Re: The Apache Question
Well as far as I know, Apache 1.3 is an openBSD modified version and not the 1.3 apache releases but the licensing on apache 2.0 is the reason I see OpenBSD not packaging it. http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Also search back into the mailing list archives or the site for more specific reasons. Correct me if i'm wrong. On 2/7/06, RedShift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later, httpd 1.3 *will be deprecated* in favor of newer versions (2.0, 2.2), and now certainly with 2.2 released. Are there any plans about when 2.2 (or 2.0) will be included in the base fileset? Or remove apache out of the fileset and let the users install it themselfs with a port? Glenn
Re: The Apache Question
On 2/7/06, Joe S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RedShift wrote: Hi everyone I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later, httpd 1.3 *will be deprecated* in favor of newer versions (2.0, 2.2), and now certainly with 2.2 released. Are there any plans about when 2.2 (or 2.0) will be included in the base fileset? Or remove apache out of the fileset and let the users install it themselfs with a port? Glenn I couldn't find anything in the misc archives, but perhaps I didn't really look that hard. But the biggest issue is the Apache 2.0 license. I'm not sure what the problem is with the license, but I believe it may be that Apache 2 license is more restrictive. In what way? I don't know. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#HowAbout That was referenced from the list reply where someone claimed there was no problem. A quick web search will probably give the reason too.
Re: Number of PTYs
Look up the man page on pty(4)http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ptysektion=4it will tell you how and what is needed to increase the number of pseudo terminals on the system, specifically kern.tty.maxptys if you need more than 992 that it says is set. On 1/5/06, Kim Onnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have an OpenBSD 3.6 running as a jump-through host, people ssh in and telnet out users are systraced and they all use an expect script. I get this message when the users exceed the number of ptys (a-z. A-Z,0-9) The system has no more ptys. Ask your system administrator to create more. and at my messages log: Jan 5 11:52:50 bastion2 sshd[5072]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:52:50 bastion2 sshd[3002]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Jan 5 11:52:53 bastion2 sshd[13660]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:52:53 bastion2 sshd[11094]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Jan 5 11:53:08 bastion2 sshd[30104]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:53:08 bastion2 sshd[4272]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Jan 5 11:53:11 bastion2 sshd[21718]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:53:11 bastion2 sshd[16534]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Jan 5 11:53:20 bastion2 sshd[8419]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:53:20 bastion2 sshd[25920]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Jan 5 11:53:21 bastion2 sshd[6613]: error: openpty: No such file or directory Jan 5 11:53:21 bastion2 sshd[26402]: error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed What can i do to increase ptys ? googling shows people getting the same messgae and expect/gcc being involved, or is it just a system message ?
Re: Theo gave an interview to Forbes Mag. about Linux
I love this part You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' Lok says. What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch. On 6/17/05, J. Lievisse Adriaanse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not everybody there is happy about Theo's words...oh well, what gives ;-) Jasper On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:25:56 +0100 Stephen Marley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:48:31PM +0200, J. Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: Theo gave an interview to Forbes Magazine, in which he stated: It's terrible, De Raadt says. Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.' Heh. Theo never did pull his punches. I suppose there's now a war going on in /. ? :) -- stephen -- checking whether you're still watching...probaly not :-) /usr/ports/x11/wmx configure script.
Re: Theo gave an interview to Forbes Mag. about Linux
Just to guess. In most of the article Linux was being criticized from a code standpoint, both in the design and the system they use to develop. On 6/17/05, Abraham Al-Saleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm actually curious as to the apparent change of stance between interviews. In the last two interviews I've read, you've made it clear that you've never used it, and had no comment. Am I missing something? Just curious. On 6/17/05, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:48:31PM +0200, J. Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: Theo gave an interview to Forbes Magazine, in which he stated: It's terrible, De Raadt says. Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.' Heh. Theo never did pull his punches. I suppose there's now a war going on in /. ? :) If the Linux people actually cared about Quality, as we do, they would not have had as many localhost kernel security holes in the last year. How many is it... 20 so far? -- Abe Al-Saleh And then came the Apocolypse. It actually wasn't that bad, everyone got the day off and there were barbeques all around.
Re: speed of mac mini
i believe that the biggest bottleneck is the hard drive, I think there is a 2.5 5400rpm or 4200rpm drive in it. You can of course always pop it out but most people using the mac mini probably aren't looking for a proformance boost. On 6/16/05, Bryan Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Thorsten Johannvorderbrueggen wrote: Hello list, i think of buying a mac mini, but i don't know if a mac mini is fast enough. So i ask you: does anyone use an mac mini with gnome/ kde or so? At the moment i have an dual-P3 and he's fast enough. Any coments, suggestions? It runs OS X. QED. (Further: I have one, running OS X with 512MB RAM. It runs World of Warcraft decently well... it should be fine for anything desktop- oriented you want to throw at it, keeping in mind the speed of the hdd.) -- bda cyberpunk is dead. long live cyberpunk.
