More Steps: March 22
Mail-Sendmail-Authentication (Gerry Doris) Distros-Reviews-Gentoo (Collins Richey) Window Managers- Afterstep (old) XFCE-Fixing GTK Errors (old) (Hunley) XFCE-GNOME/KDE1/KDE2 compile and install (Jordan) XFCE- Adding using KDM / Xinitrc (Hunley) XFCE- Adding using GDM (Myles) XFCE- Adding using KDE (Moffat) http://linux-sxs.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Active-Filter option in pppd
I have looked high and low for an example of the syntax to use this in my /etc/ppp/options file. I have seen references to tcpdump, but that doesn't help because I don't know how to use that either. My problem is I have fetchmail checking mail every 5 minutes. However, it keeps my connection alive when nobody is using a workstation. I would like to filter smb packets as well as pop3 and smtp ports. In other words, it would only run fetchmail when there are active internet users. Thanks, Brian
Re: lilo -R equivalent for GRUB
Typing furiously on March 21, Keith Morse managed to emit: Been reading the docs and doing various searches on Google and www.deja.com. Still haven't found if this is possible. Ideas? How about just rewriting the MBR with something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=/your/disk bs=446 count=1 Kurt -- First Law of Socio-Genetics: Celibacy is not hereditary. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:41:40 -0500 begin Marvin Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not have to obtain consent from patients before using or disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment or reimbursement. Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of money to the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration to attempt to violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: Grip
On 21 Mar 2002 22:11:00 -0800 begin Iraj Medifar [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 04:25, David A. Bandel wrote: On 19 Mar 2002 22:16:09 -0800 begin Iraj Medifar [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: [snip] Thanks. I did and here's what I got: esd: Failed to fix mode of /tmp/.esd to 1777. Try -trust to force esd to start. esd: Esound daemon unable to create unix domain socket: /tmp/.esd/socket The socket is not accessible by esd. Exiting ... Well, is there a plain newbie translation of this? Must be _lots_ of stuff on your system broken. Users can't log in, etc. Do this as root: chmod 1777 /tmp then try again and post any errors. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Thanks for the suggestion. Tried and here's what I got: esd: Failed to fix mode of /tmp/.esd to 1777. Try -trust to force esd to start. esd: Esound sound daemon unable to create unix domain socket: The socket is not accessible by esd. Exiting... Practically the same message as before. By the way, the system doesn't appear to be broken at all. Users do log in and do anything they want and don't complain about anything. Grip is the only apparent problem. Then you have in /tmp a file or directory called .esd. Delete that and try again. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
Bill Campbell wrote: On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:41:40AM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote: The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not have to obtain consent from patients before using or disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment or reimbursement. Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of money to the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration to attempt to violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. Snip The first three words of the Constitution, We The People, designated the People as the true owners of government, not rich special interests. Somewhere along the way we got lost. It's a shame; we could have been a Great Country. Lee ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: Log Errors
Yea, you're probably right. Why would they put sound options under Sound. Thats too obvious. Sheesh. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Andrew Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Log Errors From: Brian Witowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] One more note, I'm using grub, not lilo. uname -r will determine if you've configured grub correctly in context to the kernel you think you've booted. Bottom line is that you missed a few non-obvious options on the kernel compile. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
It's a shame; we could have been a Great Country. Power corrupts. Absolutely. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
David A. Bandel wrote: snip Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? Ciao, David A. Bandel -- The fourth amendment. It states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. While it does not contain the words medical records neither does it contain financial records, religous documents or political documents but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a warrant to be seized. Just IMHO. -- Andrew Mathews 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
edj wrote: snip The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my papers and effects, my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. -- How so? I can't simply sieze documents belonging to you, anymore than a doctor, attorney, private company or anyone else can sieze anything that's considered a private record. Explicit permission has to be given for such, such as a release consent, or warrant, regardless of the pursuer's belonging to a government or private sector. Items of public record that are available freely are not considered to be *private* as are personal records, papers, and other things. As an employee of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, though many records are available on a public case lookup, there's specific prohibitions against me disseminating those elsewhere, even though they're public documents and I'm a private individual, let alone disseminating private information. Just because an individual or company doesn't fall under the category of a government entity doesn't negate the right of an individual to be protected from the dissemination of private information. Kevin Mitnick spent a *long* time in prison for taking something he had no permission or granted right to take (source code from Nokia and Sun) and was considered a private record or effect and had no statutory prohibition, e.g. no law stating that Nokia or Sun couldn't distribute their source code without permission. Without the amendment's language there's no defining line between theft and borrowing, legal and illegal, private and public. The application of it provides equal protection, regardless of the pursuer, government or private sector, though it's been distorted sometimes to fit the situation as necessary. -- Andrew Mathews 11:55am up 6 days, 5 min, 5 users, load average: 1.06, 1.03, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regardingmedical data
Title: RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data I believe we are talking about the Privileged Communications in an attorney/client relationship or the Privileged Information in a doctor/patient relationship. That is why the doctor needs a release from you to pass that information on to your insurance company. I'm not even sure that there is a legal statute applicable to this concept. However, it is what allows attorneys to defend (and proclaim the innocence of without fear of purgery rulings) clients that they know darn well did it. So the legal eagles will fight tooth and nail to keep the precedents in place. This particular move seems like an inclusion of the insurance companies into the privileged club, not a wholesale changing of the rules. In Harmony's Way, and In A Chord, Tom :-}) Thomas A. Condon Barbershop Bass Singer Registered Linux User #154358 PS Pardon the HTML. I'm not doing it, and I'm trying to find out who the *($#R is and get it stopped.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
David A. Bandel wrote: OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck. Very true. If it were as clear as we hoped, we'd still be writing it to include or exclude specific things and it wouldn't be reinterpreted constantly in courts of law. It can be argued that your medical records aren't yours at all. That those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot and sign it -- is the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an evaluation about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to your medical records. Also true in that the *owner* of the documents in question contain information relevant to the prosecution of such. That doesn't however provide a loophole in which that the information can be used for anything other than it's relevant purpose, thus the closure of courtrooms to the public when these issues arise. Usually a judge will not allow irrelevant or inadmissable evidence if it, when relesed to the public could be construed as slanderous. There's a CYA factor considered. Go to the last hospital you were admitted to and tell them you want your medical records because ... (take them home for study, etc.). Not! They're not yours. They are the institutions for their mandated (by law) requirement to keep records on treatment you (or anyone else) received at their facilities. Not yours. Also true. Still doesn't mean they can do with them as they please though. You do have the right to them as copies of their originals, and they can't release them without compliance with their legal obligations, so your protection isn't negated by this. What you're talking about is a reasonable right to privacy and that the hospital, doctor, etc., will respect that reasonable right to privacy and not show me, Joe Dipstick, medical information about you that I don't need to know. Big difference here, reasonable right to privacy vs. 4th amendment protection from unreasonable seizure (of your person, house, papers, effects). Medical records are _not_ covered by the 4th Amendment. Try again. Quite possibly an interpretaion of the amendment itself. It's merely the one that is most closely applicable to this question. I'm sure that there are many more laws that are neither amendments, nor as broad in coverage as an amendment is intended to be. However, if it's not covered, why is the necessity of changing a law even being debated? There's obviously more that's applicable in relevance than simple definition. Do right to privacy and unreasonable searches and seizures not have more commonality than differences? I'll stand behind the first try. g Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. snip Ditto. I see it as a comparison between what we expect it to be, and what it really is, with no clear definition yet. Not really a difference of opinion, just a difference of interpretation and expectations. Debate is good for the soul and the mind. Ciao, David A. Bandel snip -- Andrew Mathews 12:35pm up 6 days, 45 min, 5 users, load average: 1.03, 1.02, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
from David A. Bandel: It can be argued that your medical records aren't yours at all. That those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write Strikes me that this spotlights the crux of the matter. That crux is not that it might be debateable whether or on what basis the records are the property of the physician or to the patient but that they do NOT belong to the Office of the President. Yet, incredibly, it is that Office which is taking unto itself the right to make the final determination as to the propriety of the use/disposition of that property. The political system which retains the facade of private ownership while reserving to the collective all of the essential elements of that ownership is facism. R -- ...what they whisper mostly is that 'no decent man will work for those people.' They mean the people in [the nation's capital]. -James Taggart (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
David A. Bandel wrote: OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck. It can be argued that your medical records aren't yours at all. That those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot and sign it -- is the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an evaluation about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to your medical records. Snip Even worse. Drs and lawyers are under oath and required by law not to divulge information about their patience or clients without a court issued warrant. So even if the records are the property of the Drs or lawyers government cannot just take them without the proper warrant. Lee Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:07:46 -0700 begin Andrew Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: David A. Bandel wrote: snip Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? Ciao, David A. Bandel -- The fourth amendment. It states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. While it does not contain the words medical records neither does it contain financial records, religous documents or political documents but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a warrant to be seized. Just IMHO. -- Andrew Mathews 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: M$ Loses One
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:42:00 -0500 begin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: Seems that late Friday, the court ruled against M$'s request for a preliminary injunction against Lindows using the name Lindows. Details at www.lindows.com/opposition. Bout time some Linux company showed a little backbone where M$ is concerned. What the court said was that it wanted to look more closely at the trademark Windows because you can't trademark common dictionary terms and get protection under the law. Looks to me like the term Windows long supercedes M$' hijacking of the term. I found windows in the dictionary and it made no mention of a computer operating system by M$ or anyone else. Guess if it did, they'd really have to put W then X Window. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: M$ Loses One
David A. Bandel wrote: On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:42:00 -0500 begin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: Seems that late Friday, the court ruled against M$'s request for a preliminary injunction against Lindows using the name Lindows. Details at www.lindows.com/opposition. Bout time some Linux company showed a little backbone where M$ is concerned. What the court said was that it wanted to look more closely at the trademark Windows because you can't trademark common dictionary terms and get protection under the law. Looks to me like the term Windows long supercedes M$' hijacking of the term. I found windows in the dictionary and it made no mention of a computer operating system by M$ or anyone else. Guess if it did, they'd really have to put W then X Window. Ciao, David A. Bandel According to the judge's ruling at the above site, Lindows had proved that the term Windows was in common usage in the computer field before M$ sucked it up in 1983 and since then there are literally hundreds of web sites and computer products that incorporate the name windows and that the term was generic and therefore not protected by copy write (the next part was particularly delightful) no matter how much money and effort a company put into merchandising the name. Looks like Linus Torvalds has a kindred soul on the bench. The real kicker was the judge's finding that there were some serious issues raised, by M$ itself, to their use of the name. I can just see it now the next release of Gates will be Microsoft ? 2004. Lee__ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: anyone using the pre-empt kernel patch?
Typing furiously on March 22, Net Llama managed to emit: Just wondering if anyone had tried out the kernel pre-empt patch, and if so, what were the results? I've read some encouraging stuff, but what i want are personal stories of whether there is a noticable performance improvement on a desktop box. I have not used Montia Vista's patch, but I run a kernel everyday that is fully preemptible and consistently enjoy a snappier system under load. However, kernel preemption is more about having things happen on time than it is having things happen quickly -- or at least this is my understanding. It remains to be seen whether or not desktop usage can be improved dramatically by running a near real-time kernel. Kurt -- Loan-department manager: There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:57:58 -0600 Stuart Biggerstaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really know the details (and don't really want to defend W.--or the health insurance industry), but I'm not sure I can see this as a big threat. I think most of the people involved have seen seeking treatment and seeking payment for treatment as prior approval for release of information as needed, but the courts have often not seen it that way. Hi Stuart! Perhaps you have not considered why the insurance industry wants these records...It's not so much the information that is available now, but the information that will be available through genetic testing for physical diseases, mental health diseases and such. Genetic testing for diseases will, in most instances, eliminate the use of statistics to calculate who you want to insure and who you do not want to insure. Imagine, if you will a world where you purchase health insurance and the insurance company tells you they will cover all aspects of you health until the year 2015, when they will no longer insure you for carcenoma melanoma because, sometime during the years 2015 to 1016 you going to develope the disease. This affects the entire insurance industy... Life insurance, home owners insurance and etc. The insurance industry is in essence positioning themselves to have access to gentic testing information that will start to be available in the next 5 to 10 years. This is very Orwellian. Best Peck ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
I'm going to take a slightly different tack here... Have you seen Gattaca (1997)? The film featured one mans struggle to break the bonds of his genetic limitations which caused him to be deemed unfit to go into space by the big, bad MegaCorporation, despite his skill and intelligence. He used the DNA bearing material of a cripple, who was otherwise genetically compatible with the companies requirements to gain access to the program. He was forced to leave nail clippings, dead skin flakes, and hair in his work area due to the constant, paranoid nature of the company's need to revalidate its candidates on a daily basis. His blood and urine were also tested daily, on both ingress and egress to the building. Sure, this may be only a movie, but consider this: The Running Man (1987) was about a fictional televised game show in the future. The show promoted direct physical violence and even death of human beings for sport and financial gain. Today's television includes programs like Survivor, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor, The Chair, and The Chamber. All of these shows are escalating what level of violence is acceptable to society. The internet has also, as a vehicle for large corporations, been able to mutate our favorite communications platform to their needs, claiming all the while that their actions and direction are in the interest of the consumer. Under that guise, big business has whittled at and begun to rub away the protections we have as private, American citizens. Making it easier to access medical records of individuals, preferably without their knowledge, will make it easier for corporations to determine any number of things and base their decisions on. The applications of this knowledge of countless and industry would love to have immediate, unregulated access to it, and all in the name of the allmighty dollar. I'm typically rather cynical, though not much for conspiracy theories. Mine follows: There is no such thing as free enterprise. There is no such thing as personal freedom. Government is a sham, whether intentional or not. Corporate America is a gigantic pyramid scheme that is feeding the top 10% of the nation, which also happens to be the richest. There are no conspiracies. There are no grand, evil plots. There's simply greed, and everyone is out to get their piece of the share. As they say, it's a dog eat dog world. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: anyone using the pre-empt kernel patch?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:14:49 -0800 (PST) Net Llama [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering if anyone had tried out the kernel pre-empt patch, and if so, what were the results? I've read some encouraging stuff, but what i want are personal stories of whether there is a noticable performance improvement on a desktop box. I am running 2.5.7 with the pre-empt option enabled... I don't notice any difference what-so-ever. I guess it's up to the benchmarks to show the vaul of this new kernel option. -- * * Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux 5:29pm up 9 days, 23:50, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.08 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: Gentoo
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:05:05 -0800 Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm always trying new stuff, and Gentoo looks interesting. Any opinions here? Just to be sure that you are referring to the gentoo linux distribution? The gentoo folks also have a file manager named gentoo. If its the linux distro you want, see my signature below and check the archives for my occasional diatribes and rants in favor of gentoo, including a couple of weeks back. To recap, gentoo linux (at present) is an install-from-sources distro (similar to but much more sophisticated than Linux From Scratch). The distro is maintained with portage (an advanced source package maintainer tool similar to the ports system on FreeBSD). Gentoo also differs from your plain vanilla linux distro in the matter of init scripts which are also similar to the system employed in FreeBSD. Documentation and installation are much improved these days, and the gentoo folks are working towards a Version 1.0 release date of March 31. At present, you can choose from ext2, ext3, and Reiserfs for your filesystems. I would recommend waiting for the Version 1.0, unless you just can't wait, in which case by all means, go for it now. You'll like what you get. N.B. Depending on the speed of your PC, you're looking at a 2 day to 1 week install period to get everything compiled. It took me about 3 days, and I have full gnome, kde, etc. You will be happiest if you have a high speed internet connection, since all sources are downloaded on the fly from the authoratative ftp site for each. In the future, gentoo will probably offer CD sets and binary distributions, but that's still in the future. Go to www.gentoo.org. Enjoy, -- Collins Richey - Denver Area - WWTLRD? Gentoo_rc6-15 2.4.17 - xfce + sylpheed + mozilla ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: what is it?
found it from the ppp log. it's a private ip returned from the dial-up host. apologize for overlooking this one. Andrew Mathews wrote: No, sendmail was simply unable to resolve itself. Is there an entry in /etc/hosts for the machine name at that ip? Is /etc/nsswitch.conf set to the order of hosts, dns or vice-versa? -- May the Force and Farce be with Linux and you. Join the friendly chit-chat in http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.hkpcug.org ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: First Try at Creating Website
identity is for version 1, right? did I mis-interpret the doc? Or that the key generation has nothing to do with protocol version? when I used identity, I also set my putty to use version 1 protocol. David A. Bandel wrote: OK, time to understand what you're doing. -t rsa creates an ssh2 rsa key. This is not standard. Try this: ssh-keygen putty said the dsa key was not secure. So I thought I should use rsa. that's why I used ssh-keygen -t rsa (putty also claimed that newer version of openssh used authorized_keys only. I don't want to bet on that) For ssh2, try: ssh-keygen -t dsa let it save that to id_dsa and id_dsa.pub. then id_dsa.pub is copied to the other system to authorized_keys2 (not authorized_keys). You can should I tick version 2 in putty? actually, I tried using id_dsa, but failed. substitute id_rsa.pub into authorized_keys2 if you want, but not all systems will recognize this (and it's not as good as dsa). -- May the Force and Farce be with Linux and you. Join the friendly chit-chat in http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.hkpcug.org ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
css as a better pre replacement
pre, xmp and plaintext: they are either deprecated, or required
the use of character entity lt; and gt;.
After talking to a modern generation of web programmer, this is what I
learnt about using the best replacement for them. I would resubmit my
stuffs.
#All documents should have this in the head section.
style type=text/css
div.escape
{
-moz-binding : url(preformatted-text.xml#preformat);
behavior : url(preformatted-text.htc);
}
/style
#then use this to replace the pre tags in the body section
div class=escape
bWhat do you think?/b
/div
--
May the Force and Farce be with Linux and you.
Join the friendly chit-chat in http://www.linux-sxs.org
news://news.hkpcug.org
___
Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT Nice windows tool...
Althoug it really don't matter, Windows has had encrypted passwords since Win95b, I beleieve, but by default they were plain text. Win98 defaults to encrypted. All be it, nothing to really stop anyone from getting the password if they really wanted it that bad, but it is there. On Friday 22 March 2002 18:39, you were heard blurting out: --- Jerry McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was handed a copy of CAIN 2.0 today. And boy was I surprised Cain is a wonderful little (fits on a floppy) windows utility that will show you all the passwords on a target windows computer. All you need do is slip the floppy in the drive, explore it, click on cane.exe and bingo... with in minutes it will show you all the passwords that the user(s) have set on their desktop. For the really hard passwords, there's a brute force attack that can be performed in ferreting the passwords out of the target... It'll even snoop the smb stream and grab your samba passwords too. So far it's cracked all the 98 machines at work... The longest time it took was less than 2 minutes to figure out a really tough 8 character password. Most of the attacks were instantaneous. It's hard to believe that a whole industry relies on such garbage as windows. Truly amazing. In fairness to M$, the passwords used on anything before W2K weren't encrypted in any real way. Can this thing crack a kerberos password on W2K or XP? = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. -- Bill Day Linux for Windows Addicts: A Twelve Step Program for Habitual Windows Users. ISBN: 0072130814 Get it cause Ol' Billy Gates don't want you too! 7:30pm up 5 days, 6:20, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lilo -R equivalent for GRUB
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Typing furiously on March 21, Keith Morse managed to emit: Been reading the docs and doing various searches on Google and www.deja.com. Still haven't found if this is possible. Ideas? How about just rewriting the MBR with something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=/your/disk bs=446 count=1 Kurt Gotta admit, I have no clue on how this relates to lilo -R. I actually want to use Grub, not nuke it. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: First Try at Creating Website
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:21:48 +0800 begin M.W.Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: identity is for version 1, right? did I mis-interpret the doc? Or that the key generation has nothing to do with protocol version? when I used identity, I also set my putty to use version 1 protocol. David A. Bandel wrote: OK, time to understand what you're doing. -t rsa creates an ssh2 rsa key. This is not standard. Try this: ssh-keygen putty said the dsa key was not secure. So I thought I should use rsa. that's why I used ssh-keygen -t rsa I don't think many folks could crack either one. But I have an aversion to RSA. (putty also claimed that newer version of openssh used authorized_keys only. I don't want to bet on that) Hmm. The latest version I have (3.0.2) uses authorized_keys2. I have no clue what putty uses. For ssh2, try: ssh-keygen -t dsa let it save that to id_dsa and id_dsa.pub. then id_dsa.pub is copied to the other system to authorized_keys2 (not authorized_keys). You can should I tick version 2 in putty? actually, I tried using id_dsa, but failed. It's possible DSA is not supported on Windoze. substitute id_rsa.pub into authorized_keys2 if you want, but not all systems will recognize this (and it's not as good as dsa). Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
More SxS steps for March 22
BROWSERS- Mozilla (Doug Hunley) = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: PPoE Setup
adsl-setup adsl-start adsl-stop that's all I used. I generated two /etc/ppp/pppoe.conf and cp them to /etc/ppp/pppoe.demand and /etc/ppp/pppoe.persist respectively. I called adsl-start with the right one at different time. FYI, the rp-pppoe in redhat 7.x didn't expect you to use adsl-setup. she expected you to edit a file /etc/... which is less than trivial. Net Llama wrote: I have _no_ experience with PPPoE, however from what i've heard, if you use Roaring Penguin, its quite simple to setup (assuming that you have a kernel that supports it). -- May the Force and Farce be with Linux and you. Join the friendly chit-chat in http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.hkpcug.org ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Where is linux.nf ?
I've forwarded this message from Hafiz as I don't have the time to help him
out. Please COPY [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your replies. Thanks!
--- begin forwarded msg ---
I need your help on DNS. I have a dedicated servers currently hosted at New
York. We have around 82 blocks of IP's assign to us and we decide to run a
DNS server as well. Our domain is powertrips.org and I have register it at
register.com.
The problem is I try to setup a DNS server in it (Our server is running on
FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE) but is seems it cannot answer any query on
www.powertrips.org, admin.powertrips.org and other subdomain I configure.
Why ? But for DNS1.powertrips.org it works fine. Can you look into this ?
Well I cant deny that Im a newbie in DNS thinggie.
Attached here is the file configuration that I think you may need to look at
if there is any mistake in it.
Please advise. Hope to hear from you soon.
Thank You.
FILE NAME : /etc/namedb/named.root
; This file holds the information on root name servers needed to
; initialize cache of Internet domain name servers
; (e.g. reference this file in the cache . file
; configuration file of BIND domain name servers).
;
; This file is made available by InterNIC registration services
; under anonymous FTP as
; file/domain/named.root
; on server FTP.RS.INTERNIC.NET
; -OR- under Gopher atRS.INTERNIC.NET
; under menu InterNIC Registration Services (NSI)
; submenu InterNIC Registration Archives
; filenamed.root
;
; last update:Aug 22, 1997
; related version of root zone: 1997082200
; $FreeBSD: src/etc/namedb/named.root,v 1.9 1999/09/13 17:09:08 peter Exp $
;
; formerly NS.INTERNIC.NET
;
.360 IN NSA.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 198.41.0.4
;
; formerly NS1.ISI.EDU
;
.360 NSB.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 128.9.0.107
;
; formerly C.PSI.NET
;
.360 NSC.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 192.33.4.12
;
; formerly TERP.UMD.EDU
;
.360 NSD.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 128.8.10.90
;
; formerly NS.NASA.GOV
;
.360 NSE.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 192.203.230.10
;
; formerly NS.ISC.ORG
;
.360 NSF.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 192.5.5.241
;
; formerly NS.NIC.DDN.MIL
;
.360 NSG.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 192.112.36.4
;
; formerly AOS.ARL.ARMY.MIL
;
.360 NSH.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 128.63.2.53
;
; formerly NIC.NORDU.NET
;
.360 NSI.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 192.36.148.17
;
; temporarily housed at NSI (InterNIC)
;
.360 NSJ.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 198.41.0.10
;
; housed in LINX, operated by RIPE NCC
;
.360 NSK.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 193.0.14.129
;
; temporarily housed at ISI (IANA)
;
.360 NSL.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 198.32.64.12
;
; housed in Japan, operated by WIDE
;
.360 NSM.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 A 202.12.27.33
; End of File
--
FILE NAME : /etc/namedb/localhost.rev
localhost.rev
@ IN SOA dns1.powertrips.org. root.powertrips.org. (
199609204
28800
7200
604800
86400 )
NS dns1.powertrips.org.
1 PTR localhost.
--
FILE NAME : /etc/namedb/named.conf
options {
directory /var/named;
forwarders {
127.0.0.1;
};
};
zone . {
type hint;
file root.hints;
};
zone 0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA {
type master;
file 127.0.0;
};
zone powertrips.org {
type master;
notify yes;
file powertrips.org;
};
zone 158.28.66.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
notify yes;
file 66.28.158;
};
--
FILE NAME : /var/named/powertrips.org
$TTL 3D
@ IN SOA dns1.powertrips.org. clanx.dns1.powertrips.org.
(
Re: Gentoo
Collins spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into: opinions here? gentoo rocks. got the guys at work installing it just this week. can choose from ext2, ext3, and Reiserfs for your filesystems. there's only one correct choice in that list. can you guess it? :) N.B. Depending on the speed of your PC, you're looking at a 2 day to 1 week install period to get everything compiled. It took me about 3 days, and I have full gnome, kde, etc. You will be happiest if you have a high speed internet connection, since all sources are downloaded on the fly from the authoratative ftp site for each. also, make sure you can rsync through your firewall. otherwise, you're screwed. I've been bringing laptops home every night this week just to run the rsync portion of the setup cause the firewall at work won't allow it. :( In the future, gentoo will probably offer CD sets and binary distributions, but that's still in the future. worthless, IMNSHO. the current method is best. makes you learn what the fsck is going on with your setup. also optimizes it for your hardware (if I had a dollar for every time a new linux convert asked me why everything said 386 when he/she has a Thunderbird or P3...) -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org Do I look like a people person? ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: More SxS steps for March 22
Net Llama spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into: BROWSERS- Mozilla (Doug Hunley) this is a how to compile from source, and install all those purdy plugins piece. please review, test, send additions.. -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org LSD melts in your mind, not in your hand. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:07 pm, David A. Bandel wrote: On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500 begin edj [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth: The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my papers and effects, my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. Not true. The doctor can't do that. You do, under laws and under precedent set by those laws to a reasonable right to privacy. The doctor does _not_ have the right to disseminate that information to third parties without your consent, but this is not a consitutional protection. If the doctor gave those records to the newspapers (who say they have a right to it) and it was published, you could prosecute the doctor if he didn't have your permission. But just the doctor, not the newspaper. You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to do with it as you will. Try shooting someone on the street and see what happens. Uhhh - that's what I said - it's statutory authority that protects privacy against disclosure by ordinary citizens. My point is just that the US Constitution doesn't forbid any actions except governmental ones. Well, there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply to private parties. Wanna guess which? I don't really want to start a reasonable right to privacy debate, because those are generally settled in court on a case-by-case basis. And what is reasonable to one judge often is not to another (and of course that changes based on the circumstances). There's no debate here = we agree. Well, there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply to private parties. Wanna guess which? -- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:33 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: edj wrote: snip The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my papers and effects, my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. -- How so? I can't simply sieze documents belonging to you, anymore than a doctor, attorney, private company or anyone else can sieze anything that's considered a private record. Explicit permission has to be given for such, such as a release consent, or warrant, regardless of the pursuer's belonging to a government or private sector. Items of public record that are available freely are not considered to be *private* as are personal records, papers, and other things. No, you can't - but only because the legislature, or Bar Association says you can't. __Not__ because the Constitution says you can't As an employee of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, though many records are available on a public case lookup, there's specific prohibitions against me disseminating those elsewhere, even though they're public documents and I'm a private individual, let alone disseminating private information. Huh?? A public case - by which I assume you mean court records - can be gotten just by showing up the the clerk's office and requesting it. You can copy it, too - at exorbitant rates, usually. Just because an individual or company doesn't fall under the category of a government entity doesn't negate the right of an individual to be protected from the dissemination of private information. Kevin Mitnick spent a *long* time in prison for taking something he had no permission or granted right to take (source code from Nokia and Sun) and was considered a private record or effect and had no statutory prohibition, e.g. no law stating that Nokia or Sun couldn't distribute their source code without permission. Without the amendment's language there's no defining line between theft and borrowing, legal and illegal, private and public. The application of it provides equal protection, regardless of the pursuer, government or private sector, though it's been distorted sometimes to fit the situation as necessary. Kevin Mitnick broke the law - he didn't violate the Constitution. -- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: Where is linux.nf ?
Hi, take a look at: www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/dns.html again. there is a warning, the forwarders entry in named.conf 127.0.0.1 will not work. you should change this IP to a name server at your uplink. I have never set up DNS so i cant help you. maybe take a look at www.isc.org or ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] auge On Saturday 23 March 2002 04:16, you wrote: I've forwarded this message from Hafiz as I don't have the time to help him out. Please COPY [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your replies. Thanks! --- begin forwarded msg --- I need your help on DNS. I have a dedicated servers currently hosted at New York. We have around 82 blocks of IP's assign to us and we decide to run a DNS server as well. Our domain is powertrips.org and I have register it at register.com. The problem is I try to setup a DNS server in it (Our server is running on FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE) but is seems it cannot answer any query on www.powertrips.org, admin.powertrips.org and other subdomain I configure. Why ? But for DNS1.powertrips.org it works fine. Can you look into this ? Well I cant deny that Im a newbie in DNS thinggie. Attached here is the file configuration that I think you may need to look at if there is any mistake in it. Please advise. Hope to hear from you soon. Thank You. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
