Re: [gentoo-user] privoxy?
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 06:39, Norberto Bensa wrote:
Hello,
Hi
Im using privoxy and it blocks all that stuff AFAIK.
When you go to a webpage does it say in the banners blocked by privoxy?
anyone with privoxy experience here?
I'm trying to block .valueclick.com, ads.osdn.com, and deanimate-gif{first}
but if I modify user.action, privoxy does _nothing_
By _nothing_ I mean, it doesn't filter at all, and it doesn't give error
either.
My understanding is that I need:
{ +block }
.valueclick.com
ads.osdn.com
{ +deanimate-gif{first} }
In case it is important, I'm using this setup:
browser - squid - privoxy - net
Many thanks in advance,
Norberto
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] privoxy?
On Thursday 11 September 2003 00:20, Norberto Bensa wrote: Steven Elling wrote: privoxy may be running but is it enabled? Yep, it is. I think is something stupid I'm doing but I can't see what :-/ Regards, Norberto You didnt answer my question. Are you sure you configured squid correctly to use privoxy? If you take a look at the default privoxy conf you will see st.valueclick.com is already there.Try looking for debug info in the squid log/privoxy log.Dont forget to check the ports to use. Kind Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] dual booting to XP with grub
On Friday 04 April 2003 17:59, Ian Truelsen wrote: The drive is identified as hdb. So, I added this to my grub.conf: title=Windows XP root (hd1,0) chainloader (hd1,0)+1 rootnoverify (hd1,0) makeactive chainloader +1 This should do the trick Kind Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Wireless router
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/ http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/firewall-examples.html#RC.FIREWALL-2.4.X Best Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Wireless connection slow
On Thursday 20 March 2003 07:35, Gwendolyn van der Linden wrote: Just finished setting up a wireless network at home but its much slower then the theoretical 11M. I have the two computers 25.4 cm (10 inches) from each other and I get a rate of ~500K. The two computers are side-by-side and I am wondering if this might be a problem. 11Mbit/s is +- 1.4Mbyte/s. Since AFAIK wireless is half duplex you cannot acheive this speed. =+-500KB is acceptable but this varies according to signal strength,number of hosts in the network,obstacles,etc... You can try to tweak it by changing preamble type and fragmentation settings Best Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Wireless connection slow
On Thursday 20 March 2003 15:00, Xabier Ochotorena wrote: Since AFAIK wireless is half duplex you cannot acheive this speed. =+-500KB is acceptable but this varies according to signal strength,number of hosts in the network,obstacles,etc... Half duplex means only one of the peers (this is P2P connection case) can transmit at the same time. A tipical download only requires ACK's from our machine and that doesn't make the transfer rate drop to half. I repeat that my _ethernet_ (sorry Elvis, not a wireless one) LAN of 10 Mbit/s HalfDuplex (as reported by mii-diag) achieves 1.1Mbyte/s without effort. A!No wireless connection... Try doing this: Take the 50Ohm terminator out of your rg-58 (assuming you're not using utp) and see what happens next. Say...cant browse the web at those amazing speeds of 1.1Mbyte/s,uh?:) Its called reflection. In a wireless RF connection you have: -Refraction -Reflection -Interferences (usualy dont affect 10base2 due to cable shielding) -Attenuation due to property of the medium (air) In wlan if one client says ACK and the other receives ACKCC## he will ask :could you please repeat that? This is why you dont achieve such speeds with wireless rf connection.Good antennas (or well designed internal antennas),low SWR,etc will improve speed and distance. This is why some wlan hardware is more expensive than others Apart from that keeping objects away from the antenna (at least) 1 wavelength can also improve Tx/Rx.1 wl for 2.4Ghz is ~ 0.125 meters I don't know if this would help but trying definitely won't hurt :) Anyway take on account that the two machines are side-by-side so no interferences should happen. The right tweakings will help to improve. Best Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] cflag gcc optimisation questions
On Saturday 15 March 2003 15:41, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: (2) How can I make my Cflag above more aggressive to give better performance? At the moment, it is quite basic and safe but I'm pretty sure more can be done with it. Anyone have a P4 and can vouch for additional optimisations? Sometimes speed increase doesnt mean better performance. For an example why would you want a speed increase in mozilla?Probably the answer is you wouldnt notice the difference since it doesnt use much cpu (coff coff) and the kind of speed you want is bandwidth dependent.In this case smaller code size generation is preferred because mozilla eats lots of mem. Also you should think if you want the-fastest-system-of-all-times-that-even-makes-my-cpu-work-as-a-lighter but where all the aplications crash all the time due to bad generated code or if you want a robust and fast system. Now probably what you want to read :) omit-frame-pointer increases code size but frees a register in the cpu letting gcc do more optimizations which is good. From my experience (and some old readings) unroll-loops doesnt mean speed or better performance.Maybe im wrong. prefetch-loop-arrays for some reason makes my system unstable.And I'm not the only one noticing it. If you're looking for speed... ...surprise!...-O3 isnt the best due to the overhead of instructions (push's pop's and jump's) and can make the code slower, bigger and memory-hungry.Functions that have inline stated in the code are inlined with =-O1 so... Best Regards, João Seabra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
