Re: [OT] Any SIP phones?
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Gabriel Gunderson wrote: > Anyone have a few SIP phones kicking around that they would want to > sell? I only need a few :) I wish you would have said something 24 hours ago, before I flew out here for the UTOSC conference. I could have brought you a wide variety of phones from my hardware zoo. Anything in particular you're looking for? -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT]: Doctor Who
On 10/06/2010 11:01 AM, Tarrant Rollins wrote: >> Christmas Special this December. Then word on the street is there >> are going to be two "series." One in the spring and one in the >> fall. 6 - 7 eps each. > > I've heard this also. My sources report this is due to Steven Moffat > needing time to make the next season of Sherlock Interesting. I've really enjoyed Matt Smith's return to the "Mad Doctor" persona of doctors past. It really works. The best episode of the year has to be Vincent and the Doctor I think. There were only three episodes of Sherlock this year, right? I saw them (in nice BBC HD) and was impressed. They really captured the slightly disturbing personality of Sherlock Holmes very well. And so far they don't even mention Mormons. ;) /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Allow specific https sites on squid
Guys, any idea how to block https port 443 and allow some specific sites on squid. Tnx /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
[OT] Any SIP phones?
Hey all, I'm looking for a few extra SIP phones to use in a development/testing environment. It's not the kinda thing that you can pick up at BestBuy or OfficeMax (yet) and I don't really have time to wait for mail/web orders. Anyone have a few SIP phones kicking around that they would want to sell? I only need a few :) Thanks, Gabe /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Linux DHCP options (PXE) without IP
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Eric Olsen wrote:
> All Linux PXE tutorials I've found so-far instruct to modify DHCP to include
> the PXE options. That makes sense, I've done that before, but at home I am
> using a not-so-robust DHCP (built into my router) which unfortunately
> doesn't give me much control over the DHCP options.
Yes, it is certainly possible. Just configure your DHCP server w/o a
range statement, and don't include a fixed-address in any host
declarations.
Rudimentary example:
subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
filename "pxelinux.0";
next-server 192.168.1.3;
host picture-frame { hardware ethernet 00:00:00:00:00:00; }
}
This kind of configuration will ignore DHCPDISCOVER requests. Those
will be handled by your router. Then, the client should send an
additional DHCPINFORM request, in which your new server will return
these other options.
--lonnie
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
Last chance to participate in the PGP Keysigning party at UTOS
Tomorrow starts the first day of the UTOS conference. Our party is scheduled for Friday, at 19:30. Details to the event can be found here: http://utosc.com/presentation/306/ I've already sent out two emails detailing exactly what is required of you to participate. You can read the previous emails (for example, the one here on SLLUG:) http://www.sllug.org/pipermail/sllug-members/2010-September/013710.html Repeated again for your enjoyment: Required Items? 1. Physical attendance. 2. Positive government-issued picture ID. 3. Your key ID, key type, HEX fingerprint, and key size printed. $ gpg --fingerprint "yourem...@domain.tld" 4. A pen/pencil or something to write with. 5. NO computer. What do I need from you? 1. An email with the subject "My public key" 2. Your public key attached to that email. $ gpg --armor --export "yourem...@domain.tld" > /tmp/key.asc 3. Any questions you have regarding the keysinging party. So far, these are all the keys that have been sent to me: - Aaron Toponce (myself) - Jacob Albretsen - Corey Edwards - Von Fugal - Michael Holley - Christian Horne - Allen Lowe - Jon Jensen - Stephen McQuay - Trevor Sharpe - Jared Smith - Joshua Tolley If your name isn't in this list, you either haven't sent me your key, or it went to SPAM (which is highly unlikely given the criteria of my filter) and I missed it. I'll accept keys up to 15:00 MDT Fri, at which point I'll be printing the key info of everyone on a sheet of paper that will be handed out at the party for verification. Any questions, please let me know. See you at the party. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o signature.asc Description: Digital signature /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Linux DHCP options (PXE) without IP
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Eric Olsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I have other ways I can do this that are fine, but out of curiosity I wanted > to investigate this path: > At home I'm interested in setting up a PXE boot server to make it easier to > set up my laptops that otherwise would have to be plugged into the docking > station to have a DVD ROM to boot from (which is hard to do with the one I > modified to be in a picture frame ;) ). I'm familiar with a Windows PXE > server because I support it at work, which will respond to PXE Client > requests with the PXE DHCP options only, and let DHCP assign the IP. I don't > have a Windows server at home, so I'm looking at setting up a Linux PXE > server. > > All Linux PXE tutorials I've found so-far instruct to modify DHCP to include > the PXE options. That makes sense, I've done that before, but at home I am > using a not-so-robust DHCP (built into my router) which unfortunately > doesn't give me much control over the DHCP options. > > As I said, I have other ways to do this, i could turn off DHCP on the router > and set it up on my server, but I'm curious if this would be possible. I'd > like to set up DHCP on my server, but configure it to ONLY give the PXE > options to PXE clients, and allow the router's DHCP to assign the IP. DHCP has a mechanism called DHCPINFORM for a client to request boot parameters when it already has an IP address. But there's no reason you couldn't have two DHCP servers giving out IP addresses. Despite the trouble it can cause when it happens unexpectedly, DHCP is designed to work with multiple servers on a network, even when their ranges overlap. Clients can choose between leases offered to them, and the DHCPREQUEST is broadcast so that other servers know they were not chosen and what the identity of the chosen server is. So, you'll definitely be running a DHCP server on the boot server machine, but how you configure it will depend on the flexibility of the PXE client and the DHCP server software you use. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Linux DHCP options (PXE) without IP
On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Eric Olsen wrote: > not-so-robust DHCP (built into my router) which unfortunately > doesn't give me much control over the DHCP options One option would be to disable DHCP on your router and just serve it from the PXE server. I've never seen a router which doesn't provide the option. -Tarrant /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Linux DHCP options (PXE) without IP
Hi all, I have other ways I can do this that are fine, but out of curiosity I wanted to investigate this path: At home I'm interested in setting up a PXE boot server to make it easier to set up my laptops that otherwise would have to be plugged into the docking station to have a DVD ROM to boot from (which is hard to do with the one I modified to be in a picture frame ;) ). I'm familiar with a Windows PXE server because I support it at work, which will respond to PXE Client requests with the PXE DHCP options only, and let DHCP assign the IP. I don't have a Windows server at home, so I'm looking at setting up a Linux PXE server. All Linux PXE tutorials I've found so-far instruct to modify DHCP to include the PXE options. That makes sense, I've done that before, but at home I am using a not-so-robust DHCP (built into my router) which unfortunately doesn't give me much control over the DHCP options. As I said, I have other ways to do this, i could turn off DHCP on the router and set it up on my server, but I'm curious if this would be possible. I'd like to set up DHCP on my server, but configure it to ONLY give the PXE options to PXE clients, and allow the router's DHCP to assign the IP. In the end, it's probably not the best way and I may just end up setting up the server to have DHCP and do it all, but for the fun of it I wanted to see if this were possible. Thanks, Eric /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: kubuntu + ati radeon X1650
> "dual-headedly", now that's a new word. :-) I was hoping someone would notice.:] > The magic term you're looking for is randr (or xrandr). Yes, this looks like the sort of thing I was hoping you guys would point me to. Much obliged. I too have a /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d with various files that include "catchall" identifiers for this and that. I don't have an /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d, but it sounds like that clobbers everything anyway. Unfortunate, since that's where I'd first be inclined to put it. Anyway, thanks for the pointers, and I'll play around with xrandr and where the configs ought to go. - Brett /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Paul Seamons wrote: > While I find the discussion about what is "real" intriguing, after some > time I finally give up and laugh and remember what little I understand > of Godel's Incompleteness theorem, essentially that a comprehensive > definition of a system can't be gathered while constrained to the that > same system. I eventually end up at your conclusion that even though I > can't explain everything perfectly, my accepted definitions of them are > useful and meaningful to me. I don't know how time operates > fundamentally, but I can measure it consistently and reliably; and it is > useful enough to me to know that from my frame of reference time passes > by far too quickly, and sometimes not fast enough. Godel's Incompleteness theorems are very interesting and have some pretty deep implications in the field of mathematics, but some people give them a bit more philosophical weight than they actually deserve. What they actually do is prove that a certain kind of formal system (one that is recursively enumerable, or from which all the theorems in it can be mechanically generated from its axioms) cannot prove all statements expressible in the system that describe true facts about the natural numbers. The second theorem shows that a theorem that is capable of proving true facts about the natural numbers cannot also prove its own consistency (i.e., that it does not enumerate both a statement and its inverse). There still can be systems that are both consistent and complete so long as they do not meet the criteria for Godel's theorems. They can still include the natural numbers so long as they aren't expressive enough to define the natural numbers or develop their basic properties. There are complete and consistent formulations of Euclidian geometry that don't fall under Godel's theorems, for example. Anyway, there are things besides the limits of formal systems that prevent us from peering too deeply into the fabric of the universe, so we may have to be content with dealing with approximations, models, and speculations without ever being able to prove that any one model has an absolute correspondence to the very basic physical properties of the universe. > And to return to a slightly more on topic and flame-able subject, > spending too much time worrying about the reality or dimensionality of > time is akin to using a graphics only screen saver that consumes 80% CPU > (it is nice to look at and pass the time but wastes a lot of energy not > getting anything done). Sure, but the screen saver *does* prevent the burn-in of the phosphors on your CRT monitor! Actually, although modern displays don't have a "burn-in" problem, Plasma and OLED displays with their individual light-emitting elements do have an issue with uneven wear, so if you use either of those display technologies you should be aware that static images could cause image ghosting problems over time, though not in precisely the same way as CRT burn-in. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
[OT]: Doctor Who
> Christmas Special this December. Then word on the street is there are > going to be two "series." One in the spring and one in the fall. 6 - > 7 eps each. I've heard this also. My sources report this is due to Steven Moffat needing time to make the next season of Sherlock /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
Quoting Matthew Walker : > On Wed, October 6, 2010 10:12 am, Levi Pearson wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: >> >>> Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. >> >> >> You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to >> say yay for Doctor Who! > > Ditto! > > Is it time for the next season yet?! Christmas Special this December. Then word on the street is there are going to be two "series." One in the spring and one in the fall. 6 - 7 eps each. Remember the USA "season" is not the same as the UK "series." /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On Wed, October 6, 2010 10:12 am, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > >> Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. > > > You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to > say yay for Doctor Who! Ditto! Is it time for the next season yet?! -- Matthew Walker HAM Call Sign: N7TOX Kydance Hosting & Consulting, Inc. - http://www.kydance.net/ PHP, Perl, and Web Development - Linux Server Administration /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Internet Health
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Matt Nelson wrote: > Q: Does anyone know of any other good tools to know the current health of > the Internet? e.g. http://www.internetpulse.com/ Besides that, general "internet health" best metrics are in monitoring the BGP route table. If you don't operate an AS yourself, most large ISPs have public Looking Glass servers that let you look into their copies of the table. http://www.bgp4.as/looking-glasses If you do operate an AS and have decent BGP peers. There are many tools that can help you analyze it. http://www.bgp4.as/tools --lonnie /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to say yay for Doctor Who! --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: >> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as >> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a >> spatial dimension. > > Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension" > which it clearly is not. It clearly is the fourth dimension of the equations governing spacetime. My point that followed this bit was explaining that the word "dimension", at least in a sophisticated discussion of physics, does not imply that we are discussing spatial attributes. I agree with you that the spatial attributes are fundamentally different from time, but all four of them are integral parts of the spacetime equations, which describe almost every physical phenomenon we can measure to a very high degree of accuracy. Time is indeed the fourth dimension of spacetime, it's just a different *kind* of dimension than the spatial ones. >> I did mention that some philosophers have denied the "reality" of >> time, but some of them also put distance in the same category of >> mental construct as time. Physical quantities like length and mass >> are as prone to relativistic effects as time is, so it's hard to >> single out time as particularly "unreal" in that respect. > > Yes you did. But I wanted to point out that Science also questions the > "reality" of time. Science questions just about everything, which is the whole point of science. What we get from science is not so much a bunch of facts about the way things "really" are, but instead a bunch of models that describe how things observably behave. When you ask whether something is "real" or not in the sense we've been discussing, you have moved beyond what science can tell you and into philosophy, which tries to answer the "why" questions to the "what" and "how" that we get from scientific models. It isn't physics, it's metaphysics. But scientists like to engage in metaphysics as well as physics, because it's fun to speculate about the "real" nature of the universe. :) --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
http://phenommark.xanga.com/videos/ffca9293530 Quoting Michael Torrie : > On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: >> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as >> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a >> spatial dimension. > > Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension" > which it clearly is not. No, but you can easily describe a forth spatial dimension mathematically. I remember a problem in my multiple integral calculus class where we found the "volume" of a four dimensional sphere. The hard part was setting up the integral and all the extra terms that needed to come along for the ride when integrating a forth spatial spherical coordinate. Some recommended reading on this off-topic topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book) - It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall it does a great job getting the reader to "visualize" a more spatial dimensions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe:_Superstrings,_Hidden_Dimensions,_and_the_Quest_for_the_Ultimate_Theory - Excellent book. If memory serves, one of ideas it discusses is how when you are "at rest" you are moving through time at the "speed of light". Then as you move through spatial dimensions, part of that "speed of light" is converted to moving through space up to the maximum of the speed of light at which point you are moving completely in space at the speed of light, but not in time. >> I did mention that some philosophers have denied the "reality" of >> time, but some of them also put distance in the same category of >> mental construct as time. Physical quantities like length and mass >> are as prone to relativistic effects as time is, so it's hard to >> single out time as particularly "unreal" in that respect. > > Yes you did. But I wanted to point out that Science also questions the > "reality" of time. Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: kubuntu + ati radeon X1650
> > > Having no xorg.conf is not unusual with recent versions of X; they'd > > like to get rid of it entirely. > > There's also a conf dir you can add stuff to. Xorg now searches in > /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/ (which, at least in red hat, is where packages > write configuration) and /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ (which should not be > clobbered by packages). If you ask me, that sounds backwards. Shouldn't > /usr be a place where you put user stuff? Anyway, just create a file > called "dualhead.conf" in the /etc/... directory with your options and > you should be good to go. Very strange, I didn't see it until I rebooted, but apparently when I put a file in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ it prevents any of the other configs from /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/ from ever running, and thus it renders everything *but* my touchpad (for which I made the config) useless. Can't even log in or switch to a VT because the keyboard is dead. Instead I put my new file in /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/ and now it works just fine. Bug? Feature? Who knows. Von Fugal -- Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure -- Robert Lefevre signature.asc Description: Digital signature /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On 10/06/2010 12:52 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: > And whether something > is "real" or not in some philosophical sense has almost no bearing on > whether that thing is useful or even calculable. > Well put. While I find the discussion about what is "real" intriguing, after some time I finally give up and laugh and remember what little I understand of Godel's Incompleteness theorem, essentially that a comprehensive definition of a system can't be gathered while constrained to the that same system. I eventually end up at your conclusion that even though I can't explain everything perfectly, my accepted definitions of them are useful and meaningful to me. I don't know how time operates fundamentally, but I can measure it consistently and reliably; and it is useful enough to me to know that from my frame of reference time passes by far too quickly, and sometimes not fast enough. And to return to a slightly more on topic and flame-able subject, spending too much time worrying about the reality or dimensionality of time is akin to using a graphics only screen saver that consumes 80% CPU (it is nice to look at and pass the time but wastes a lot of energy not getting anything done). Paul /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On 10/06/2010 07:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: >> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as >> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a >> spatial dimension. > > Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension" > which it clearly is not. When people refer to time as a 4th spatial dimension, I think of a cube that is 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter x 10 years. Then I try to mentally rotate that cube so that its "height" is 10 years instead of 1 meter, making its duration 1 meter instead of 10 years. I don't know how to make sense of that. :-) Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: Philosophic Noodling (was Re: Internet Health)
On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: > Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as > the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a > spatial dimension. Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension" which it clearly is not. > I did mention that some philosophers have denied the "reality" of > time, but some of them also put distance in the same category of > mental construct as time. Physical quantities like length and mass > are as prone to relativistic effects as time is, so it's hard to > single out time as particularly "unreal" in that respect. Yes you did. But I wanted to point out that Science also questions the "reality" of time. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
