Re: What about Creative SoundBlaster Audigy SE
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:44:06 +0200
Tommy Rehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*However I must be misunderstanding something.* When I try to run for
example gxine there is *NO* sound and there are no sound in
programme-execution which there usually are when one is starting an app
in KDE.
hi Tommy,
it seems an application issue - not supporting OSS drivers. Try setting in the
configurations of these programs (and whatever sound daemon kde uses) the
correct audio device to use
it could be an access right issue too - make sure you test as root with your
multimeidia app, or osstest with a normal user if doable). /etc/devfs.conf
shall be able to help you if it is ACL issue.
B
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Always do right. This will gratify some and astonish the rest.
Mark Twain
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[4]: Seems like pf skips some packets.
Setting are loaded in pf via /etc/rc.d/pf start Why do these things differ? EC These are the timeout settings for set optimization aggressive. If EC it appears after your set timeout lines, then it will take EC precedence. If this doesn't appear within your pf.conf, then this EC probably isn't the pf config file it's loading. If so, that may EC explain your issue with the unblocked packets as well. Right. I've changed back to set optimization normal and now settings from file and in pf match. There are still unblocked packets. Provider asked me to block them, else he will block whole my network :( -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seems like pf skips some packets.
Fresh news. I've noticed all unblocked packets have tcp window suggestion set to 0 (zero). I tried to block these packets on external interface: ~sudo ipfw add 10 deny log tcp from 192.168.0.0/16 to any via external out tcpwin 0 This rule is the first rule in ipfw. Then I looked for such packets and I found them :( ~sudo tcpdump -ni external src net 192.168.0.0/16 15:17:57.603899 IP 192.168.38.36.4649 88.212.196.77.80: . ack 727205372 win 0 15:17:57.603960 IP 192.168.54.106.3388 217.65.2.62.80: . ack 0 win 0 15:17:57.603974 IP 192.168.38.36.4647 87.250.251.11.80: . ack 1795114833 win 0 15:17:57.603987 IP 192.168.32.96.2263 205.188.1.136.5190: . ack 1459514474 win 0 15:17:57.604015 IP 192.168.24.92.4049 194.186.121.81.80: . ack 1712730130 win 0 15:17:57.604028 IP 192.168.56.100.2934 194.67.23.206.80: . ack 0 win 0 15:17:57.604041 IP 192.168.48.33.3314 81.19.66.19.80: . ack 1697432479 win 0 15:17:57.604053 IP 192.168.24.92.4040 194.186.121.82.80: . ack 1951624102 win 0 15:17:57.604066 IP 192.168.16.35.2298 69.147.108.254.443: . ack 3953269109 win 0 15:17:57.604078 IP 192.168.11.143.60431 194.186.121.77.80: . ack 4068897542 win 0 15:17:57.604092 IP 192.168.9.18.60492 64.12.31.176.5190: . ack 3864640183 win 0 15:17:57.604104 IP 192.168.24.18.60660 81.222.128.13.80: . ack 456936114 win 0 15:17:57.604117 IP 192.168.24.18.60659 81.222.128.13.80: . ack 457633387 win 0 15:17:57.604129 IP 192.168.48.33.3316 88.212.196.77.80: . ack 3294547611 win 0 15:17:57.604142 IP 192.168.48.33.3317 88.212.196.77.80: . ack 407383482 win 0 15:17:57.604155 IP 192.168.38.36.4645 194.67.45.129.80: . ack 450309387 win 0 15:17:57.604167 IP 192.168.48.33.3318 194.67.45.98.80: . ack 2013143653 win 0 15:17:57.604180 IP 192.168.50.44.34589 213.155.151.142.80: . ack 1954703640 win 0 15:17:57.604191 IP 192.168.42.85.4027 216.178.38.78.80: . ack 1861099043 win 0 And I looked into security log to see whether they are simmilar (lines prefixed with space are common): ~sudo less /var/log/security Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2290 216.109.127.6:443 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.52.20:1636 81.177.16.60:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.9.17:3403 217.106.230.137:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.48.33:3318 194.67.45.98:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.42.85:4027 216.178.38.78:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.56.169:1801 194.67.23.108:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2298 69.147.108.254:443 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.38.36:4649 88.212.196.77:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.42.85:4027 216.178.38.78:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.38.36:4647 87.250.251.11:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2298 69.147.108.254:443 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.24.92:4049 194.186.121.81:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.24.92:4040 194.186.121.82:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.38.36:4645 194.67.45.129:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.24.18:60660 81.222.128.13:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.24.18:60659 81.222.128.13:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2083 194.67.23.109:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.56.73:1075 85.112.114.78:22273 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.56.73:1078 85.112.114.77:22273 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2283 194.67.23.109:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2272 194.67.23.109:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.22.103:1054 216.195.54.170:80 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2299 217.146.179.200:443 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.16.35:2299 217.146.179.200:443 out via external Jul 15 15:17:57 intel kernel: ipfw: 10 Deny TCP 192.168.42.85:4069 193.108.95.55:80 out via external I have two questioins now: 1. Why there are denied outgoing packets on external interface? 2. Why ipfw skips some tcp packets with (tcpwin 0) and I see them only with tcpdump? -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To
upgrade from python 2.4 to 2.5
Hi Did anyone already upgrade from python 2.4 to 2.5? How can I upgrade to python 2.5 using portupgrade? Tnx in advanced. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BPF question
I have been setting the bpf parameter in the kernel configuration file to 10 [I forget which program needed that]. Prior to that I had usually run with about 4. I also saw that on a 4.11 installation I had it set at 40 for 'nessus'. My config file had this line. device bpf 10 I just updated the system from 6.2-p5 to 6.2-p6, and I got a syntax error on that line. Removing the '10' and leaving the line as: device bpf got rid of the syntax error. I haven't seen, or maybe I just missed it, and information that we don't use a numerical parameter anymore. So has this been changed, or is there a problem in the p6 implementation/installation? I suspect it has been changed but I have not noticed it. Thanks. BIll -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BPF question
Bill Vermillion wrote: I have been setting the bpf parameter in the kernel configuration file to 10 [I forget which program needed that]. Prior to that I had usually run with about 4. I also saw that on a 4.11 installation I had it set at 40 for 'nessus'. My config file had this line. device bpf 10 I just updated the system from 6.2-p5 to 6.2-p6, and I got a syntax error on that line. Removing the '10' and leaving the line as: device bpf got rid of the syntax error. I haven't seen, or maybe I just missed it, and information that we don't use a numerical parameter anymore. So has this been changed, or is there a problem in the p6 implementation/installation? I suspect it has been changed but I have not noticed it. Thanks. BIll With 5.x and upwards, you no longer need to specify the number of devices required in the kernel configuration. New device nodes are created/destroyed on the fly by devfs. Regards, Richard smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
Is there a port index file that corresponds to the FREEBSD_4_EOL tag? I am unable to rebuild the index from the tagged checkout. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your Egg Card Statement is ready
June 2007 [1]Egg Card - let's sort money out Your Egg Card statement is online Hello - your statement's arrived. So, go and take a look, it's there to keep you in the know by detailing your transactions. Please remember to always keep your receipts safe, check them off against your statement and dispose of them carefully. If you spot a transaction that you don't recognise you can get help from the link on your statement, if anything still seems wrong contact us straight away. If we think something doesn't look right with your account, we'll call you and try to get to the bottom of the matter. These calls may include [2]computer-generated speech. [3]Egg home [4]find out more Egg Card repayment protection [5]find out more about Egg Loans [6]find out more about Chip and PIN [7]find out more about Egg Money Manager [8]find out more about Egg Rewards Egg Cards are issued by Egg Banking plc. See [9]Egg Card summary box. If you want to unsubscribe from marketing messages on your statement please log in to 'your accounts' and send us a secure message with 'unsubscribe from marketing messages' as the subject line. Email Reference: 148504829 _ --- To discuss this e-mail: e-mail us via the 'contact us' facility on our website at [10]http://www.egg.com or call us on 08451 233 233. We are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. --- Egg is a trading name of the Egg group of companies which includes: Egg plc (reg no 2448340), Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd (reg no 3828289), and Egg Banking plc (reg no 2999842). Egg Banking plc and Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and are entered in the FSA register under numbers 205621 and 309551 respectively. These members of the Egg group are registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Citigroup Centre, Canada Square, London E14 5LB. This e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete it from your mailbox. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Egg group of companies do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by the Egg group of companies in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate. This communication does not create or modify any contract. References 1. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 2. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 3. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 4. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 5. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 6. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 7. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 8. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg 9. http://new.egg.com/visitor/0,,3_61028--View_1150,00.html 10. http://www.glieneadi.net/files/images/egg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:05:30PM -0700, Jon Dama wrote: Is there a port index file that corresponds to the FREEBSD_4_EOL tag? I am unable to rebuild the index from the tagged checkout. The official INDEX file is no longer available nor supported. You should be able to build it by cd /usr/ports; make index'. If that doesn't work for you, I'm afraid the only supported configuration is to upgrade to 6.2-RELEASE, which you probably want to do anyway, if not just because security fixes are not applied to earlier versions. Cheers, -erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Security is like an onion. (o_ _o) It's made up of several layers \\\_\ /_///[EMAIL PROTECTED] And it makes you cry.) ([EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0Sxj7X5MKB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
From Erwin Lansing [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:59:50AM +0200: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:05:30PM -0700, Jon Dama wrote: Is there a port index file that corresponds to the FREEBSD_4_EOL tag? I am unable to rebuild the index from the tagged checkout. The official INDEX file is no longer available nor supported. You should be able to build it by cd /usr/ports; make index'. If that I am aware of that. The trouble of course is that for whatever reason the make index target appears to fail--although I am not entirely convinced that this isn't a local problem. Still I would have expected that the tag point to at least be useable, meaning that make index would work. doesn't work for you, I'm afraid the only supported configuration is to upgrade to 6.2-RELEASE, which you probably want to do anyway, if not just because security fixes are not applied to earlier versions. Strictly speaking the EOL means that the base has been abandoned by the security officer and the ports collection, not that it is abandoned entirely. People with commit access may still make contributions into RELENG_4... Anyways I'm only trying to act within the constraints that I've been given. My mandate does not include upgrading to RELENG_6 so your advice is not immediately useful. What I am interested in hearing is confirmation that the EOL tag works to the extent it was intended to work... ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
From Erwin Lansing [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:59:50AM +020 0: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:05:30PM -0700, Jon Dama wrote: Is there a port index file that corresponds to the FREEBSD_4_EOL tag? I am unable to rebuild the index from the tagged checkout. The official INDEX file is no longer available nor supported. You should be able to build it by cd /usr/ports; make index'. If that I am aware of that. The trouble of course is that for whatever reason the make index target appears to fail--although I am not entirely convinced that this isn't a local problem. Still I would have expected that the tag point to at least be useable, meaning that make index would work. doesn't work for you, I'm afraid the only supported configuration is to upgrade to 6.2-RELEASE, which you probably want to do anyway, if not just because security fixes are not applied to earlier versions. Strictly speaking the EOL means that the base has been abandoned by the security officer and the ports collection, not that it is abandoned entirely. 4.x has been completely abandoned by the ports collection. Within days of EOL for 4.x there were changes made to ports make files to remove any vestages of support for FreeBSD 4. Support could have gone on using make and perl from the ports and perhaps a forced upgrade to xorg. I can understand these as make and perl had been upgraded in 5 and 6, also xorg was the default for 5 and 6. There were however other changes that were not impacting on future developements that were thrown is, as far as I can see, just to make life difficult for people wanting to continue to use FreeBSD 4. Instead of saying use make and perl from the ports it was we are going to cut off all compatability for 4. make index was broken a long time before FreeBSD 4 reached eol. You needed the ports make to actually successfully run make index. Some ports Makefiles were not compatible with FreeBSD 4. Yes. This breakage had been reported along with patches to fix the breakage so that make index would work with the system make from FreeBSD 4. These bugs were never addressed despite being reported months before FreeBSD 4 reached eol. make-20050524 Berkeley make, back-ported to FreeBSD 4.x Mark People with commit access may still make contributions into RELENG_4... Anyways I'm only trying to act within the constraints that I've been given. My mandate does not include upgrading to RELENG_6 so your advice is not immediately useful. What I am interested in hearing is confirmation that the EOL tag works to the extent it was intended to work... ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW TO: Enabling root on a new server?
Well, that's just it. As with many large corporations, there appear to be a great many degrees of separation between the folks we're talking to and the folks we *need* to talk to. That aside, we've been assured that it is absolutely our own dedicated server. (It'd better be as we just upgraded from Virtual to Dedicated hardware). I'm at wits end regarding this issue though. I'm tempted to simply go back to hosted solutions instead of dealing with this. Anyway, if you can think of *any* solution to this issue, it'd be much appreciated. For the record, the following are my Plesk Control Panel offerings for SSH login: /bin/sh /bin/csh /bin/tcsh /bin/sh(chrooted) /usr/local/bin/bash . . .I've tried each, to no avail. I'm absolutely 100% lost. Regards, Michael On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 16 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:35:52 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HOW TO: Enabling root on a new server? To: Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:06:07PM -0400, Michael Williams wrote: I recently purchased a co-located server from Cedant and need to enable the root user. It's running FreeBSD 6.1. Currently there appears to be no root user enabled on the server. I can't even su to root. I've tried using pw to add my user to wheel but I receive a warning informing me that I must be root to even do such a thing. You can see my quandary. Please advise. FreeBSD, out-of-the-box, definitely includes user root, and there is no password (unless during the installation you choose to set one). This sounds like a question you should be talking to Cedant/your provider about. What you purchased may not be a real co-located box that's personally dedicated to you -- it may be something shared with other people, and something that Cedant maintains. This is purely speculative on my part, because I know nothing about their services. But this really does sound like something specific to their servers. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Jonathan Dama wrote: From Erwin Lansing [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:59:50AM +0200: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:05:30PM -0700, Jon Dama wrote: Is there a port index file that corresponds to the FREEBSD_4_EOL tag? I am unable to rebuild the index from the tagged checkout. The official INDEX file is no longer available nor supported. You should be able to build it by cd /usr/ports; make index'. If that I am aware of that. The trouble of course is that for whatever reason the make index target appears to fail--although I am not entirely convinced that this isn't a local problem. Still I would have expected that the tag point to at least be useable, meaning that make index would work. FWIW, I had the same issue the other day on two machines, so I'm guessing it's not a local issue. make index was barfing all over itself. I had to grab an INDEX from another 4.x host (we have a ton of them, as do many, many other people out there). If you can't figure something out or find it mirrored in some dark corner, let me know and I'll zip up a copy for you. Anyways I'm only trying to act within the constraints that I've been given. My mandate does not include upgrading to RELENG_6 so your advice is not immediately useful. :) The upgrade right now! 4.x is unsupported! is kind of like walking down the street telling people that the sky is blue... Some folks have to stick with 4.x for the time being, it's as simple as that. Charles ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
