Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:33:41PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: SNUH. SLUG's Not Usenet. I hope not, because Usenet is pretty much dead after the spammers trashed it. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=Bret Comstock Waldow There may be times it's not appropriate to say 'RTFM' to some people, but in this context I think he's writing to someone who knows his way around. 'RTFM' IS the right thing to do in many cases - even for a newbie (although that may not always be the right way to say it). Reading gets the vocabulary and starts getting appropriate questions. It's not the direction to read documentation that is the problem, it's the term itself. It's just rude. There are lots of kind, useful and friendly ways of showing someone where to find more information to answer a question. Much of the friendliness part of it comes from phrasing and manner. RTFM is not friendly or helpful. Directing someone towards relevant documentation is a really good way of helping. Telling them to read the fucking manual [1] is insulting. - Jeff [1] Let's not beat around the bush. -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ Driving Miss Daisy. Best film of 1989. So said the academy. What does that tell you? - Spike Lee -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:10, Jeff Waugh wrote: Much of the friendliness part of it comes from phrasing and manner. RTFM is not friendly or helpful. Directing someone towards relevant documentation is a really good way of helping. Telling them to read the fucking manual [1] is insulting. No, it's not. I will accept you read it that way. I'll accept that some other people read it that way. I don't accept that it is. That is in the mind of the reader. It can be intended that way, but it isn't inherently intended that way. If you can't see that, I see a fixation in your viewpoint, like someone who can't accept anyone saying 'damn' in public. But I don't see it's inherent to the term. I have no difficulty sharing the joke in RTFM with my friends, including the non-computer savvy ones. There's an aspect of personal self-comfort and maturity that allows people to not take everything personally - I'm happy to say I have friends like this. You can say how it is for you as much as you like - but you are definitely not speaking for everyone, and I'm glad you're not speaking for most of the people in my life. I find it is legitimate and worthwhile to expect people to grow into tolerance, rather than downsize my own approach to match the least common denominator - and stay there. You being insulted is not the same as everyone being insulted - you aren't that universal. My own friends show me this daily. Regard, Bret pgpt6kL1jaBQW.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl). On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00 am (+24 hours on torrent) this morning it was about 68% complete. I think the torrent speed will improve once the share ratio increases. In the mean time use a local mirror directly. Andre -Original Message- From: O Plameras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 23. March 2006 3:29 AM To: Howard Lowndes Cc: SLUG Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5 Howard Lowndes wrote: I'm now up to 37% pulled in but my download speed has fallen to about half of my saturation level and I currently have .56 upload ratio. It's projecting another 44 hours... You're right. It's taking forever. And it's going to be even slower as the word gets around for the next couple or eight weeks. I remember Fedora Core 4 created a traffic jam for 4 weeks. But since then there are a lot more mirror sites. The name Fedora is itched in many minds that it's like coffee we can't do without it. I tried to start pulling ISO #2. The connection seems to take forever even just to connect. I give up. Normally, I can pull one entire Fedora ISO CD in 4 to 5 hours. I'll wait a week or two. I have everything I need on Fedora Core 4 at this time. Keep trying. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On 3/22/06, Mr A Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl). On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00 am (+24 hours on torrent) this morning it was about 68% complete. This is something i will have to do this weekend :) Better send myself a reminder to download it for a peek. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Mr A Tomlinson wrote: I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl). On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00 am (+24 hours on torrent) this morning it was about 68% complete. I think the torrent speed will improve once the share ratio increases. In the mean time use a local mirror directly. There's one big reason why I'd like to deploy Fedora Core 5. It's got OpenSSL-0.9.8a containing major security fix. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:52:49AM +1100, O Plameras wrote: There's one big reason why I'd like to deploy Fedora Core 5. It's got OpenSSL-0.9.8a containing major security fix. !?! Are you saying there's a security fix that is not going to be released in fedora4?! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:52:49AM +1100, O Plameras wrote: There's one big reason why I'd like to deploy Fedora Core 5. It's got OpenSSL-0.9.8a containing major security fix. !?! Are you saying there's a security fix that is not going to be released in fedora4?! I don't know. I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. In addition, considering OpenSSL-0.9.8a comes with FC 5 it's a good hedge that many hours have been used to test that it works with what FC 5 got. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:59:27PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Are you saying there's a security fix that is not going to be released in fedora4?! I don't know. I'll take that as a NO then. Which makes the rest of your message a little baffling. I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. Why? But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. In addition, considering OpenSSL-0.9.8a comes with FC 5 it's a good hedge that many hours have been used to test that it works with what FC 5 got. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:59:27PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Are you saying there's a security fix that is not going to be released in fedora4?! I don't know. I'll take that as a NO then. Which makes the rest of your message a little baffling. Why baffling ? I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. Why? Due to security inadequacy. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. In addition, considering OpenSSL-0.9.8a comes with FC 5 it's a good hedge that many hours have been used to test that it works with what FC 5 got. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Due to security inadequacy. Details man! Details! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Due to security inadequacy. Details man! Details! The details are in www.openssl.org. You know what to do. RTFM. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f (which was released for FC4 when the vulnerability was announced last year) contains the same security fix as openssl 0.9.8a. http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20051011.txt http://lwn.net/Alerts/155824/ O Plameras wrote: The details are in www.openssl.org. You know what to do. RTFM. Why yes, that's the right thing to do Oscar ;-) - -- dave. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEILvehPPdWeHRgaoRArjUAKCetZZpNPrlyNNPcXGTQfTKfDHDSQCeMUT2 f80bh7umsqYE4zjS+S+J0bg= =+VNe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=O Plameras You know what to do. RTFM. Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting broken advice. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ I must be getting old... Buying toothpaste with gel in it is no longer an Absolute Necessity. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras You know what to do. RTFM. Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting broken advice. What advise do you mean. RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know.. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f (which was released for FC4 when the vulnerability was announced last year) contains the same security fix as openssl 0.9.8a. http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20051011.txt http://lwn.net/Alerts/155824/ And of course, the really stupid thing is that Redhat/Fedora have been doing this sort of thing for years. They always futz with the version numbers, so that what you have on your FC/RH system is usually a mix of the named version and back ported patches. This is nothing new people and a reason why you should pay attention to what your distro releases in terms of security alerts instead of blindly following the originating projects alerts. Finally I would just like to add Join our LUG, Join our LUG, We're From Sydney, We Get Mugged -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote: Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras You know what to do. RTFM. Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting broken advice. What advise do you mean. RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know.. I'm only running SuperMicro :( -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know.. It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as clearly. The sooner RTFM is trotted out the lower on a ranking of between 1 and 100 the users interpersonal skills can be rated. For instance, if the phrase is used say in the first reply to a post, then the poster doing the replying can be seen to be having a rating of 2 (about the same level as say a monkey with a good aim). On the other if the reply is the result of a looong thread where the other person just refuses to understand the ideas being put forward by the poster and up until that time the poster has been patient and polite then the rating will be higher. Of course there are modifiers for the posters emotional state of mind, history with the parent poster and so on, more research needs to be conducted. And in conclusion I would like to quote from a renowned poet: Have a flame-fest on the SLUG list, See whose patience is the longest. -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. (which was released for FC4 when the vulnerability was announced last year) contains the same security fix as openssl 0.9.8a. http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20051011.txt http://lwn.net/Alerts/155824/ O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4. - -- dave. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEIMelhPPdWeHRgaoRAvjPAKC10F2qxDPsddMO5JNV+agii2brIwCgpnv4 qp01AJvsoS99Q97zE/cxMcA= =rZ2W -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
James Purser wrote: RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know.. It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as clearly. The sooner RTFM is trotted out the lower on a ranking of between 1 and 100 the users interpersonal skills can be rated. For instance, if the phrase is used say in the first reply to a post, then the poster doing the replying can be seen to be having a rating of 2 (about the same level as say a monkey with a good aim). On the other if the reply is the result of a looong thread where the other person just refuses to understand the ideas being put forward by the poster and up until that time the poster has been patient and polite then the rating will be higher. Of course there are modifiers for the posters emotional state of mind, history with the parent poster and so on, more research needs to be conducted. And in conclusion I would like to quote from a renowned poet: Have a flame-fest on the SLUG list, See whose patience is the longest. In the context as to WHOM I was replying, it is my good assumption the person is matured and understand my language. Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in USENET and lists groups since I can remember. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4. Sorry, I don't get this backported version in FC4 or FC3. My auto-update using yum does not pick this up. I still have openssl-0.9.7f in all my FC3 and FC4. I'll check my repos why this is the case. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:31:34PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. openssl 0.9.7f is the base for FC4. Many upstream patches are applied to that. To see what: rpm --changelog -q openssl -- Norman Gaywood, Systems Administrator School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]Phone: +61 (0)2 6773 2412 http://turing.une.edu.au/~normFax: +61 (0)2 6773 3312 Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote: Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in USENET and lists groups since I can remember. SLUG's Not Usenet. (or SNUH for short) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:42:06PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4. Sorry, I don't get this backported version in FC4 or FC3. My auto-update using yum does not pick this up. I still have openssl-0.9.7f in all my FC3 and FC4. I'll check my repos why this is the case. It means that the patch fixing the issue was taken out of the latest version and applied to the version available in FC4 so as to keep it as stable as possible. You may wish to RTFM for more info: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2005-October/msg00043.html http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:M-u2kkoUFiUJ:www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2005-October/msg00043.html ;) -- To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the greatest tribute. - High Court Judge Michael Kirby -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
Norman Gaywood wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:31:34PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. openssl 0.9.7f is the base for FC4. Many upstream patches are applied to that. To see what: rpm --changelog -q openssl You're spot on here. Thanks. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4. Sorry, I don't get this backported version in FC4 or FC3. My auto-update using yum does not pick this up. I still have openssl-0.9.7f in all my FC3 and FC4. Check what the release version of the openssl rpm is. It should be the same release version as this (7.10) $ rpm -qi openssl Name: openssl Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 0.9.7fVendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 7.10 Build Date: Wed 12 Oct 2005 20:22:50 EST Install Date: Mon 31 Oct 2005 16:15:59 EST Build Host: hs20-bc1-1.build.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: openssl-0.9.7f-7.10.src.rpm Size: 2961095 License: BSDish Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 14 Oct 2005 13:06:59 EST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager: Red Hat, Inc. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla URL : http://www.openssl.org/ Summary : The OpenSSL toolkit. Description : The OpenSSL toolkit provides support for secure communications between machines. OpenSSL includes a certificate management tool and shared libraries which provide various cryptographic algorithms and protocols. - -- dave. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEIMsehPPdWeHRgaoRAqisAJ954ByKdrhoVpj8sg/uGQ4ceD2pPQCg0sxM RbhbMDTpO+BSnmGiawfDXJ0= =dd6N -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: David Gillies wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 O Plameras wrote: I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's not worth my effort chasing rainbows. openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h. And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4. This is definitely what is in my repository - as of Oct 14 Sorry, I don't get this backported version in FC4 or FC3. My auto-update using yum does not pick this up. I still have openssl-0.9.7f in all my FC3 and FC4. I'll check my repos why this is the case. O Plameras -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://lannetlinux.com When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux; When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft. -- Flatter government, not fatter government; abolish the Australian states. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: openssl FC4 (was Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5)
David Gillies wrote: Check what the release version of the openssl rpm is. It should be the same release version as this (7.10) $ rpm -qi openssl Name: openssl Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 0.9.7fVendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 7.10 Build Date: Wed 12 Oct 2005 20:22:50 EST Install Date: Mon 31 Oct 2005 16:15:59 EST Build Host: hs20-bc1-1.build.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: openssl-0.9.7f-7.10.src.rpm Size: 2961095 License: BSDish Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 14 Oct 2005 13:06:59 EST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager: Red Hat, Inc. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla URL : http://www.openssl.org/ Summary : The OpenSSL toolkit. Description : The OpenSSL toolkit provides support for secure communications between machines. OpenSSL includes a certificate management tool and shared libraries which provide various cryptographic algorithms and protocols. One poster has suggested this: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) rpm --changelog -q openssl And I got this precise information: * Thu Oct 13 2005 Tomas Mraz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.9.7f-7.10 - fix CAN-2005-2969 - remove SSL_OP_MSIE_SSLV2_RSA_PADDING which disables the countermeasure against man in the middle attack in SSLv2 (#169863) - more fixes for constant time/memory access for DSA signature algorithm - updated ICA engine patch - ca-bundle.crt should be config(noreplace) - add *.so.soversion as symlinks in /lib (#165264) - remove unpackaged symlinks (#159595) - fixes from upstream (bn assembler div on ppc arch, initialize memory on realloc) snipped O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jamie Wilkinson wrote: This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote: Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in USENET and lists groups since I can remember. SLUG's Not Usenet. Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists service. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=O Plameras Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in USENET and lists groups since I can remember. SLUG's Not Usenet. Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists service. ... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not wanted or needed here. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ On a clear day, I bet you can really see the class struggle from that penthouse of yours. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists service. Yes, and once people would make human sacrifices to their pagan gods for a good crop. We don't do that anymore because it's not considered good manners, much the same was as RTFM is looked upon as being trite and a at the very least a cop out on the part of the poster. -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in USENET and lists groups since I can remember. SLUG's Not Usenet. Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists service. ... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not wanted or needed here. You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet. I'll translate RTFM as Read The Fabulous Manual in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
James Purser wrote: Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists service. Yes, and once people would make human sacrifices to their pagan gods for a good crop. We don't do that anymore because it's not considered good manners, much the same was as RTFM is looked upon as being trite and a at the very least a cop out on the part of the poster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:26:39PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Due to security inadequacy. Details man! Details! The details are in www.openssl.org. You know what to do. RTFM. Once I again I am hoist by my own subtlety. I'm not actually asking for details on this or any other package. It was meant to be spur for you to find out for yourself the facts of the matter. The very thought that any major distro would _require_ you to upgrade to whole new version of the distro to get a security fix for one package is absurd, and shows a pretty profound misunderstanding and disconnection from the whole process. Bah -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=O Plameras ... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not wanted or needed here. You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet. I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of online etiquette. I'm not so comfortable with your knowledge of SLUG's. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ We are not lovers. We are not romantics. We are here to serve you. - Gary Numan, Down In The Park -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote: You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet. I'll translate RTFM as Read The Fabulous Manual in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM. SNUH. SLUG's Not Usenet. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras ... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not wanted or needed here. You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet. I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of online etiquette. I'm not so comfortable with your knowledge of SLUG's. Google tells me that there are over 5Mega Articles that disagrees with you. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you. Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with RTFM as a serious response. Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will join him. RTFM is a sign that the poster could not be bothered explaining themselves to any degree, and to a large extent, it displays a lack of respect for the person you are posting too. -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
James Purser.quote; Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will join him. RTFM is a sign that the poster could not be bothered explaining themselves to any degree, and to a large extent, it displays a lack of respect for the person you are posting too. Or that they themselves don't know the answer.. hah! -Chris. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:26:39PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: Due to security inadequacy. Details man! Details! The details are in www.openssl.org. You know what to do. RTFM. Once I again I am hoist by my own subtlety. I'm not actually asking for details on this or any other package. It was meant to be spur for you to find out for yourself the facts of the matter. The very thought that any major distro would _require_ you to upgrade to whole new version of the distro to get a security fix for one package is absurd, and shows a pretty profound misunderstanding and disconnection from the whole process. I expressly said I do not know about what Fedora's thinking. You should ask them. What I know is there is security issue. I did not know that openssl-0.9.7f has been patched to fix this problem until I saw a number of post on this list. But the 0.9.8a release has the fix according to their site. So, I tried to go for it. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:41:47PM +1100, James Purser wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you. Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with RTFM as a serious response. Agreed. Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will join him. RTFM is a sign that the poster could not be bothered explaining themselves to any degree, and to a large extent, it displays a lack of respect for the person you are posting too. Disagreed. ;) That's true for FO and RTFM but I would not say it was true for: * read man moo and search for cow * go to www.tldp.org and look at the HOWTO for blah * search the web for 'blah' * etc With a follow up of: if after reading you don't understand something in the doc, tell me which bit and what confuses and I'll try to explain. The above hopefully not only helps the person with their immediate query but helps build a skillset that'll allow them to help themselves in the future. I find that preferable. -- To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the greatest tribute. - High Court Judge Michael Kirby -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
James Purser wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you. Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with RTFM as a serious response. May I venture, then, to say that your overall perspective is limited. You somewhat live in a pretend world. If the search in SLUG works try and search for the word RTFM and I am not the first person to use it in SLUG. Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will join him. RTFM is a sign that the poster could not be bothered explaining themselves to any degree, and to a large extent, it displays a lack of respect for the person you are posting too. I am not the one swinging at you. It is the body of information on the matter of RTFM around us that's swinging against you and Jeff -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
May I venture, then, to say that your overall perspective is limited. You somewhat live in a pretend world. Yes, the one with with fairies and dwarves and horrible little trolls. If the search in SLUG works try and search for the word RTFM and I am not the first person to use it in SLUG. If I may be so bold as to make a statement. At no time has anyone declared you to be the literary genius behind the short phrase RTFM. Rather, a percentage of the posters to this esteemed list have indicated that use of the phrase in a serious rather than jesting manner is to be discouraged and its use in such a manner shown the disdain they feel it deserves. I am not the one swinging at you. It is the body of information on the matter of RTFM around us that's swinging against you and Jeff Please point to any objective body of hard evidence that declares that RTFM is above all subjective understanding. Look, the english language is full of words that some people like and others don't, its been like that since the first germanic speakers hit the english shores. Just because you think that RTFM is a perfectly valid response, does not make it so in the eyes of others. On this list I do not believe it is because one of the aims of this list is to attract people who are not stepped in the deep culture of the internet. These are people who have not lived years of their lives in Usenet, they do not understand Godwins law. Instead, they have a computer with this linuxy thing on it that they may need help with. Or they would like to know more about the LUG. If the first time they ask a question they get RTFM that is not going to be the best impression a person can get is it? As a great man once said: 'Stibbons, Jaq, Rob and Mark, ctd, our underage clerke. Bruce and Ken and Grant and Jan and, Pia, jdub: Awesome, awesome!' -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote: What I know is there is security issue. I did not know that openssl-0.9.7f has been patched to fix this problem until I saw a number of post on this list. But the 0.9.8a release has the fix according to their site. So, I tried to go for it. Subscribing to the security annoucements list for your distribution will alert you to the availability of patched packages as soon as they're available, and these announcements always contain details of the security issues that have been fixed (i.e. CVE numbers, etc). These are also published on the distros security site: Red Hat: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/ Debian: http://www.debian.org/security/#DSAS Fedora annoucements appear to only go to their annouce mailing list, which does have a publicly browsable archive. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question)
is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not
wanted or needed here.
And not only that, there is usually NO FM {:-).
And you can easily get a reply like Well the only thing I could find on
google was for linux 1.2 and I want to use 2.6
E.G. there is no FM for setting up a plain Linux RAID device.
I was looking for a HOWTO and the closest I can find (via google) is
something that relies on re-installing the complete system so that you
can put the system on a raid device. Most of the links were no longer
relevant for Debian Sarge. In the end I had to go to Debianhelp.org for
that magic step.
--
Terry Collins {:-)}}}
email: terryc at woa.com.au www: http://www.woa.com.au
Wombat Outdoor Adventures Bicycles, Computers, Outdoors, Publishing
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Terry Collins wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question)
is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not
wanted or needed here.
And not only that, there is usually NO FM {:-).
And you can easily get a reply like Well the only thing I could find on
google was for linux 1.2 and I want to use 2.6
In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person
I addressed the reply
to in my assessment is matured and well-informed SLUG user. I presume he
knows what is
meant by my RTFM.
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=O Plameras In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person I addressed the reply to in my assessment is matured and well-informed SLUG user. I presume he knows what is meant by my RTFM. Yet there are plenty of other people on this list who will read that and see it for what it is - an obnoxious, unwelcoming term. There are many more people reading your post than the person you're replying to. That's why we've got rid of this crap in our LUG. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ The name Lego came from two Danish words 'leg godt', meaning 'play well'. It also means 'I put together' in Latin. - BBC News, 2005 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person I addressed the reply to in my assessment is matured and well-informed SLUG user. I presume he knows what is meant by my RTFM. Yet there are plenty of other people on this list who will read that and see it for what it is - an obnoxious, unwelcoming term. There are many more people reading your post than the person you're replying to. That's why we've got rid of this crap in our LUG. You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 05:41:30PM +1100, O Plameras wrote: In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person I addressed the reply That'd be me to in my assessment is matured You make me sound like a cheese. and well-informed SLUG user. I presume he knows what is meant by my RTFM. Oh yeah. And it is rude, but it didn't espcially bother me. In a sense, I was asking you to read up on things, so the rtfm reply was not just rude, it seemed to be deliberately obtuse. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 17:51 +1100, O Plameras wrote: You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons. There are many people like myself, who are not speaking up because we concur with Jeff's sentiment. If we disagreed you would hear our voices. Hopefully this thread can come to a close real soon. -- Cheers, Craige. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
quote who=O Plameras You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons. Funny how others have expressed the same thoughts on this thread, Oscar. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ Everything I knew about TCP/IP I had downloaded the same day I started hacking the net code. - Alan Cox -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=O Plameras You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons. Funny how others have expressed the same thoughts on this thread, Oscar. It's not funny when others speak for themselves. It's funny when you talk as if others can't say. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
O Plameras wrote: You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons. On the matter of RTFM I agree with Jeff and I hereby allow him to speak for me on the subject of RTFM. Erik -- +---+ Erik de Castro Lopo +---+ C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce. -- Scott McKay -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: FW: [SLUG] Fedora Core 5
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:33, James Purser wrote: It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as clearly. The sooner RTFM is trotted out the lower on a ranking of between 1 and 100 the users interpersonal skills can be rated. I'm not so sure I agree with your slant on this. You go on to list a ranking of how bad this is, but don't say what/why you would do instead. My own view has been that with Free Software, it's really on the user to voluntarily do their own work, asking when necessary, or for social reasons - but with an expectation that everyone else's time is valuable too, and that I should join in and help. So, rather than seeing this as a brush-off, I can see it as teaching a man to fish - the skills he picks up help everyone. There may be times it's not appropriate to say 'RTFM' to some people, but in this context I think he's writing to someone who knows his way around. 'RTFM' IS the right thing to do in many cases - even for a newbie (although that may not always be the right way to say it). Reading gets the vocabulary and starts getting appropriate questions. Regards, Bret pgp3ipwalfrBM.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
