Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> And there is only short list of advantages. > The main disadvantage for me was very rare kernel with ugly support for > new hardware - so, when I take new LAN card (i82576) and discover that > drivers for 2.4 are quite buggy, I decided to try to migrate on 2.6 > kernel, and it was easier that I think; it takes for me approx one week. > Yes, somewhere there are dirty places that must be cleaned, and there > are some features that I planned to add some later (because main > objective for me was only migration to 2.6 kernel) - but now it's alive, > and working on some my boxes. > Also, my branch have one hack (wrapper for GCC, that calls compiler with > '-m32' flag) to grant compilation of all packages under x86_64 host OS. In addition to the above: 1. Old hardware are not green! For about USD$120 and 5W, try: http://www.pcengines.ch/alix2d13.htm 2. Shorewall current version is 4.4, 3.x is now "obsolete". 3. USB devices are 1.1 and can't use the faster 2.0 version. Despite all the of the above, still using leaf as firewall. Thanks! Kwon -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> You could also have switched to alpine linux, which satisfies 1-4 > above and also provides you with a recent 2.6 grsecured kernel by > default. > I already have experience with porting & building packages for LEAF; also I have some maintenance/administrative/task-specific scripts, that must be adapted for new distro; and, of course, choice already is in past - I migrated to 2.6 kernel near 2 months ago, and all 2.6 boxes works good, without unexpected bugs. And now I make small improvements to the 2.6 tree; main objective for now is to clean some code and add mdev for modules autoloading. -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrew wrote: > >> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a >> standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs >> the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) >> > I use LEAF for more powerful tasks that home router/storage, and we have > more than 400Mbps on some LEAF routers. I don't use any other distro on > them by some reasons: > 1) LEAF doesn't need HDD, it's enough to insert small IDE SSD - that is > cheaper than HDD and have higher reliability in R/O mode > 2) LEAF is easier in maintenance & update/backup > 3) LEAF takes much less resources than full-sized distro (for RAM - it > takes up to 2-4 times less memory than non-uClibc distro) > 4) It's very easy to deploy new LEAF box for replacement old one > And there is only short list of advantages. > The main disadvantage for me was very rare kernel with ugly support for > new hardware - so, when I take new LAN card (i82576) and discover that > drivers for 2.4 are quite buggy, I decided to try to migrate on 2.6 > kernel, and it was easier that I think; it takes for me approx one week. > Yes, somewhere there are dirty places that must be cleaned, and there > are some features that I planned to add some later (because main > objective for me was only migration to 2.6 kernel) - but now it's alive, > and working on some my boxes. You could also have switched to alpine linux, which satisfies 1-4 above and also provides you with a recent 2.6 grsecured kernel by default. -- Natanael Copa -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
I agree with Andrew's reasons for using LEAF. It has been my perimeter firewall for many years. However, by far, my preferred network architecture involves a perimeter firewall as a "standalone" box that does only that "first line of defense" job. I put some value on being able to Power-Cycle my perimeter firewall without overly disturbing the internal network. IMHO, that simplicity makes for more robust security. If I can't do the job that way, it makes me re-analyze my plan and see what I want to do "wrong". "Fancy" things, like poking holes through a perimeter firewall, may not always be wrong, but they certainly suggest a different architecture should be examined. Putting any sort of "development tools" on a perimeter firewall is always wrong, IMNSHO. So far, so good, but, yes, I concede there are more complex architectures that might be relevant in advanced cases. I know many places regularly junk old hardware, and being forced to use newer stuff can lead to the sort of hardware support problems Andrew has had. Personally, I put a value on the sort of simplicity to be found in the old hardware. "Uncomplicated" is a good thing. The requirement I have for saving an old box that can be "repurposed" to, say, a LEAF perimeter firewall is reliability, "it just works". At this point in time, a suitable old box can still be found if one looks for it. And in at least one case, I've donated an old classic Pentium box to the cause. It is behind my perimeter firewall where I accept a bit more complexity. For example, this workstation's iptables has something like 140 rules, more or less--it's very strict. One day my position may become untenable, but not yet I think. Until then I'll prefer the tried and true. IMHO, if my LEAF perimeter firewall still presents a strong, "impenetrable" first line of defense sitting there alone, it's just fine as it is. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 16:28 +0200, Erich Titl wrote: > Mike Noyes wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > >>> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy > >>> version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions > >> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a > >> standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs > >> the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) > > > > Paul, > > Back-ports to 2.4 kernel aren't a long term solution. Kernel 2.4 > > (2.4.36) development effectively stopped in 2008. The same reasoning > > goes for all the packages that LEAF variants use. It's time to join the > > 2.6 crowd. > > Right, still I would like to opt to at least try to upgrade the kernel > and the security relevant packages to an actual level of 2.4 for all > that still would like to use the 2.4 branch. I am just about to > integrate the latest 2.4 OpenSwan into my stack, next thing will be to > move to 2.4.37.9 with the kernel. Also Openvpn and openssl is some way > off the latest LEAF collection. Erich, I have no problem with those goals. I don't see one development path excluding others. Options are desirable, and encouraged under our project's development model. Just look at our old derivation map. Branch Derivation http://leaf.sourceforge.net/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=2 Predicting which path is desirable in hind site is easy. You need something like a prediction market to make correct forecasts. That's why I tend to favor multiple overlapping SCRUMs, and let the community (users & developers) pick desired direction. Prediction market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market Scrum (development) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29 -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Mike Noyes wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: >>> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy >>> version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions >> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a >> standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs >> the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) > > Paul, > Back-ports to 2.4 kernel aren't a long term solution. Kernel 2.4 > (2.4.36) development effectively stopped in 2008. The same reasoning > goes for all the packages that LEAF variants use. It's time to join the > 2.6 crowd. Right, still I would like to opt to at least try to upgrade the kernel and the security relevant packages to an actual level of 2.4 for all that still would like to use the 2.4 branch. I am just about to integrate the latest 2.4 OpenSwan into my stack, next thing will be to move to 2.4.37.9 with the kernel. Also Openvpn and openssl is some way off the latest LEAF collection. cheers Erich -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a > standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs > the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) > I use LEAF for more powerful tasks that home router/storage, and we have more than 400Mbps on some LEAF routers. I don't use any other distro on them by some reasons: 1) LEAF doesn't need HDD, it's enough to insert small IDE SSD - that is cheaper than HDD and have higher reliability in R/O mode 2) LEAF is easier in maintenance & update/backup 3) LEAF takes much less resources than full-sized distro (for RAM - it takes up to 2-4 times less memory than non-uClibc distro) 4) It's very easy to deploy new LEAF box for replacement old one And there is only short list of advantages. The main disadvantage for me was very rare kernel with ugly support for new hardware - so, when I take new LAN card (i82576) and discover that drivers for 2.4 are quite buggy, I decided to try to migrate on 2.6 kernel, and it was easier that I think; it takes for me approx one week. Yes, somewhere there are dirty places that must be cleaned, and there are some features that I planned to add some later (because main objective for me was only migration to 2.6 kernel) - but now it's alive, and working on some my boxes. Also, my branch have one hack (wrapper for GCC, that calls compiler with '-m32' flag) to grant compilation of all packages under x86_64 host OS. -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > > The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy > > version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions > > I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a > standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs > the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) Paul, Back-ports to 2.4 kernel aren't a long term solution. Kernel 2.4 (2.4.36) development effectively stopped in 2008. The same reasoning goes for all the packages that LEAF variants use. It's time to join the 2.6 crowd. ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Timeline -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy > version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-) -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 18:17 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: -snip- > > Maybe we create a basic bootable floppy version, where packages can be > > added... > > But you've already got that in the existing/previous versions. Just > leave them available is all I'm suggesting. Paul, The old versions will be available. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On 04/28/10 17:57, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > >>> That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, >>> which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a >>> 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall >>> >> I'm still running Bering-1.2. I would only wish that the floppy >> versions should be given the little amount of space they require to >> remain available on-line for someone who has reason to run that >> configuration in the future. >> > Paul, > A possibly viable option for older systems without usb bios boot support > is something like an ATA-Disk Module (ADM). > > http://usa.apacer.com/us/products/ATA-Disk_Module_%28ADM%29_specs.htm > > Anyone know if these are easily available with the write protect option? I looked at the specs from the link above and they only mention that a write protect jumper is an option. It may not seem like a huge deal to many, however I see a huge value in being able to write protect my setup easily. That being said I haven't run any LEAF variant for maybe a couple of years mostly due to wanting to use a 2.6.xx kernel. I'd move back in a heartbeat if something was available with a 2.6 kernel. I've run LEAF, and it's roots for eon's and have always liked the fact that I could write protect my media. Somewhere down the line, Dachstein maybe, when decent CDROM support was added I used to create a bootable CD with my setup saved to that. That did get to be a bit to much work for me so I went back to floppy. Just had to keep that huge stack around to find ones decent enough to format to 1.72. I've rambled enough for now Mike -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> > I'm still running Bering-1.2. > > Wow, that's a pretty old version. I suggest you better update due to > security reasons. I may give it some consideration after I get a chance to see 3.01 in action. I'm running a fairly restrictive internal firewall also. > The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy > version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions Oh, I understand that. I'm not suggesting a retrofit, just that a usable copy of one of the floppy-capable versions be kept online for downloading by someone who might need it. Just keep it around. > Maybe we create a basic bootable floppy version, where packages can be > added... But you've already got that in the existing/previous versions. Just leave them available is all I'm suggesting. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > > That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, > > which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a > > 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall > > I'm still running Bering-1.2. I would only wish that the floppy > versions should be given the little amount of space they require to > remain available on-line for someone who has reason to run that > configuration in the future. Paul, A possibly viable option for older systems without usb bios boot support is something like an ATA-Disk Module (ADM). http://usa.apacer.com/us/products/ATA-Disk_Module_%28ADM%29_specs.htm -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 00:01:14 schrieb Paul Rogers: > > That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, > > which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a > > 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall > > I'm still running Bering-1.2. Paul, Wow, that's a pretty old version. I suggest you better update due to security reasons. > I would only wish that the floppy > versions should be given the little amount of space they require to > remain available on-line for someone who has reason to run that > configuration in the future. The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions is just not possible. It should be possible to create a floppy on your own with the packages to fit your needs (e.g. without the ppp/pppoe stuff if you use dhcp, without an ssh server or whatelse you don't need) . But it won't be doable to create a floppy that runs out of the box with all the packages used by most of the users. Thats the price to moving to a 2.6 based kernel, IMHO. Maybe we create a basic bootable floppy version, where packages can be added... kp -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:50 +0200, Martin Hejl wrote: > Hi Mike, > > KP, > > See: > > http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/ > > Something doesn't seem to be quite right either with the cvs-commits > list, or with Andrew's permissions to post to that list - at least, > that's how I read the total lack of messages on that list for the commit > that resulted in > http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/ Martin, You're correct. First it was an import, and bypassed the commits hook. Also, I corrected some errors in mailman privacy options, sender filters, accept_these_nonmembers. You should see new commits from Andrew. If not, please let me know. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, > which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a > 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall I'm still running Bering-1.2. I would only wish that the floppy versions should be given the little amount of space they require to remain available on-line for someone who has reason to run that configuration in the future. > version we can reach. So it's a more open approach than we had with > Bering and Bering-uClibc. As may be, but that was very good work done. I always thought setup could have been easier in that old version and contributed some, I hope, helpful criticism from a new user's perspective, but I can't complain about it keeping me safe all these years--albeit I still find the need for an internal firewall as well. Based on my experience I've recommended it to a buddy, and I've almost got a v3.01 box ready to go for him--once I get a replacement for a presumably flakey NIC. > However, your suggestions are appreciated, they are easy to spell > and write, not to mention, that I'm living near the Kattegat and > Skagerag area :) They may be commonplace names to you, and may have sent chills down the spines of my long-ago ancestors, but I think they're fun to say. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Hi Mike, > KP, > See: > > http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/ Something doesn't seem to be quite right either with the cvs-commits list, or with Andrew's permissions to post to that list - at least, that's how I read the total lack of messages on that list for the commit that resulted in http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/ Martin -- You think that's tough? Try herding cats! -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:06 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: -snip- > I think, once Andrew commits his work into src, we can try to build a new > beta > version and to go on from there with a new name, with a new repository - and > if necessary with a new version control system. But lets have the code first. KP, See: http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/ -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Am Dienstag, 27. April 2010 23:26:20 schrieb Martin Hejl: > Hi everybody, > > > the UnNamedOne was a "design study" two years ago by Martin Hejl, which > > is different from Andrews work. > > the first part is not quite true - it was a joint effort by Dirk Gförer, > Eric Spakman and myself (and truth to be told, my part in it probably > was the smallest one). I just want to make sure I'm not getting praise > for the work of others. You are right and I have to confess my memory betrayed me. My apologies to Dirk and Eric. thx for clarification, Martin. kp -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Hi everybody, > the UnNamedOne was a "design study" two years ago by Martin Hejl, which is > different from Andrews work. the first part is not quite true - it was a joint effort by Dirk Gförer, Eric Spakman and myself (and truth to be told, my part in it probably was the smallest one). I just want to make sure I'm not getting praise for the work of others. > That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, which may > (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a 2.6 kernel and it > marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall change the model that > just a small, and somewhat closed, group of developers are responsible for a > stable version of the core and all additional applications/packages. Instead > the LEAF developers community shall be responsible to provide the best and > most stable version we can reach. I agree. And if I can help out by explaining some of the modifications we made to make things work with kernel 2.6, I'll gladly do so (if I manage to recall why we added some of the changes) > I think, once Andrew commits his work into src, we can try to build a new beta > version and to go on from there with a new name, with a new repository - and > if necessary with a new version control system. But lets have the code first. Sounds good to me. Once there is a new branch that is actively developed, changing the name or version control system should be easy enough. Martin -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Am Dienstag, 27. April 2010 02:42:35 schrieb Paul Rogers: > > How about one of these straits: > > Darwin Straits in Tierra del Fuego? > > I've always thought the Skagerrak & Kattegat were neat names. > Maybe a bit wide, depending on how narrow one thinks a "strait" > should be. Paul; the UnNamedOne was a "design study" two years ago by Martin Hejl, which is different from Andrews work. That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project, which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall change the model that just a small, and somewhat closed, group of developers are responsible for a stable version of the core and all additional applications/packages. Instead the LEAF developers community shall be responsible to provide the best and most stable version we can reach. So it's a more open approach than we had with Bering and Bering-uClibc. However, your suggestions are appreciated, they are easy to spell and write, not to mention, that I'm living near the Kattegat and Skagerag area :) I think, once Andrew commits his work into src, we can try to build a new beta version and to go on from there with a new name, with a new repository - and if necessary with a new version control system. But lets have the code first. kp -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
> How about one of these straits: > Darwin Straits in Tierra del Fuego? I've always thought the Skagerrak & Kattegat were neat names. Maybe a bit wide, depending on how narrow one thinks a "strait" should be. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[leaf-devel] The UnNamed One
Everyone, How about one of these straits: Bass, Bonifacio, Bosporus, Cook, Denmark, Dover, Georgia, Gibraltar, Hormuz, Hudson, Kara, Kerch, Korea, La Perouse, Laptev, Luzon, Malacca, Magellan, Matochkin, Menai, Messina, Otranto, Sannikov, Sicily, Taiwan, Tatar, or Vilkitshogo. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
