. It does not happen with other browsers and/or x-applications. Did anyone notice that problem? I am using public pkgng binaries from http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd:9:x86:64/latest. I guess it might be related to some stuff with GTK... I see this issue while playing videos in vlc, it's not 100% but close, so it may be related to video resolution or codec. As soon as I stop the video (not pause but stop) the windows draw properly again. If your not running vlc at the time could the vlc plugin be running for media on a web page? I have seen this with chrome and a few other apps. Been a while since I started a video while a page was open, but starting chrome while a video is playing leaves only a blank window (the toolbar/bookmarksbar draw but the rest of the window is blank) - the page is loaded but not drawn, I get tooltips and cursor changes as I hover over where links etc should be on the web page. chrome clipgrab(qt) and even vlc(qt) are the ones I can think of now - vlc shows this issue with it's extra windows - eg playlist, preferences. I'm running 9.1 amd64 with nvidia-driver-310.44_1 xorg-7.7 xfce-4.10_5 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
