Re: Any suggestion for Forum/Bulletin Board software
http://forum.howsyourhealth.org This was done by adapting frog a python-based blog program. See if it fits your needs. It's a free down load. On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 23:23 -0400, Greg Rundlett wrote: > On 10/28/05, Bill Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave Peters wrote: > > > > >Hello all, > > > > > >Any suggestion for Forum/bulletin Board software for > > >Linux? > > > > > >Thanks. > > > > > >--D > > > > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > I recommend phpBB2: for a working example, visit > > http://www.troop95.net/phpBB2/. > > If PHP is your fancy, I would recommend FUDForum over phpBB. > (http://fudforum.org/forum/) The main developer Ilya Ashalnetsky is a > big code contributor to the PHP language. > > - Greg > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: 64-bit RPM/APT based systems - Worth it?
Hi I have been running SUSE 64bit for about a year and it is very stable and very fast, I would hope that the Debian version is too. I have a AMD-64 Athlon and am very happy and satisfied. Rich Richard A Sharpe 8 Meadowview Lane Merrimack, NH 03054 "Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you, not because they are kind, but because you are." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Edwards Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:16 PM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: Re: 64-bit RPM/APT based systems - Worth it? I've been doing a good bit of research into AMD 64 as I'm getting close to building a Myth-TV system. I'll use Debian's AMD64 arch; right now it's still not officially released, but it's been around since before the last release of Debian and will officially be "stable" with the next release. > Are there RPMs or other packages out there to do what you'd need for a > typical home desktop? (I'm talking about things like games and > multimedia codecs mostly. Especially codecs. I know there are packages > for the major apps.) There's the glitch. Quite a few codecs are 32-bit. > How backward-compatible are they with 32-bit apps? Very. But from what I gather, mixing 32-bit apps on a base 64-bit system is iffy. Many of the Debian people I've talked to recommend installing a 32-bit system alongside the 64-bit system. Others have reported some success with everything from various Wine/Crossover to VMWare. The information I've gathered suggests that unless you want to play with and tweak things quite a bit, you either go with a straight 64-bit setup, or run at a straight 32-bit setup and wait for things to stabilize. I'll opt for the latter; in my view, the price differences between AMD's 64 bit components and others makes it a no-brainer to go with an AMD64 setup. Of course, YMMV. :-) Regards, . Randy -- "Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." -- Famous American socialist (and blind person) Helen Keller, 1911 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 64-bit RPM/APT based systems - Worth it?
I've been doing a good bit of research into AMD 64 as I'm getting close to building a Myth-TV system. I'll use Debian's AMD64 arch; right now it's still not officially released, but it's been around since before the last release of Debian and will officially be "stable" with the next release. > Are there RPMs or other packages out there to do what you'd need for a > typical home desktop? (I'm talking about things like games and > multimedia codecs mostly. Especially codecs. I know there are packages > for the major apps.) There's the glitch. Quite a few codecs are 32-bit. > How backward-compatible are they with 32-bit apps? Very. But from what I gather, mixing 32-bit apps on a base 64-bit system is iffy. Many of the Debian people I've talked to recommend installing a 32-bit system alongside the 64-bit system. Others have reported some success with everything from various Wine/Crossover to VMWare. The information I've gathered suggests that unless you want to play with and tweak things quite a bit, you either go with a straight 64-bit setup, or run at a straight 32-bit setup and wait for things to stabilize. I'll opt for the latter; in my view, the price differences between AMD's 64 bit components and others makes it a no-brainer to go with an AMD64 setup. Of course, YMMV. :-) Regards, . Randy -- "Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." -- Famous American socialist (and blind person) Helen Keller, 1911 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
64-bit RPM/APT based systems - Worth it?
I haven't seen this discussed before, so I figured I would ask. I've been thinking about putting together a small-form-factor system and it looks like all the better hardware I see is going 64-bit. Has anyone used a 64-bit, Intel/AMD system with a package based Linux distro? Are there RPMs or other packages out there to do what you'd need for a typical home desktop? (I'm talking about things like games and multimedia codecs mostly. Especially codecs. I know there are packages for the major apps.) How backward-compatible are they with 32-bit apps? I know there would be a certain lossin performance, but for instance, would a commercial version of UT2004 for Linux be able to run on a 64-bit system? Any info you all might have here would be useful... thanks, Brian ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Too Suspicious?
Thanks for the support and helpful suggestions. For those who suggested this be reported to "authorities", let me add a little background. I almost deleted the email as part of the 500+ spam hits I get per day. I was going to ignore it. The next morning the potential misuse bothered me. Despite the inconvenience I should at least report the possible phishing for the sake of my fellow citizens, if not the government itself. I called the office of Rep. Charles Bass, explained to the fellow, and asked him to confirm that it was legitimate or report it. He said he was not quite sure what to do and would call back. About an hour later, he told me "When you have complaints about email call the Consumer Protection Agency. They investigate such things." I don't think he "got it". Anyway, who knows. I will call them. Calling intermittently over 3 hours, the line was always busy. The Bureau of Export Enforcement, part of the Dept. of Commerce, has very professional agents, and I had been involved in setting up a sting with them a few years ago. So I called the agent's number. There are good people in the government, it is just a matter of finding them. A new fellow answered, but he immediately got serious, checking the names against the given numbers; the names and numbers were good. But, he suggested that the calls might get diverted or the phisher might count on getting most of the info before the BIS realized why they were getting the calls. He sent me a "test" email to which I "replied" with the original email attached. He would check it out. In the meantime I get a call from a person claiming to be one of those mentioned in the email. He wanted to know if I had received an email requesting information. (They are checking URL's downloading the embedded html graphics, I thought; I had read the html in text.) To see where the emphasis was, I told the guy that I manufactured IR equipment, but it was not useful for military purposes. Must I report anyway? "No, you are 'absolved'; ignore the request." The agent forwarded me an email chastising the Statistics Department for using email for surveys. I thought that was the end of it until I got the email of the earlier post. * * * * * * * If you sleep soundly at night assuming your government is competently protecting you, this indicates that you are only partially justified. Jim Kuzdrall ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: OpenDocument 'hearing' at MA Statehouse - Oct 31
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:16:40 -0400 Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some might be interested attending this meeting regarding the fate of > OpenDocument in MA: > >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191 > > I tried creating a Wiki page to coordinate a carpool but it's not > working for me today. I'd be interested in going. Anyone want to share a ride down from NH? -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux + Windows install question
On 10/27/05, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am going to be installing Linux (Debian) on a new HD. I also have aWindows HD that will likely make it onto that machine. Currently, I'm running debian on my first drive and xp on my second. I have it setup that way so that I only need to either change the disk in BIOS or remove it entirely and whatever's in there will boot as normal. Since Debian and grub both exist on the first disk, and XP ~really~ likes only booting from the first disk, there's two more lines in grub's menu.lst file, the "map" instruction. As I recall it, it informs windows that "No, really, you're on the first hard disk." It's not really much of a kludge if you ask me, no more so than having to point it to the write drive. The boot entries in my file look like ## Begin file clip title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.12 root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.12 root=/dev/hda3 ro vga=791 splash=silent initrd /initrd.img-2.6.12 savedefault boot title Microsoft Windows XP Professional map (hd0) (hd1) map (hd1) (hd0) root (hd1,0) savedefault makeactive chainloader +1 ## End file clip Hope it helps.
Re: Too Suspicious?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Sconce wrote: | Hi, Jim - | | In my opinion you did an EXCELLENT job, one which was entirely | called for. In no way too suspicious. Thank you for doing it, and | for sharing it. I agree with Bill. That was an excellent response. | ... Like you, I kept a careful record of all the correspondence; | it's ridiculous, but not silly. This is very important (keeping records of things like this). They are very useful when things get out of hand. | In your case (where the possibility of real espeionage is not | unthinkable) it would be appropriate to bring the survery to the | attention of the Department of Commerce, Actually, it would be Homeland Security. They have the procedures in place to enforce IT training (well, they're supposed to have them in place). | wherever the contact may be for such matters as export control of | sensitive technology. Not that I'd ask you to waste more of your | time, but it would be appropriate (and gratifying) to sic a | responsible government agency on the irresponsible one, and imagine | that someone might learn something as they fought it out. | | -Bill To provide balance, the most frequent excuse is "we don't have the budget for IT training". Unfortunately, its usually the managers that need the training. Also, if I were in Jim's shoes, I would have not missed the opportunity to expose the security advantage of open source software and standards (which .doc files don't have). But I believe Jim took a well balanced and judicious move nonetheless. (Open Source can appear as a soap box to those who don't understand the pitfalls of proprietary software.) http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/2005-October/011982.html was edited out for brevity. - --Bruce -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDY3ji/TBScWXa5IgRAnHUAJoCqzL48+Hs72XB4bh6wPeQ1CicQgCdEk88 HCTW1ERbMdwPkyaklgJ1otQ= =YReV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Too Suspicious?
Hi, Jim - In my opinion you did an EXCELLENT job, one which was entirely called for. In no way too suspicious. Thank you for doing it, and for sharing it. In my own sphere (as a flight instructor) we've had similar bouts of cluelessness from the inchoate agencies of the Federal government, namely the Deptartment of "Homeland" Security and the Federal Aviation Administration. I spent nearly a week over one effort involving (in their case) Flash, again the untrackable invasiveness of software they expected users to install on computers over the Internet, and our inablility to establish proper (i.e., written) trails of auditibility. (Including the implied threat of "prove you installed this software or we'll take action against your license".) It seemed clear that the problem was naievté, compounded by massive incompetence in IT, but the risks pushed onto the recipients were and are real. Not to mention the time lost to understanding and responding to the issue. Like you, I kept a careful record of all the correspondence; it's ridiculous, but not silly. In your case (where the possibility of real espeionage is not unthinkable) it would be appropriate to bring the survery to the attention of the Department of Commerce, wherever the contact may be for such matters as export control of sensitive technology. Not that I'd ask you to waste more of your time, but it would be appropriate (and gratifying) to sic a responsible government agency on the irresponsible one, and imagine that someone might learn something as they fought it out. -Bill On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:53:32 -0400 Jim Kuzdrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a response to an implied request by the government that I > get Microsoft software, among other things. It came in a survey asking > details about the IR night vision equipment produced at my (one-man) > company. My stuff is of a very rugged industrial variety, and orders > of magnitude less sensitive than needed for night vision. > > The original survey was in html (which I had to read as plain text). > I don't know what it requested because I never opened the ".doc" > instructions that were attached. The on-line survey form's link does > not go back to bis.gov. It goes to: > >https://doc.inquisiteasp.com/surveys/WVZRYE > > Has anyone heard of this outfit? > > After some other queries, too detailed for here, I think the survey > is legitimate but dangerously naive. > > My response follows the quote. > > * * * * * > > On Friday 28 October 2005 03:55 pm, RONALD DEMARINES wrote: > > October 28, 2005 > > > > Dear Industry Executive: > > > > Several weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of > > Industry and Security (BIS) sent you an email with a hyperlink to a > > survey entitled Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. Imaging and > > Sensors Industry. We are contacting you because the original deadline > > for completion has past and we have not received a survey from your > > firm. As noted in the original email, a response to this survey is > > required by law under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended > > (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2155). We are requesting your immediate > > attention to this matter. > > > > Background: > > > > The BIS is conducting an industrial base assessment of the U.S. > > imaging and sensors industry with a special focus on the night vision > > segment of this industrial sector. BIS will be analyzing the industry > > that provides products and services for defense, > > commercial/industrial, and consumer markets. > > > > For the purpose of this assessment we are including in the industry > > sector: producers; component, material, and subsystem suppliers; > > technology providers; service providers; distributors, wholesalers, > > brokers, retailers; and public and private research facilities (see > > the attachment for a more comprehensive list of the types of > > organizations and applications included in this sector). > > > > Requirement: > > > > Please complete and return the on-line survey indicated above. If you > > have any questions about this request or need BIS staff to send you > > another link to the on-line survey, you may contact Lani Tito (202) > > 482-8225, ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ), Martin Canner (202) 482-2519, > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ) or Ron DeMarines (202) 482-3755 > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ). > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Brad Botwin, Director > > Strategic Analysis Division > > * * * * * * > > Greetings Ronald Demarines, > > I will not respond to this survey, if indeed you are legitimate, > until I receive it by First Class Mail on Government letterhead. At > least that way, if I am blamed for allowing unauthorized mapping of our > military night vision industry, I will have a piece of paper to justify > the level of deception. > > If you are just naive about security matters, let me point out some > mistakes you have made: > > 1) I have no way to prove where thi
