mount via auto does not give write rights
Hi, having the following in my fstab /dev/hdb5 /mnt/Fat32Data vfat auto,users,exec,rw,umask=0 0 0 it mounts when I start the system. But if I try to write, it does not allow so. If I just umount and mount again, it works. Why do I not have write rights with the automount ? Thanks in advance, Andreas -- In war and programming, all is allowed. But war is not about who is right, it is about who is left. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mysql with mono
Hi, I am trying to use the mysql connector for .net with monodevelop. But the "mysql" namespace does not show up. I do: sudo gacutil -i MySql.Data.dll while I am in the directory where I have the .dll. Does it have to be a special directory ? /usr/lib/mono or /usr/lib/mono/1.0 or /usr/lib/mono/2.0 or just the directory, where the whole zip is unzipped ? Or am I doing something else wrong ? Thanks Andreas -- In war and programming, all is allowed. But war is not about who is right, it is about who is left. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sound recording
BALLABIO GERARDO wrote: (please Cc: me, I'm not subscribed) []... buyed a cable and plugged one side into the headphones output of my stereo, the other one into the line-in input of the PC. > [...] I plugged the cable into the headphones output of the TV, but this time something strange happens: the music plays fine on the PC speakers, but when I try to record it, the recorded track (wav file) is disturbed by a constant and annoying high-frequency whistle. He, I am not sure it is the same, but I know of people having that kind of problem, when the pc and the second device are using the same electrical outlet. Not some distributor, but really the one from the wall. Sounds weird. But in some cases it did help to have them get their power from different jacks. If that did not help, the only way they could solve their problem had to do with the grounding. They had to change something at the wire. With a knife. No choke. But the second way I can't describe. I do not even understand the reason for the first variant. Just an idea to try. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: separating x client from x server
That's right. The program you're running *is* the X client, and it needs an X server to display its stuff on. Usually it uses the DISPLAY environment variable to find it. [...] One way that is apparently compatible with today's paranoia appears to be to use an option on ssh (I believe it's ssh -X) to get ssh to carry the X protocol. I'm not sure of the details, except that it appears to require configuration on both the client and server side. Where you sit: ssh-client, X-Server /etc/ssh/ssh_config ForwardX11 yes that way you dont have to say ssh -X bla bla on the other side: ssh-server, X-Client /etc/ssh/sshd_config X11Forwarding yes Btw. If you are not used to ssh, you should use keys. If you are used to, you now thing: of course. :-) 1) Create a key: ssh-keygen -t dsa 2) copy public key to other pc: ssh-copy-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3) ssh-add [file] (asks password) 4) ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] (without password) If your user is the same on both machines, you don't have to mention the user, so its not [EMAIL PROTECTED] but just host. There are are of course lots of options for the different ssh programs. If you want to use it a lot, then you perhaps would like to use libpam-ssh. If you have the same password for your system (where you sit) and for the key, then you can setup your system to use the password you enter at login for your ssh-agent and that way you only have to enter that password at the login. And not for every ssh or at least once for the ssh-agent. If you are interestedI can tell you more. Just ask. Cu, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run X on another system. People tend to forget that X is a networked protocol. mmm. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. If yes.. then I'd like to learn how to do it the other way. But to be sure I will tell how I see it. If you still think otherways, please point me to some docu. Or at least say so. That would be cool. What I think, how it is (not sure though) To export the display of a program you need a running X-Server at the computer where the display will point to. And where the program runs, you need some X-files (no, not the ones with the small grey things from ufos), some stuff from X, too. That is the reason why I talk about ca. 70 MB. FireStarter is small. But to start the gui, the system wants some other files. At least, I thought so until now. When I say "apt-get install firestarter" it will get firestart + needed files. And if I have no X related files there, it starts to download lots of them. Do I understand you right, that I do not have to download these X-files, if I intend to export the display to another computer ? That would be really nice. Cu, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
Andrei Popescu wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: I use ssh with X11 forwarding to manage the firewall. With firestarter? How? [snip X11 forwarding stuff] If *that* isn't shooting a fly with a canon, than I don't know what is. [snip rant against console users] You *really* do not read what others write ? Just *read* it. I do *not* rant against console users. I *do* use the console. Is it to complicated for you to understand, that someone DOES use the console but DOES also use the gui if the gui is easier in *his* opinion. And please no senseless comments about how easy this or that is. If something is easier for me, then it *is* easier for me. Please do not lie about my messages. I DO NOT RANT AGAINST CONSOLE USERS ! Ok ? got it ? Really ? if not.. read it again. and again and again. I really have to say that my last message was not really to discuss something. You just wrote silly stuff. If I write how to use a gui program via ssh and you write about "shooting with canon", then you did not get it. It is supposed to be used that way. Why do you think is the gui behaving that way ? Why do X-Servers exist ? Why not do it the windows way ? Do you ever *think* ? "IMHO firestarter is only useful if you already have X installed" Ok. So you have a desktop without X ? Or what ? Do you really try to tell me that any admin will admin his servers from a pc without a desktop ? Are you ... .. No. I will not use such words. But really. I dont think you are worth to talk to. I will now start looking if my programm can filter users. If this is a multi-purpose machine which already runs X for some reason then no problem, but having X installed on the firewall/router just for configuration purposes is bad security practice. That is nonsense. Did you understand what I told about ssh ? Do you want to tell me, that ssh is unsecure ? Ok. it is late at night. But I *really* need a filter for your messages... Hopefully I will not ever read anything about you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
Andrei Popescu wrote: I use ssh with X11 forwarding to manage the firewall. With firestarter? How? [snip X11 forwarding stuff] If *that* isn't shooting a fly with a canon, than I don't know what is. Mmm. So why do you use shorewall at all ? It is like using a pistol against an unarmed invader. *WHAT* is the point of your message ? I dont tell you how to do things. I like it that way. I do it that way. If you dont like it... I DO *NOT* CARE ! Ok. You can edit files with the text editor. Fine. Nice. COL. I want my work done. We all know, that it is possible to configure a firewall with an texteditor. You may use vi. Or even a line based. Who cares ? If you like it, do it. I have to say that you are perhaps on the wrong operating system, if you want to do it the way, it was done by your grandfather. Linux is an operating system which is getting easier to use every day. So if someone does it the easy way, what is the point of patronizing messages ? The good thing about linux is, that is is possible to do it with the commandline *and* and (more and more) with the gui. But trying to show off with telling "I am using the commandline" is just not working, because it means, you don't understand the concept. It is not *better*. Please stop writing such mails. We all know what kind of people do that. . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign emails with ssh-dsa-key ?
Hi, I created my ssh-dsa keys with the ssh utilities. Can I use these keys for things like mail signing, mail and/or file crypting or anything else ? Or is it a special format which I can use only for ssh ? At least my Thunderbird does not like these keys. Or I did not find the option. Thanks, Andreas -- In war and programming, all is allowed. But war is not about who is right, it is about who is left. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
I use ssh with X11 forwarding to manage the firewall. With firestarter? How? On my side in /etc/ssh/ssh_config (that is for the client) ForwardX11 yes that way you dont have to say ssh -X bla bla on the other side in /etc/ssh/sshd_config (that is for the server) X11Forwarding yes Then I allow via firestarter on the server incoming connections on "the" ssh port. Whatever that is for you. Normally 22. That is is. No other incoming or outgoing ports are needed on the server for the firestarter gui to work that way. Hope it works. *crosses fingers* Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
Jordi wrote: Anyway, please give me opinions about the router by SMC Networks: 7904WBRA2 http://www.smc.com/index.cfm?event=viewProduct&localeCode=EN_USA&pid=1588 First I have no wide knowledge of routers. I only know some. But I can tell you what I think while reading the data sheet. Perhaps it helps, perhpas it is a 2nd sheet. Spell it the other way. 4 Lan ports should be enough, or do you know otherwise. For example for me are 4 ports to few. But I can't buy another... WebInterface, so you do not *have* to install some software. That "Quality-of-Service gives priority to real-time, delay sensitive applications like Voice-over-IP and video-on-demand to improve the user experience." sounds to me like: give some type of connection prority. That would be really cool. I'd like to have it. I do not know if I understand it correct. WPA for wireless is good, because WEP has been broken. DHCP server and NAT are a must have. UPNP is bad. For me. So it should be possible to disable it. (it allows any application on the inside to open ports on the router) In the requirements are browsers from different OSes listed. That is good. So you are not left with a router which *needs* IE. Some things are ok. A lot of things mean nothing to me. I'd *like* to have that think to try the unknown things out. :-) Cu, A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firestarter VS Shorewall
Jordi wrote: I saw two good firewalls: - Firestarter wich is easy - Shorewall wich seems versatile Wich is best for a single server pc? Does the complexity of shorewall worth the effort or is firestarter as good as shorewall? I can only tell about firestarter. Perhaps it helps a bit. First, about the "understanding what is happening"-argument: I do not want to know about the lowest level of my firewall. I do not programm in assembler, I use C++ or C#. With an assembler I would have "a better understand what is happening". I do not need it. I want a solution. I do not write my own operating system out of the same reason. So I just want a working firewall. And firestarter does this job. I do not know about complex setups with multiple servers. I am just using one server, client etc at the time. The firewall shall protect one computer at a time. And so I use firestarter everywhere. I use ssh with X11 forwarding to manage the firewall. If I have a pure debian server without gui, it takes ca. 70 MB extra space to install firestarter + gui bla bla. Then I can use the firestarter gui to setup. It shows the active connections it it has a mode, where it stops all outgoing connections per default (this has to be activated: one click) etc Before you use this option, you should enable ssh :-) It is just great. But I do not know, if shorewall is better or worse. Cu, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
