Re: [vox-tech] Memory usage puzzle
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Rod Roark wrote: > > Anyone know a good utility that will go through all allocated memory > blocks and tell you which process or executable is responsible for each > one? > > Yes I know about "ps". I don't think it really does that. Here's my > problem: > > When I start up my colo box, running ntpd, bind, sshd, postfix, Courier > pop3d/imapd, apache, postgresql, xvnc, one KDE session, and some other > normal stuff, "free" shows about 60 MB in use (after subtracting buffers > and cache). After a day or two, memory usage climbs to around 260MB and > stays there. If I stop VNC/KDE, apache, all mail stuff and the sql > server, memory in use still stays over about 220 MB. > > So, what's using all that memory? I'd like to find out. > > Total physical memory is 1GB. I didn't see if anyone came up with an answer for this one. Top, with the "M" command, would be my first thought. However, the problem may be associated with shared memory... try looking at "ipcs"? --- Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --- ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
I agreed, Star Office 5.2 sucked. But 6.0b is a vast improvement over 5.2; a number of the major issues have been fixed -- it no longer does the hostile takeover of your desktop that it once did, a feture that drove me away from it some time ago. Personally, I'm partial to WordPerfect and have been since 5.1 for DOS. I'm saddened that Corel no longer supports to Linux edition of WordPerfect. Netscape 4.7 is okay for Linux; haven't tried 6.2 Mozilla 0.9.7 is pretty good; I'm looking forward to seeing Mozilla 1.0 in about 2057 or so. Konquerer is more than adequate for almost all of my browsing needs. I've finally reached the point where I'm only loading Windows when I have to run our scanner off of my computer (I failed to research which scanners are compatible with Linux when I purchased one). Jay Strauss wrote: > Had I known the sh-t storm I was going to stir up, I'd have kept my fingers > off the keyboard (But it has been funny nevertheless). > > I'm still debating the build vs. buy. But I have done some research and > think if I build I'll get a Athlon 1500 (fast and cheap). Now I've only got > about 85 motherboards to look over. > > I tried star office a year ago, didn't like a number of things, maybe it's > gotten better, at the time Netscape and monzilla sucked, didn't try Opera, I > never tried Koffice, I was luke warm on gnumeric, going to look at > Evolution, own vmware (but realized I do one thing on the server, I run > xterm (from there I vim and admin), the rest of the time I'm using > Office,IE,Outlook so why not use them natively and get eXceed), maybe I'll > have to learn DocBook/XML/Tex/LaTex (someday, right now I'm climbing the > Java hill, going thru the Sun tutorials, I know I'll just stop sleeping) > > I live in Chicago so can't do the face to face (though the thought of 3hr > lines at O'hare, strip searches, gate delays, and the 4.5 hr flight is very > attractive). > -- Sliante, Richard S. Crawford mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Yahoo!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is only with the heart that we see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exupery "Push the button, Max!" ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> begin Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You're initializing K with a variable. Because globals are calculated at
> > compile time,
Since Jeff will sooner or later jump in to correct me, I'll correct myself
before that happens:
I didn't meant to say that globals are calculated at compile time -- they
can certainly be modified during runtime. What I meant was that initial
values of globals have to be calculated at compiletime -- due to the way
they are stored in memory.
Local variables will also be calculated as much as possible during
compilation (like all the literals will be precalculated), if you have a
decent compiler.
> > and const variables are overwritable
> > under certain architectures by indirectly dereferencing it (but not on x86
> > Linux).
When I wrote this, I was actually thinking of literals. On some
systems, you can silently write over literals, like this:
int main(void)
{
char* s = "Hello";
*s = 'J';
printf("%s\n", s);
return 0;
}
On Linux, it won't let you do that, but on SGI (O2?) it very smoothly lets
you overwrite the literal. This is normally not a problem (besides the
bad style), unless the literal space (often stored in the code space) is
shared between processes... Then it becomes a security risk.
You *can* overwrite non-global const variables under x86 Linux...
apparently :) It makes sense, since they go on the stack (turning one or
two words on the stack into read-only memory is inefficient from the
hardware standpoint). It segfaults if you try to overwrite global
constant or static constants, though (global constants are pretty much
like literals, and static variables are pretty much like globals...)
> thanks mark!
I apologize for not being as accurate as I should be!
-Mark :)
--
Mark K. Kim
http://www.cbreak.org/mark/
PGP key available upon request.
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
[vox-tech] complex C question
i'm not sure if anyone here has been playing around with tgmath.h, but
here it goes:
#include
int main(void)
{
long double complex a;
a = 4.0L + I*2.0L;
return 0;
}
does gdb not have support for tgmath or am i trying to print a complex
number in the wrong manner?
(gdb) ptype a
type = complex long double
(gdb) print a
$2 = Invalid C/C++ type code 20 in symbol table.
(gdb) printf "%Le,%Le\n", a
Wrong number of arguments for specified format-string
(gdb) printf "%Le\n", a
Value can't be converted to integer.
(gdb) quit
pete
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
Had I known the sh-t storm I was going to stir up, I'd have kept my fingers off the keyboard (But it has been funny nevertheless). I'm still debating the build vs. buy. But I have done some research and think if I build I'll get a Athlon 1500 (fast and cheap). Now I've only got about 85 motherboards to look over. I tried star office a year ago, didn't like a number of things, maybe it's gotten better, at the time Netscape and monzilla sucked, didn't try Opera, I never tried Koffice, I was luke warm on gnumeric, going to look at Evolution, own vmware (but realized I do one thing on the server, I run xterm (from there I vim and admin), the rest of the time I'm using Office,IE,Outlook so why not use them natively and get eXceed), maybe I'll have to learn DocBook/XML/Tex/LaTex (someday, right now I'm climbing the Java hill, going thru the Sun tutorials, I know I'll just stop sleeping) I live in Chicago so can't do the face to face (though the thought of 3hr lines at O'hare, strip searches, gate delays, and the 4.5 hr flight is very attractive). - Original Message - From: "Marc Hasbrouck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box > As a side note, keep an eye on star office. It > currrently (v6) is trying for that great office suite > position. I have yet to try it and see if if meets the > mark set by MS Office and such, but if it does or even > comes close, it'll worthy of your consideration. > > On another note, being the cheapskate I am, if you > have an ols system hanging around, like a PII or > Celeron 300+, Linux will make a dandy workstation. > > As was said in earlier messages, the AMD chip gives > you more bang for your buck. Intel is good, but you do > pay a premium for it. > > If you're looking for a system to not be too obsolete > in three to five years, buy the fastest thing you can > afford and fill it it RAM. That way, nearly anything > should run. If you are on a budget, take a look at > Rod's website. His prices are in line with anyone else > that'll build a custom system and support it. > > It you want to build it yourself, well let's say > that's one of my hobbies. That and doing it on the > cheap. I don't think I'm the only one in LUGOD that > builds their own either. I'm in the Sacramento area > and can make time to chat face to face over hardware, > etc. > > Marc > > --- Jay Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Preface: I'm not starting a war, but > > > > I have my linux (HP, Sun et al) machines where I run > > Oracle, write my perl > > scripts, monkey with DBI/DBD/Mod_perl stuff, but I > > like the M$ Office suite, > > IE, and outlook. > > > > I don't love M$, but I like their above products. I > > tried to make the > > switch to a linux desktop but didn't like the apps. > > I promise you guys, if > > M$ ported Office, IE, and Outlook to *nix, you'd all > > be using them. > > > > Jay > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:00 PM > > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my > > own box > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hey now, chill out. It's entirely like that he did > > not know AMD made CPUs. > > > > You don't need to flame his for using outlook > > express (although it does > > suck), perhaps he is unable to get online under > > linux for some reason. > > > > Also, it's quite rude to accuse people of spam, if > > it was a spam attempt > > there likely would have been some mention of a > > 'great deal' or 'sale' > > > > On Wednesday, January 16 2002 03:34 pm, Takashi > > Ishihara wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:17:19PM -0600, Jay > > Strauss wrote: > > > > I'm thinking about building a new box, > > unfortunately I don't know > > > > anything about hardware > > > > > > How unreasonable ppl are these days. > > > Kids say the same thing. The difference btwn kids > > and this guy is > > > kids don't know the fact that they are idiot, and > > this guy at least know > > > that he does not know anything. > > > > > > And this guy is using wintel + outlook. > > > For this kind of person, the only convinsing > > factors are > > > 1. bigger is better. > > > 2. faster is better. > > > Go to fry's or compusa or wherever and ask the > > sales person. > > > They tell you the same. > > > > > > > I'm using www.spartantech.com (because they're > > out where I live), my > > > > first > > > > > > Does this line implies that you expect ppl on the > > mailing list to visit > > > aforementioned uri, browse their products, and > > configure the system for > > > you? Or was he hired by that company, and send > > this kind of ads to the > > > mailing lists? > > > > > > > choice it the chip: > > > > > > Sure you should stick w/ wintel + rambus. > > > > > > > I have to choose: > > > > socket 423 vs 478 > > > > > > Bigger is better.
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
begin Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:33:33PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > begin Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > MOn Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:31:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Thu, 17 January 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > > > > Maybe vi-users get their fingers hurt, but psgml-mode Emacs-users > have a plethora of key-sequences which make the job much more #include /* notice that i said carpal tunnel OR use editor shortcuts! :) */ > > ok, that being said, my recommendation is: if you have a choice of latex > > or docbook, definitely pick docbook, hand's down. micah's reasons for > > using it are much more persuasive than my reasons for not using it. > > and the fact of the matter is, i do use docbook, grudgingly. > > I'm surprised at your conclusion. What reasons were those? From my > perspective, I didn't think that any of the reasons I offered were > very strong advantages over LaTeX. And the loss of direct control is > usually a very big deal to me (somehow not big enough in this case, I > guess). well, i'm really talking from a practical standpoint. my answer would've been much different if steve had been in academia, especially the sciences. a good acamedician NEEDS to know latex for sure. most physics journals (most science journals?) make you pay a publishing fee unless you submit your paper in latex format. it's the way most scientists communicate (not soft science. i don't know if bio people use it either). but for someone who wants to write docs, and may want them in a whole bevy of formats, i think docbook is really the only logical choice. latex can eventually turn into all those formats too (except for docbook, of course) but needs external agents. docbooks' self containment is impressive. docbook is very popular right now, and i have a feeling that its popularity is just going to grow. pete -- The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:33:33PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> begin Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > MOn Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:31:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 January 2002, Micah Cowan wrote:
> >
> > In conclusion: If you are already a TeX- or LaTeX-guru, you probably
> > have little reason to switch to DocBook (except that you need to write
> > in DocBook format to write LDP HOWTOs, as Pete discovered). I picked
> > it because it suits my particular needs, and YMMV, as always.
>
> heh. i consider myself a docbook "layperson". i know enough to use it
> effectively, but not enough to really understand all the terminology and
> "bit's and pieces" of docbook.
>
> as a layperson, i definitely defer to micah who seems to have attained
> guru status in this area.
Not even remotely. After I've done some serious XSLT and XSL-FO
study, then maybe call me that.
> from my own POV, here are some comments for
> other laypeople:
>
> 1. docbook hurts the fingers. whereas latex users can talk about
>
>\url{http://slashdot.org}, {\bf vmlinuz} and {\it important stuff\/},
>
>docbook users talk about:
>
>http://slashdot.org,
>vmlinuz and important stuff
Maybe vi-users get their fingers hurt, but psgml-mode Emacs-users
have a plethora of key-sequences which make the job much more
palatable. Tag-name autocompletion, automatically end-tag, etc. My
favorite feature is that if you tell psgml where to get the DTD from,
whenever you tell it to insert an element it automatically adds any
attributes or elements that you need to fill in. For instance, if I
type "C-c C-e section RET" (to use emacspeak), I'll get:
With my cursor at the title element, ready for me to type in a title.
If I type "C-c C-e link"
Then I'll get a query for the value of the mandatory "linkend"
attribute, and then:
Saves a lot of typing.
>god forbid you write a paper about something like
>dosemu, and you have two choices:
>
>
>Carpal tunnel syndrome.
>Make good use of vi
> macros.
>
>
>compare with:
>
>\begin{enumerate}
> \item Carpal tunnel syndrome.
>\item Make good use of {\bf vi} macros.
>\end{enumerate}
Might want to look into Blatte, which was actually written by a new
coworker of mine (works in my group). It's basically a programmable
shorthand language which is converted to HTML. Easy enough to adapt
to SGML or XML in general, I should think.
>it may look like a small difference now, but write a 10 page
>document, and you're talking about a significantly higher typing to
>content ratio.
With the Emacs functionality I described, it's not a problem.
Especially since if I have text I'm constantly using, I can write an
entity to save myself typing:
Foo::Bar">
And then I can just use &foo-class; instead of all that stuff.
> 2. for the average latex user, docbook is a loss of control of format.
>
>for me, the HYPER use of content based markup is a double edged
>sword. i know you can modify stylesheets. but danged if i know how!
>it doesn't look easy. with latex, i can control the location of
>every single dot of my document. and sometimes latex isn't happy
>about the choices i make, like under/overfull hboxes and vboxes,
>pictures that don't "float" well, i can ALWAYS force the issue.
No real argument here. Of course, an extremely well-designed DTD
could give you this same power, but DocBook doesn't have the same
level of detailed power control.
> ok, that being said, my recommendation is: if you have a choice of latex
> or docbook, definitely pick docbook, hand's down. micah's reasons for
> using it are much more persuasive than my reasons for not using it.
> and the fact of the matter is, i do use docbook, grudgingly.
I'm surprised at your conclusion. What reasons were those? From my
perspective, I didn't think that any of the reasons I offered were
very strong advantages over LaTeX. And the loss of direct control is
usually a very big deal to me (somehow not big enough in this case, I
guess).
Micah
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] phone supplies
Hmmm. Jacks: Yup, Radio Snack had *some*, but I agree, the best selection was OSH or Home Depot. If you have CAT-5 wire, you could use a multi-purpose insert with 110-type punchdown blocks, you know, the tiny inserts like the newer flush wall jacks at UCD? http://www.electronichookup.com/keystone%20jacks%20and%20plates.htm And a color pinout scheme: http://www.onepassinfo.com/bgtt/rjinfo.asp Boxes: Did you want a surface-mount or a flush-mount with a plate over it? There are single-gang boxes that have medium-sized metal flanges that stick out to the sides, and, somewhat like a spring-bolt, they stick out and tighten to the inside of a wall. Not sure if this one can be removed (and all parts saved); like a spring-bolt, you might lose the flange if you loosen it. There are also the regular single-gang, flush-mount with tiny top & bottom ears (plastic if you get the blue non-metallic) or metal ears if you get a metal box. This kind can be removed rather easily for repositioning. Non-metallic are easier to work with. At 04:53 PM 1/17/02 -0800, you wrote: >Look at your local hardware / home improvement place. >They carry standard outlet size wall plates and wall >board wall plates. Home Depot even has the parts to do >Cat 5 cabling as well as phone cabling. You might be >able to coble something together. > >Marc > >--- Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hi all, > > > > can someone recommend a store that sells a wide > > variety of phone > > jack mounting kits? i've seen some really nice > > ones in the past that > > have alligator type connectors rather than > > wrap-around-the-screw based. > > > > the line that i want to mount is quite a challange. > > it's a semi big > > gaping hole; perhaps 3 cm radius, so a standard wall > > mount unit isn't > > going to mountable without a backboard i can drill > > into. > > > > and i COULD do that. i'd rather find something that > > would look a little > > nicer. i know these things come in all different > > shapes and sizes. > > > > if no recommendations, i go to the standard radio > > shack and frys. > > > > pete > > > > -- > > The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more > > abstract, rather than more > > complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract > > but not complicated. > > He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony > > Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' > > > > PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 > > 1945 67EA 951D > > ___ > > vox-tech mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech > > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! >http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ >___ >vox-tech mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:04:38PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> when ratio and K are defined externally, gcc complains about a
> non-constant initializer:
>
>const double ratio = 2.0L;
>const double K = ratio;
>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0;
>}
>
> however, when defined as local variables, there's no problem.
>
>int main(void)
>{
> const double ratio = 2.0L;
> const double K = ratio;
>
> return 0;
>}
>
> why isn't const being honored for the global variable version?
C isn't C++ - this would work fine in C++; however, in C, "const"
doesn't imply that the variable can be used just like a literal
constant. It's only a means of telling the compiler that you promise
not to change it.
This isn't an issue when they're defined locally, since non-static
initializers don't have to be constant-expressions.
Micah
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:03:33PM -0800, ME wrote: > Again, sorry for not paying closer attention to the question you had. I'll > sentence myself to cease posting for 5 days. ;-) Hehe... the traffic of the list (in bytes) will diminish quite noticably :) -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
begin ME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote: > > I didn't say I had a problem with my network card, I just said that > > `dmesg` didn't say anything about the card. Perhaps you missed it when > > I said that this ethernet card that `dmesg` didn't report was the one > > I was using to post my response to the list. So the question lies, > > what good is the `dmesg` test if it doesn't report a card I know to > > *is* working? > > dmesg can report kernel boot information (including hardware > detection) unless your machine has been on a while , or something has been > logging stuff for dmesg to cause the older stuff to be wiped out. > > You can think of the data available to dmesg as being limited for being > over-written as new data comes in. Immediately after a boot, assuming > other things are not complaining, dmesg should show you good detailed > information about your hardware. > > Perhaps you have more wrong with your box. Check out > # dmesg |more > and see what you have. > > A properly configured server which has been up for 175 days, has so little > reported for access with dmesg, that I can see to the top of where my > kernel was just starting to load. (And this is a busy web server.) > > (Have had other servers with >300 days of uptime that also allow me to see > the top of my dmesg data from boot >300 days ago. just small note: on one of my overclocked machines, i get constant APIC errors. they aren't fatal; just an annoyance. they can rapidly fill the kernel ring log buffer. i'd say in 2 days, easily. also, an oft run daemon or program that tries to get kmod to load something like NLS can really fill up your ring buffer too! this machine currently suffers from that. i've been so busy that i haven't had a chance to look into what's causing it.. :( pete ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
Hopefully, the post by Peter or me can answer the Q that was asked instead of answering a question that was not asked. (more) On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote: > I didn't say I had a problem with my network card, I just said that > `dmesg` didn't say anything about the card. Perhaps you missed it when > I said that this ethernet card that `dmesg` didn't report was the one > I was using to post my response to the list. [chop] Oh wow! I have this head rush like something profound or logically void was just encountered! We should ask the Buddah what it means when I say: "I answered the unasked question." Perhaps the response from the Buddah would be: "Uhhh huh-huh. You suck. Stop, like working so hard when you dont have to." Oh wait, that was a channeling from "Butthead". Sorry, I was at least in the B's. (heh-heh, oh yeah! That was like cool and stuff.) Again, sorry for not paying closer attention to the question you had. I'll sentence myself to cease posting for 5 days. ;-) -ME -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/CM$/IT$/LS$/S/O$ !d--(++) !s !a+++(-) C++$() U$(+$) P+$>+++ L+++$(++) E W+++$(+) N+ o K w+$>++>+++ O-@ M+$ V-$>- !PS !PE Y+ !PGP t@-(++) 5+@ X@ R- tv- b++ DI+++ D+ G--@ e+>++> h(++)>+ r*>? z? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- decode: http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/ about: http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:51:44 -0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const > From: Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > it looks like you're using C++? i'm not too hip onto that language, > but i've heard people say that the const qualifier works differently > between the two languages. > Yeah, I'm using C++. I didn't realize there was much difference syntactically, (besides the really obvious features that were added in C++), and I just don't know what the differences are. I've never programmed pure C -- I've understood OOP since before I even started with C/C++, so I always used iostreams and classes. I couldn't use printf to save my life. ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote: > I didn't say I had a problem with my network card, I just said that > `dmesg` didn't say anything about the card. Perhaps you missed it when > I said that this ethernet card that `dmesg` didn't report was the one > I was using to post my response to the list. So the question lies, > what good is the `dmesg` test if it doesn't report a card I know to > *is* working? dmesg can report kernel boot information (including hardware detection) unless your machine has been on a while , or something has been logging stuff for dmesg to cause the older stuff to be wiped out. You can think of the data available to dmesg as being limited for being over-written as new data comes in. Immediately after a boot, assuming other things are not complaining, dmesg should show you good detailed information about your hardware. Perhaps you have more wrong with your box. Check out # dmesg |more and see what you have. A properly configured server which has been up for 175 days, has so little reported for access with dmesg, that I can see to the top of where my kernel was just starting to load. (And this is a busy web server.) (Have had other servers with >300 days of uptime that also allow me to see the top of my dmesg data from boot >300 days ago. To have so quickly lost much of your kernel reported messages from your dmesg output, suggest you may have some kernel problems, or maybe some very verbose bits of code loaded in/by your kernel. Sorry that I misunderstood the problem. dmesg is very cool. When you system is well configured, you can have dmesg called shortly after full boot to store your kernel boot info into a file instead of trying to use your scroll back buffer for your tty and gdm to copy and paste into a file, or copy by hand this data. Also, it can help you to identify potential problems or a misconfigured kernel or module. The man pages for it are short on my system, but describe what it is for. -ME -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/CM$/IT$/LS$/S/O$ !d--(++) !s !a+++(-) C++$() U$(+$) P+$>+++ L+++$(++) E W+++$(+) N+ o K w+$>++>+++ O-@ M+$ V-$>- !PS !PE Y+ !PGP t@-(++) 5+@ X@ R- tv- b++ DI+++ D+ G--@ e+>++> h(++)>+ r*>? z? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- decode: http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/ about: http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thier firewall likes to transparnetly proxy most protocals. for example $ telnet ticalc.org 25 Trying 195.67.128.26... Connected to ticalc.org. Escape character is '^]'. 220 firewall.djusd.k12.ca.us Generic SMTP handler and $ telnet step.mother.com Trying 207.215.64.108... Connected to step.mother.com. Escape character is '^]'. Raptor Firewall Secure Gateway. Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 step.mother.com step login: I suspect this behavior could screw ssh up. On Thursday, January 17 2002 04:41 pm, Ken Bloom wrote: > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE > > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:21:45 -0800 (PST) > > From: "Mark K. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions. > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ryan wrote: > > > I'd use ssh, but for some reason my school ( davis high ) has it > > > blocked ( couldn't even get it to work on weird ports ) > > > > Perhaps they have all ports blocked except for the ones they want opened? > > The best way to do what you want to do is to set up your ssh to listen on > port 23, which normally hosts telnet. Then, you can use `ssh -p 23 > your.host.com` and connect through the open telnet port. Most Windows SSH > clients also have boxes into which to type an alternate port for an SSH > connection. You can change your startup call of sshd to use its -p option > so that it listens on port 23. > > Tunnelling over HTTP may also work, but may require more sophisticated > tools. Telnet by its nature should go directly to whatever its destination > because the concept of telnet is that you're typing at a remote computer > and it is typing back. HTTP on the other hand, may go through a proxy. > > I find that it's also very convenient to have a web server running on my > box, for the purpose of serving up a Java-based SSH client that I can use > when I go to a computer lab that doesn't have SSH installed. > ___ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech - -- No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this message. PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8R3JbEd9E83IXe8cRAtHqAJ9CgXthL0ZgJo6dVQMLs50GSrMtagCeLSms kaZ3S2Vao2+2T34YcSWeOrI= =Z/mN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] phone supplies
Look at your local hardware / home improvement place. They carry standard outlet size wall plates and wall board wall plates. Home Depot even has the parts to do Cat 5 cabling as well as phone cabling. You might be able to coble something together. Marc --- Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi all, > > can someone recommend a store that sells a wide > variety of phone > jack mounting kits? i've seen some really nice > ones in the past that > have alligator type connectors rather than > wrap-around-the-screw based. > > the line that i want to mount is quite a challange. > it's a semi big > gaping hole; perhaps 3 cm radius, so a standard wall > mount unit isn't > going to mountable without a backboard i can drill > into. > > and i COULD do that. i'd rather find something that > would look a little > nicer. i know these things come in all different > shapes and sizes. > > if no recommendations, i go to the standard radio > shack and frys. > > pete > > -- > The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more > abstract, rather than more > complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract > but not complicated. > He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony > Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' > > PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 > 1945 67EA 951D > ___ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
begin Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:04:38 -0800
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > when ratio and K are defined externally, gcc complains about a
> > non-constant initializer:
> >
> >const double ratio = 2.0L;
> >const double K = ratio;
> >
> >int main(void)
> >{
> > return 0;
> >}
> >
> > however, when defined as local variables, there's no problem.
> >
> >int main(void)
> >{
> > const double ratio = 2.0L;
> > const double K = ratio;
> >
> > return 0;
> >}
> >
> > why isn't const being honored for the global variable version?
>
> do you have a more thorough piece of demonstration code for what
> you're trying to do. Both of these pieces of code, as written, should
> initialize K and ratio to the value of 2.0, and should both do so
> without compiler warnings or compiler errors.
i think mark resolved this. :)
> (I may be wrong,
> assigning 2.0L to a double in any circumstance may cause warnings to
> be emitted. Try just assigning 2.0)
in my real code, it was a long double. i forgot to delete the "L"'s.
good eye.:)
it looks like you're using C++? i'm not too hip onto that language,
but i've heard people say that the const qualifier works differently
between the two languages.
pete
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
begin Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE --- > > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:17:18 -0800 (PST) > > From: ME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote: > > [chop] > > > I just noticed that on my system Mandrake 8.1, with the following > > > ethernet card (reported by lspci): > > > > > > 02:09.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX [Fast > > > Etherlink] (rev 78) > > [chop] > > > > Ahh yes. This is/should be supported. The 3c905 are covered with the linux > > modules "3c5x9" > > > > I didn't say I had a problem with my network card, I just said that `dmesg` didn't >say > anything about the card. Perhaps you missed it when I said that this ethernet card >that > `dmesg` didn't report was the one I was using to post my response to the list. So >the question > lies, what good is the `dmesg` test if it doesn't report a card I know to *is* >working? why not just look at /var/log/messages[1]? the kernel "ring buffer" is a ring. it can wrap around, especially if useless messages like "can't find module NLS23423" get logged constantly. dmesg is a VERY valuable tool. but just like a saw and hammer, it's only useful if you know what it is and how to use it. i think you should look at man dmesg; you probably have the wrong idea about what it does. if you want to know which ethernet *module* got loaded, do lsmod. if the ethernet card is compiled directly into the kernel, you can go go poking around in the symbol table, but the easiest thing to do is to just look at /var/log/messages. if you just want to know if the ethernet module is doing its job, just do ifconfig. it's nearly impossible for a module to load and not detect teh hardware correctly. i've seen it happen, but boy is it rare. pete [1] use this. it'll find the last occurance of 'eth0': # vi /var/log/messages G ? eth0 keep pressing n till you get to what you're looking for. -- The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:04:38 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> when ratio and K are defined externally, gcc complains about a
> non-constant initializer:
>
>const double ratio = 2.0L;
>const double K = ratio;
>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0;
>}
>
> however, when defined as local variables, there's no problem.
>
>int main(void)
>{
> const double ratio = 2.0L;
> const double K = ratio;
>
> return 0;
>}
>
> why isn't const being honored for the global variable version?
do you have a more thorough piece of demonstration code for what you're trying to do.
Both of
these pieces of code, as written, should initialize K and ratio to the value of 2.0,
and
should both do so without compiler warnings or compiler errors. (I may be wrong,
assigning
2.0L to a double in any circumstance may cause warnings to be emitted. Try just
assigning 2.0)
However:
/BEGIN
extern const double ratio = 2.0L;
extern const double K = ratio;
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
/END
is illegal, because the extern declaration implies that the variable has been defined
in
another file.
also, putting another assignment statement like K=4.0; right before the return 0;
should be
illegal in both cases.
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:21:45 -0800 (PST) > From: "Mark K. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions. > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ryan wrote: > > > I'd use ssh, but for some reason my school ( davis high ) has it blocked ( > > couldn't even get it to work on weird ports ) > > Perhaps they have all ports blocked except for the ones they want opened? > The best way to do what you want to do is to set up your ssh to listen on port 23, which normally hosts telnet. Then, you can use `ssh -p 23 your.host.com` and connect through the open telnet port. Most Windows SSH clients also have boxes into which to type an alternate port for an SSH connection. You can change your startup call of sshd to use its -p option so that it listens on port 23. Tunnelling over HTTP may also work, but may require more sophisticated tools. Telnet by its nature should go directly to whatever its destination because the concept of telnet is that you're typing at a remote computer and it is typing back. HTTP on the other hand, may go through a proxy. I find that it's also very convenient to have a web server running on my box, for the purpose of serving up a Java-based SSH client that I can use when I go to a computer lab that doesn't have SSH installed. ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
As a side note, keep an eye on star office. It currrently (v6) is trying for that great office suite position. I have yet to try it and see if if meets the mark set by MS Office and such, but if it does or even comes close, it'll worthy of your consideration. On another note, being the cheapskate I am, if you have an ols system hanging around, like a PII or Celeron 300+, Linux will make a dandy workstation. As was said in earlier messages, the AMD chip gives you more bang for your buck. Intel is good, but you do pay a premium for it. If you're looking for a system to not be too obsolete in three to five years, buy the fastest thing you can afford and fill it it RAM. That way, nearly anything should run. If you are on a budget, take a look at Rod's website. His prices are in line with anyone else that'll build a custom system and support it. It you want to build it yourself, well let's say that's one of my hobbies. That and doing it on the cheap. I don't think I'm the only one in LUGOD that builds their own either. I'm in the Sacramento area and can make time to chat face to face over hardware, etc. Marc --- Jay Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Preface: I'm not starting a war, but > > I have my linux (HP, Sun et al) machines where I run > Oracle, write my perl > scripts, monkey with DBI/DBD/Mod_perl stuff, but I > like the M$ Office suite, > IE, and outlook. > > I don't love M$, but I like their above products. I > tried to make the > switch to a linux desktop but didn't like the apps. > I promise you guys, if > M$ ported Office, IE, and Outlook to *nix, you'd all > be using them. > > Jay > > - Original Message - > From: "Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:00 PM > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my > own box > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hey now, chill out. It's entirely like that he did > not know AMD made CPUs. > > You don't need to flame his for using outlook > express (although it does > suck), perhaps he is unable to get online under > linux for some reason. > > Also, it's quite rude to accuse people of spam, if > it was a spam attempt > there likely would have been some mention of a > 'great deal' or 'sale' > > On Wednesday, January 16 2002 03:34 pm, Takashi > Ishihara wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:17:19PM -0600, Jay > Strauss wrote: > > > I'm thinking about building a new box, > unfortunately I don't know > > > anything about hardware > > > > How unreasonable ppl are these days. > > Kids say the same thing. The difference btwn kids > and this guy is > > kids don't know the fact that they are idiot, and > this guy at least know > > that he does not know anything. > > > > And this guy is using wintel + outlook. > > For this kind of person, the only convinsing > factors are > > 1. bigger is better. > > 2. faster is better. > > Go to fry's or compusa or wherever and ask the > sales person. > > They tell you the same. > > > > > I'm using www.spartantech.com (because they're > out where I live), my > > > first > > > > Does this line implies that you expect ppl on the > mailing list to visit > > aforementioned uri, browse their products, and > configure the system for > > you? Or was he hired by that company, and send > this kind of ads to the > > mailing lists? > > > > > choice it the chip: > > > > Sure you should stick w/ wintel + rambus. > > > > > I have to choose: > > > socket 423 vs 478 > > > > Bigger is better. Naturally the answer would be > 478. > > > > > bus speed 256 vs 512 > > > > Wider is better. Naturally the answer would be > 512. > > > > > chip speed - I know what this is. > > > > Make sure to get the fastest one. > > > > > Is the 423 an older style than the 478? the 478 > is less expensive, is > > > that good? > > > bus speed, how will that impact the system, is > it worth the price? It > > > seems I have have to buy the fastest chip in > order to get the bigger bus > > > (maybe it just doesn't make sense with a slower > chip?) > > > > Newer ones are a bit more expensive in general, > but you should get new > > stuffs. Get the latest ones. They're faster and > better. > > > > > Jay > > > > Hi Jay, > > so you're going to install xp on it, aren't you? > > > > > > _ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > ___ > > > vox-tech mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech > > - -- > No Microsoft products were used in any way for the > creation of this message. > If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, > BEWARE! - I'm not > responsible for any harm you might encounter as a > result. > - -- > PGP Public key at > http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc > It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Versio
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE --- > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:17:18 -0800 (PST) > From: ME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote: > [chop] > > I just noticed that on my system Mandrake 8.1, with the following > > ethernet card (reported by lspci): > > > > 02:09.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX [Fast > > Etherlink] (rev 78) > [chop] > > Ahh yes. This is/should be supported. The 3c905 are covered with the linux > modules "3c5x9" > I didn't say I had a problem with my network card, I just said that `dmesg` didn't say anything about the card. Perhaps you missed it when I said that this ethernet card that `dmesg` didn't report was the one I was using to post my response to the list. So the question lies, what good is the `dmesg` test if it doesn't report a card I know to *is* working? ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
begin Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You're initializing K with a variable. Because globals are calculated at > compile time, i didn't know this distinction between globals and locals. i understand the error now. > you cannot have variables in the initialization of globals > (since a variable's value is not determined until runtime). And yes, > const variables are still variables, > and const variables are overwritable > under certain architectures by indirectly dereferencing it (but not on x86 > Linux). ah. i didn't know this either. ok. i've changed them to #define's. thanks mark! pete ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
You're initializing K with a variable. Because globals are calculated at
compile time, you cannot have variables in the initialization of globals
(since a variable's value is not determined until runtime). And yes,
const variables are still variables, and const variables are overwritable
under certain architectures by indirectly dereferencing it (but not on x86
Linux).
-Mark
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> when ratio and K are defined externally, gcc complains about a
> non-constant initializer:
>
>const double ratio = 2.0L;
>const double K = ratio;
>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0;
>}
>
> however, when defined as local variables, there's no problem.
>
>int main(void)
>{
> const double ratio = 2.0L;
> const double K = ratio;
>
> return 0;
>}
>
> why isn't const being honored for the global variable version?
>
> pete
> ___
> vox-tech mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>
--
Mark K. Kim
http://www.cbreak.org/mark/
PGP key available upon request.
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I had sshd on port 443, which is used by https. This was blocked. https websites, however, work fine. I've noticed that thier firewall likes to intercept telnet connections on the standard port, perhaps it's doing somthing like this for other protocals which is fouing up ssh. On Thursday, January 17 2002 01:21 pm, Mark K. Kim wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ryan wrote: > > I'd use ssh, but for some reason my school ( davis high ) has it blocked > > ( couldn't even get it to work on weird ports ) > > Perhaps they have all ports blocked except for the ones they want opened? > > -Mark - -- No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this message. PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8R19zEd9E83IXe8cRAl/yAJ9YpnwoLkSm0fGwimDmJBBbZaSovgCgsfpS 6dtaY2GE59jwwFHObC7yjNg= =ruBU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
begin Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MOn Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:31:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 January 2002, Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> In conclusion: If you are already a TeX- or LaTeX-guru, you probably
> have little reason to switch to DocBook (except that you need to write
> in DocBook format to write LDP HOWTOs, as Pete discovered). I picked
> it because it suits my particular needs, and YMMV, as always.
heh. i consider myself a docbook "layperson". i know enough to use it
effectively, but not enough to really understand all the terminology and
"bit's and pieces" of docbook.
as a layperson, i definitely defer to micah who seems to have attained
guru status in this area. from my own POV, here are some comments for
other laypeople:
1. docbook hurts the fingers. whereas latex users can talk about
\url{http://slashdot.org}, {\bf vmlinuz} and {\it important stuff\/},
docbook users talk about:
http://slashdot.org,
vmlinuz and important stuff
god forbid you write a paper about something like
dosemu, and you have two choices:
Carpal tunnel syndrome.
Make good use of vi
macros.
compare with:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Carpal tunnel syndrome.
\item Make good use of {\bf vi} macros.
\end{enumerate}
it may look like a small difference now, but write a 10 page
document, and you're talking about a significantly higher typing to
content ratio.
docbook is painful. with a good knowledge of emacs or vi, it's less
painful. but it still hurts. :)
2. for the average latex user, docbook is a loss of control of format.
for me, the HYPER use of content based markup is a double edged
sword. i know you can modify stylesheets. but danged if i know how!
it doesn't look easy. with latex, i can control the location of
every single dot of my document. and sometimes latex isn't happy
about the choices i make, like under/overfull hboxes and vboxes,
pictures that don't "float" well, i can ALWAYS force the issue.
ok, that being said, my recommendation is: if you have a choice of latex
or docbook, definitely pick docbook, hand's down. micah's reasons for
using it are much more persuasive than my reasons for not using it.
and the fact of the matter is, i do use docbook, grudgingly.
pete
--
The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more
complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated.
He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry'
PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
All good. The main reason is for writing Linux how-to's for my own amusements. Learning this looks like it'll be useful. The ability to convert the same set of text into a roughly parallel set of documents in txt, rtf, html (one page or menu'd) and pdf s appealling. Mainly in that when I write a set of documents for a job (generic how to, etc) I'll have a source that is easily convertable (not in MS WORD) and easily updateble. I know that tehre are some VI(M?) plugins that allow this and EMACS as well. One of these days I'll get the time to learn it. -sp ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
MOn Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:31:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 17 January 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > > > As to Office - I haven't used a Word Processor in a couple years. Not > > nearly enough power to 'em. Sure, the interface is convenient, but > > it's *power*, not convenience, that I crave - and for that, the choice > > is clear: content-oriented (vs. format-oriented) typesetting tools > > like TeX or FOP. Nobody's ever made a Word document can touch my > > DocBook documents. And I'm not even that good. > > > > Micah > > Hey, maybe you could do a presentation on DocBook. Why people > should use it and tools that would be useful, etc. That could be good. But it'd probably need to include some overview on SGML, DSSSL, XML, XSLT, XSL-FO, Norman Walsh's stylesheets, OpenJade, Xalan, FOP, PassiveTex, and maybe a little SVG. Actually, if I talked on just the variety of options you have for processing tools, and left the DocBook format itself for another talk, it might be possible to give a broad overview of those things. If people are interested in learning more about DocBook, allow me to make the following introduction to it. I love DocBook. I also love TeX (but am somewhat less comfortable with it). I think that XML/XSLT and TeX cover roughly the same niche in terms of document publishing, and either one can be used as tools of approximately equal power (though of course XML/XSLT covers a much broader range than just document publishing). Since many more UNIX/GNU/Linux users are already familiar with TeX (especially in using the LaTeX package), that is probably more often the ideal documentation tool for many people. My personal chocies have led me to prefer DocBook. The biggest differences in my mind between DocBook and LaTeX, are: 1. Both are considered to be "content-oriented", versus word processing or desktop publishing which are considered "format-oriented". In actuality, though, LaTeX is a *pseudo*-"content-oriented" high-level wrapper around what is really a "format-oriented" typesetting language (TeX), that happens to be powerful and flexible enough to allow you to be "sort-of content-oriented" when you want to be, due to the fact that you can wrap low-level functionality in high-level packages. However, at any point in writing a LaTeX document, you can immediately drop down to "low-level" again, writing in pure TeX commands. But even when you're dealing with LaTeX-only, there are many elements to it which are decidedly more format-oriented than content-oriented - i.e., there is nothing content-oriented at all about using /hfill or /vbox (or whatever they are). In contrast, DocBook really *is* purely content-oriented. DocBook has no mechanism for describing formatting at all - only content-oriented markup describing what a thing *is*, not what it looks like. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing - it is simply a distinguishing point. All formatting is described by a totally seperate document - the stylesheet driver, with which you specify exactly what you want the DocBook elements to look like. There is no point in a DocBook document at which you can "drop down" into low-level format-oriented stuff like you can in LaTeX - instead, you use the appropriate element, and edit your stylesheet to format it how you like it. This has the advantage of forcing your document to be highly structured, but it has the disadvantage of placing your power-of-formatting under the flexibility of DocBook (or whatever DTD or Schema you use for publishing). If you want to get a particular formatting element into your document but DocBook doesn't supply an appropriate element of which you can take advantage in your stylesheet, then you are out of luck. If you needed that element sorely, then the best thing you can do is make your own DocBook-like DTD, and invent the element you're lacking. There's nothing wrong with doing this - and so you're never really constricted in what you can do format-wise with XML/XSLT; however, once you go outside the realm of "pure" DocBook, you can't expect other people to take your XML or SGML as-is and do stuff with it unless you also pass around your DTD and your stylesheets. 2. I consider XML a more universal language of expression than LaTeX or TeX. Not that TeX isn't available on pretty much every platform that matters, but XML is in much more widespread use outside the realm of UNIX. Also, XML is "newer" than TeX - although it's really a redesign of SGML, which is about as old as TeX (don't know which is older). DocBook is available in both XML and SGML, and has itself been around for some time (but not as long as TeX), so this is a somewhat flimsy argument :) ...but mainly, XML (in general) has massive attention right now, in comparison with TeX, and so various XML-related technologies are cons
[vox-tech] C question: global vs local const
when ratio and K are defined externally, gcc complains about a
non-constant initializer:
const double ratio = 2.0L;
const double K = ratio;
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
however, when defined as local variables, there's no problem.
int main(void)
{
const double ratio = 2.0L;
const double K = ratio;
return 0;
}
why isn't const being honored for the global variable version?
pete
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:20:50PM -0800, ME wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > > I disagree. Leave it in, as I suspect it will be clear from the final > > resulting thread what happens to these sorts of offenders - let it be > > a warning to future prospective idiots. > > Humorous side note: > > This assumes that "idiots" take time to read archives, and (*gasp*) learn > from others mistakes/experiences. Excellently put. Still, if we don't at least make the *attempt*... at the very least, we can warn them by saying, "look what happened to the last guy who tried that"... Not that anything is going to "happen" to Takashi, provided he makes a very immediate 180-degree spin. Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
[vox-tech] MS products (was: Questions about building my own box
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > So do I, except for Office. Office is horrid. Interface is great - > but the resulting files are horrid. I agree with you, but I haven't found a word processor that does better output than Office. Well... maybe WordPerfect 5.1. But it has too many shortcomings, like a lack of GUI, WP-specific printer drivers, etc. > Especially compared to what I can > do with TeX or Apache's XML tools. [La]TeX is great for typesetting. For more visual-oriented documents, though, [La]TeX isn't the way to go. Like if I wanna make a pretty-looking table or putting things in alignment. For those tasks, I still use word processors, which means booting into Windows for Word because I don't like any of the word processors on Linux. > Not a chance. For a long time, I had lamented that there were no > browsers even *close* to comparable to MSIE. Now with recent versions > of Mozilla, I lament no more. In fact, I even prefer to use Mozilla > on my Windows machine. I still like IE the best. The last version of Mozilla I tried was way too slow for my taste (though I was probably using a version with debuging turned on.) Netscape is not very good. Opera comes pretty close, but there are too many things it can't do, like Flash plugins (I'm waiting for 6.0 to stabilize!) and the controls are a little querky, too. > Outlook I've never missed. Never liked it much anyway, and mutt, or > emacs' rmail-mode, offers me the ability to read my mail without > reaching for the mouse (which can be annoying). However, if I *did* > miss Outlook, I'd switch to Evolution - in fact, I am experimentally > switching anyway. I'm with you there. I use Outlook at work, and I can see how people might like it, especially with PDA syncing and stuff. I think the information is too localized on Outlook (or any similar program), though -- I like to be able to access all my info from any computer with Internet access. -Mark -- Mark K. Kim http://www.cbreak.org/mark/ PGP key available upon request. ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] DocBook
On Thu, 17 January 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > As to Office - I haven't used a Word Processor in a couple years. Not > nearly enough power to 'em. Sure, the interface is convenient, but > it's *power*, not convenience, that I crave - and for that, the choice > is clear: content-oriented (vs. format-oriented) typesetting tools > like TeX or FOP. Nobody's ever made a Word document can touch my > DocBook documents. And I'm not even that good. > > Micah Hey, maybe you could do a presentation on DocBook. Why people should use it and tools that would be useful, etc. -sp ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ryan wrote: > I'd use ssh, but for some reason my school ( davis high ) has it blocked ( > couldn't even get it to work on weird ports ) Perhaps they have all ports blocked except for the ones they want opened? -Mark -- Mark K. Kim http://www.cbreak.org/mark/ PGP key available upon request. ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Micah Cowan wrote: > I disagree. Leave it in, as I suspect it will be clear from the final > resulting thread what happens to these sorts of offenders - let it be > a warning to future prospective idiots. Humorous side note: This assumes that "idiots" take time to read archives, and (*gasp*) learn from others mistakes/experiences. -ME -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/CM$/IT$/LS$/S/O$ !d--(++) !s !a+++(-) C++$() U$(+$) P+$>+++ L+++$(++) E W+++$(+) N+ o K w+$>++>+++ O-@ M+$ V-$>- !PS !PE Y+ !PGP t@-(++) 5+@ X@ R- tv- b++ DI+++ D+ G--@ e+>++> h(++)>+ r*>? z? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- decode: http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/ about: http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html Systems Department Operating Systems Analyst for the SSU Library ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ken Bloom wrote:
[chop]
> I just noticed that on my system Mandrake 8.1, with the following
> ethernet card (reported by lspci):
>
> 02:09.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX [Fast
> Etherlink] (rev 78)
[chop]
Ahh yes. This is/should be supported. The 3c905 are covered with the linux
modules "3c5x9"
(Pulling from the Kernel Configure.help in /usr/src/linux/Documentation
and jumping to the right section)
--- [ start - copied from anotehr doc as cited]
3c590 series (592/595/597) "Vortex" support
CONFIG_VORTEX
If you have a 3Com "Vortex" (Fast EtherLink 3c590/3c592/3c595/3c597)
or "Boomerang" series (EtherLink XL 3c900 or 3c905) network
(Ethernet) card, say Y and read the Ethernet-HOWTO, available via
FTP (user: anonymous) in ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO.
More specific information is in Documentation/networking/vortex.txt
and in the comments at the beginning of drivers/net/3c59x.c.
If you want to compile this as a module ( = code which can be
inserted in and removed from the running kernel whenever you want),
say M here and read Documentation/modules.txt as well as
Documentation/networking/net-modules.txt.
--- [end]
This is the modules you will likely need in order to have your
"eth0" interface be used wit the 3com card mentioned.
To see if it is loaded (I dont expect it to be listed) try
# lsmod
If you see "3c59x" in the list of loaded modules, then we have a different
problem entirely. (Please say if you see this module loaded right now, and
we can follow that route. For now, I will assume it is just not yet
loaded and the instructions below can be followed.)
Assuming "3c59x" is not loaded, we can load it plus and modules that may
depend upon it with:
# modprobe 3c59x
(It may be "# modprobe 3c59x.o" It has been a while since I used it, and I
am not sure if the ".o" is assumed. If the first gives an error, thy the
one with the ".o")
Since it is a card that I have used before, experience dictates that you
should not need to hand any arguments. (There are always exceptions! ;-)
After you issue the above command, then try this:
# ifconfig eth0
If you see information about the interface like ethernet address, etc. You
can try this command:
# ifup eth0
(Assuming RH has this like Debian) To bring up the eth0 interface with the
configured settings you included before. (of course "# ifdown eth0" would
bring it down.)
Now try to ping your gateway
# ping w.x.y.z
(Where w.x.y.z is the ip address of your gateway)
(To stop the ping process, you can press control-c)
(Positive results would include one line each second being printed with a
measurement in latency in milliseconds (ms) for responses to the gateway)
If you can ping the gateway, then try using netscape, or some other tool to
use your networking.
If networking works, then you should make sure this modules gets loaded
upon each start of your system. To do this, edit /etc/modules and near the
top (after the comments) add "3c59x" (no quotes) on one line by
itself. You may want to test that you network comes up on reboot by
actually rebooting your system, though you do not NEED to reboot if you
dont want to verify this.
After the module is loaded at start, you should expect your system to
automatically set up and "up" the interface for you. All of the above
commands are really for troubleshooting, and would/should likely not be
needed once your system is completed with networking setup.
[chop]
> running dmesg | grep eth doesn't list any results, despite the fact
> that I (at this moment) am using that ethernet card from Linux,
> successfully, to post this response. What does it mean that my card
> doesn't show up but that it still works?
[chop]
lspci reports on PCI devices attached to your system, but not all devices
are *necessarily* configured to work with linux. This is kind of like
going to the Windows System control panel and looking at the devices, and
seeing devices that are installed but are not working (Exclamation marks,
or question marks.)
As a fun thing, if your card is recognized by the OS ("ifconfig eth0"
reports good info) try doing:
# cat /proc/interrupts
and you should the IRQ used by the enthernet card (will be next to the
entry with "eth0" or on the same line)
# cat /proc/ioports
and you should be able to see the io ports used by the ethernet card (next
to eth0 or on the same line(s).
I believe that you will only see the IO ports and IRQ of devices in these
proc-special files when the OS recognizes them - am not completely sure,
so if someone else claims otherwise, they may be right.
I frequently dump this data into a a text file on another system (as well
as other useful bits) just in case I need to know information about a
machine that has just had a serious hardware failure (SCSI Card blow-out
for example.)
Please let us know if the above works, or does not and where there are
problems - assuming there are any.
-ME
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Ve
Re: building Mozilla (was RE: [vox-tech] stable web browser?!?)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:28:36PM -0800, Holland, Matt wrote: > OK, so now I'm interested in building Mozilla... a non-debug, optimized > version as Gabe suggested. I downloaded the source for 0.9.5, read the Unix > build docs on mozilla.org, and still find myself a bit at a loss. Any > chance someone could post an example .mozconfig file with some comments on > which options to worry about? None of them. :) Seriously, if it's confusing, don't use .mozconfig - just hand the arguments to the configure script directly. Before building, I always just print out ./configure --help to find out what the options are. You'll definitely want PSM (Personal Security Manager or something like that) to visit secure sites. There's probably a couple others I'm forgetting - I like to enable SVG and MathML support, and Java, etc. Usually don't build in messaging stuff - I don't use 'em. Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:09:43PM -0600, Jay Strauss wrote: > Preface: I'm not starting a war, but > > I have my linux (HP, Sun et al) machines where I run Oracle, write my perl > scripts, monkey with DBI/DBD/Mod_perl stuff, but I like the M$ Office suite, > IE, and outlook. > > I don't love M$, but I like their above products. So do I, except for Office. Office is horrid. Interface is great - but the resulting files are horrid. Especially compared to what I can do with TeX or Apache's XML tools. > I tried to make the > switch to a linux desktop but didn't like the apps. I promise you guys, if > M$ ported Office, IE, and Outlook to *nix, you'd all be using them. Not a chance. For a long time, I had lamented that there were no browsers even *close* to comparable to MSIE. Now with recent versions of Mozilla, I lament no more. In fact, I even prefer to use Mozilla on my Windows machine. Outlook I've never missed. Never liked it much anyway, and mutt, or emacs' rmail-mode, offers me the ability to read my mail without reaching for the mouse (which can be annoying). However, if I *did* miss Outlook, I'd switch to Evolution - in fact, I am experimentally switching anyway. However, that Mozilla and Evolution have "stolen" so much from MSIE and Outlook are testaments to their solid GUI design (despite their crappy security, etc.). So obviously, those are some of MS's good products. But better ones now exist. As to Office - I haven't used a Word Processor in a couple years. Not nearly enough power to 'em. Sure, the interface is convenient, but it's *power*, not convenience, that I crave - and for that, the choice is clear: content-oriented (vs. format-oriented) typesetting tools like TeX or FOP. Nobody's ever made a Word document can touch my DocBook documents. And I'm not even that good. Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
begin Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:45:06PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > i sent some rather strong words to takashi about this email. hopefully, > > he won't send any more drivel like this again. > > > > this kind of email should be deleted from the archives. > > > > pete > > I disagree. Leave it in, as I suspect it will be clear from the final > resulting thread what happens to these sorts of offenders - let it be > a warning to future prospective idiots. ok, i absolutely agree with you here. i was kind of down in the dumps about the needless flame at that point. i'm feeling a bit better now. :) pete -- The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:45:06PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > i sent some rather strong words to takashi about this email. hopefully, > he won't send any more drivel like this again. > > this kind of email should be deleted from the archives. > > pete I disagree. Leave it in, as I suspect it will be clear from the final resulting thread what happens to these sorts of offenders - let it be a warning to future prospective idiots. Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [p@dirac.org: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box]
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:39:38AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:49:10PM -0800, Ajay wrote: > > briefly.. Hola.. > > > > * Richard Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020116 21:13], about > > > > :mentioned sending to him. This is, in my opinion, a very serious breach > > :of standard internet protocol. > > > > Please go ahead and read laws on email privacy. They all basically say > > 'you have none,' and basically all fall on common sense. > Regardless, it is plain indecent. It has little to do with law, Yeah... I was kind of confused where 'law' came into this. Richard said "breach of ... protocol." Asking him to read about e-mail privacy laws is about as relevant as asking him to go read a book on woodworking. ;) > and > everything to do with netiquette and just plain moral common sense. > Your argument about email privacy is completely irrelevant, IMO. Hehe... like Micah said. :) -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [p@dirac.org: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box]
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:53:15AM -0800, Gabriel Rosa wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Ajay wrote:
>
> > * Richard Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020116 21:13], about
> >
> > :mentioned sending to him. This is, in my opinion, a very serious breach
> > :of standard internet protocol.
> >
> > Please go ahead and read laws on email privacy. They all basically say
> > 'you have none,' and basically all fall on common sense. (Which is what a
> > lot of our laws are based on (I think the DMV manual explicitly states this
> > too ("use common sense"))). We all know email is as secure as a postcard,
> > and that's one reason. The more important, and common sense reason, is that
> > you don't want to say anything to anyone (over email) that you wouldn't want
> > public, you can by no means guarantee, or even expect, the privacy. I say
> > this is common sense because this is true in the "real" world. The only
> > thing is the online world occassionally allows for people to be left more
> > accountable.
>
> here's my analogy... :)
>
> If Johny turns to you in a class you particularly enjoy and says
> "This lecture is boring, the professor doesn't know how to captivate the
> class." you wouldn't stand up and yell out "Excuse me everyone, Johny thinks
> the professor is boring. What do you all think about this?"
>
> The situation may be different, but the same principle applies. Conversations
> that are taken out of list scope are taken out for a good reason,
> they shouldn't make their way back to the public because someone wants to
> bitch about getting their wrist slapped.
On USENET (particularly technical groups like comp.lang.c), most
regulars even have the presence of mind to not post email that has no
purpose other than to rant and insult and unjustly accuse. They
simply state that this is the case, and offer to prove this is the
case if the author will give permission to post the email (placing the
ball squarely in the offender's hands)
Micah
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [p@dirac.org: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box]
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:49:10PM -0800, Ajay wrote: > briefly.. Hola.. > > * Richard Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020116 21:13], about > > :mentioned sending to him. This is, in my opinion, a very serious breach > :of standard internet protocol. > > Please go ahead and read laws on email privacy. They all basically say > 'you have none,' and basically all fall on common sense. There is a huge difference between email privacy and this. This is often considered a possible breach of *copyright* law, since permission wasn't given to republish the letter (this is more of an issue in more public forums, such as USENET). Regardless, it is plain indecent. It has little to do with law, and everything to do with netiquette and just plain moral common sense. Your argument about email privacy is completely irrelevant, IMO. Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] sshd dying on debian (potato)
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:52:35PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote: > Does /var/log/messages say anything? I finally sat down at the little box and poked around. I noticed when I ran "/etc/init.d/ssh start", it didn't say anything. Examining the script, there seems to be something new... this test: test -f /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run && exit 0 Removal of the said file and re-running of the init-script worked, of course. :) I'd never seen this before, for some reason... Not sure how I ended up convincing the box to set it up for me, either. Oh well... I probably did an "aptget update/upgrade" one day and didn't notice some request to answer a configuration question. :) -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've done some more searching on freshmeat and have decided to try vtun http://vtun.sourceforge.net/ On Thursday, January 17 2002 09:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Take a look at tghis article and see if that fits your bill; > http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4772 > > -sp > > On Wed, 16 January 2002, Ryan wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I'd like to setup a VPN to let me access my home network whilst away from > > home. > > > > What I need > > 1. Encryption > > 2. Tunneling over telnet or http (http prefered) > > 3. Athuentication > > 4. Ability to route any connection to the internet or remote network over > > the VPN. (This is the point of a VPN isn't it?) > > > > I'd also like simple setup, but will deal with anything that takes less > > then 2 hours or so to get working. > > > > I've poked about on google and freshmeat, but the stuff i found didn't > > really have very good documentation. > > - -- > > No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this > > message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm > > not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result. > > - -- > > PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc > > It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > > > iD8DBQE8RiL7Ed9E83IXe8cRAnafAKCpC2smqydzQbFLl5CUqGLVQrE1PwCglPo6 > > iOOQI0lsSjyxlHknGzXKyM8= > > =lFSG > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > > vox-tech mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech > > ___ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech - -- No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result. - -- PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RyUaEd9E83IXe8cRApzvAJ9W44EBdn0MHKHT9Q8KxQ56KGsOEQCgvhch m4L2zwlFUkYB+I/asZWMwkA= =884H -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
/// ORIGINAL MESSAGE / > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:47:13 -0800 (PST) > From: ME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Another thing you can try (if you want) is this: > > # dmesg | grep eth > If you just see another: > # > Then that suggests no eth interfaces were found by the starting > kernel. (What I expect you would see.) I just noticed that on my system Mandrake 8.1, with the following ethernet card (reported by lspci): 02:09.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX [Fast Etherlink] (rev 78) running dmesg | grep eth doesn't list any results, despite the fact that I (at this moment) am using that ethernet card from Linux, successfully, to post this response. What does it mean that my card doesn't show up but that it still works? ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
I wouldn't use M$ Office unless I am forced to at work which I have been in the past. I've had no problem switching over to koffice and the Gnome office products. Rusty On Wednesday 16 January 2002 21:09, you wrote: > Preface: I'm not starting a war, but > > I have my linux (HP, Sun et al) machines where I run Oracle, write my perl > scripts, monkey with DBI/DBD/Mod_perl stuff, but I like the M$ Office > suite, IE, and outlook. > > I don't love M$, but I like their above products. I tried to make the > switch to a linux desktop but didn't like the apps. I promise you guys, if > M$ ported Office, IE, and Outlook to *nix, you'd all be using them. > > Jay > > - Original Message - > From: "Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:00 PM > Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box > > > Hey now, chill out. It's entirely like that he did not know AMD made CPUs. > > You don't need to flame his for using outlook express (although it does > suck), perhaps he is unable to get online under linux for some reason. > > Also, it's quite rude to accuse people of spam, if it was a spam attempt > there likely would have been some mention of a 'great deal' or 'sale' > > On Wednesday, January 16 2002 03:34 pm, Takashi Ishihara wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:17:19PM -0600, Jay Strauss wrote: > > > I'm thinking about building a new box, unfortunately I don't know > > > anything about hardware > > > > How unreasonable ppl are these days. > > Kids say the same thing. The difference btwn kids and this guy is > > kids don't know the fact that they are idiot, and this guy at least know > > that he does not know anything. > > > > And this guy is using wintel + outlook. > > For this kind of person, the only convinsing factors are > > 1. bigger is better. > > 2. faster is better. > > Go to fry's or compusa or wherever and ask the sales person. > > They tell you the same. > > > > > I'm using www.spartantech.com (because they're out where I live), my > > > first > > > > Does this line implies that you expect ppl on the mailing list to visit > > aforementioned uri, browse their products, and configure the system for > > you? Or was he hired by that company, and send this kind of ads to the > > mailing lists? > > > > > choice it the chip: > > > > Sure you should stick w/ wintel + rambus. > > > > > I have to choose: > > > socket 423 vs 478 > > > > Bigger is better. Naturally the answer would be 478. > > > > > bus speed 256 vs 512 > > > > Wider is better. Naturally the answer would be 512. > > > > > chip speed - I know what this is. > > > > Make sure to get the fastest one. > > > > > Is the 423 an older style than the 478? the 478 is less expensive, is > > > that good? > > > bus speed, how will that impact the system, is it worth the price? It > > > seems I have have to buy the fastest chip in order to get the bigger > > > bus (maybe it just doesn't make sense with a slower chip?) > > > > Newer ones are a bit more expensive in general, but you should get new > > stuffs. Get the latest ones. They're faster and better. > > > > > Jay > > > > Hi Jay, > > so you're going to install xp on it, aren't you? > > > > > _ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > ___ > > > vox-tech mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] phone supplies
I use Gray-bar, but some of the hardware stores are also very good like home-depot, contractors warehouse etc. I would stay away from radio shack though. Rusty On Wednesday 16 January 2002 18:19, you wrote: > hi all, > > can someone recommend a store that sells a wide variety of phone > jack mounting kits? I've seen some really nice ones in the past that > have alligator type connectors rather than wrap-around-the-screw based. > > the line that i want to mount is quite a challenge. it's a semi big > gaping hole; perhaps 3 cm radius, so a standard wall mount unit isn't > going to mountable without a backboard i can drill into. > > and i COULD do that. I'd rather find something that would look a little > nicer. i know these things come in all different shapes and sizes. > > if no recommendations, i go to the standard radio shack and frys. > > pete ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box -relevant
i mostly agree with steve; i'll just comment here and there. begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ok, > > Here's the base generalization. You want the most bang for your buck, > figure a minimum of 3 years before you can afford to upgrade again. > Do not skimp on the motherboard, that often determines the feasibility > of later CPU only upgrades. agreed. however, if you get a bleeding edge board, you may often have no choice to upgrade the CPU. the 266MHz FSB boards that came out about 6 months ago won't be able to support the new athlons that are going to be released soon. this shouldn't stop you from getting a bleeding edge board, though. power is fun. i also don't see the need for more than my 1.4GHz, 266fsb, ddr athlon for a very long time. OTOH, those of us who bought the 440BX boards many years ago saw the pentium II inch its way up to (what was it, 450MHz?) before a motherboard chipset upgrade was needed. that technology lasted a lng time! i don't think we'll ever see anything like that again. > AMD seems to have the best price/performance deals right now. If you > are going to build it yourself, assess your skillset and available > help, and go for it. It is the only way you will learn how to do > this. If Linux will be on it, 'MOST' new stuff will actually work > with it, those on this list can steer you around most known issues. months ago, support was shady for the newer athlon stuff. agp was non functional. it all fell into place with 2.4.10. at this point, there aren't really any issues i'm aware of. also -- athlon hardware is ... well, for want of a better word, "cranky". i tore my hair out trying to figure out why my system wouldn't work. turns out that you need amd approved cpu heatsink/fan and amd approved power supply. and they really mean it! if you go with amd, definitely do the research on what products are approved and stick with it. nothing sucks worse than having a non-functional system in front of you and having no idea whether the problem is the cpu, the memory, the power supply or whatnot. it's SO much easier diagnosing non-functional hardware when you have a similar functioning system sitting on the next table... > I buy my stuff from Fry's or online, depending on whim and where I am > when I decide to buy. www.pricewatch.com for online stuff. In > general, costs of shipping kill any savings gained from buying online, > though deals are still to be had. well, it doesn't kill -- it maims pretty badly. :) one tip: there are so many online places, don't buy from any company that doesn't have a "satisfaction guarantee", like tigerdirect.com. don't patronize places that won't give your money back if you're not happy with the merchandise. it's a buyer's market, not a seller's. > Buying local has the advantage of > faster return. Oh yea, don't believe anything the Fry's guys say, > they range from correct to wildly wrong. i think fry's and radio shack must swap salespeople periodically... :) > Last, it is generally more expensive to build your own. BUT, you are > generally building performance systems when you do that. Pre-built > systems make the compromises for you, but by examining their secs, you > can determine if they are compromises you can live with. agreed, except if you have a system you can cannibalize for peripherals, it might be cheaper to roll your own. your video card can be 1/4 of the price of the whole system... also - don't spend too much money on sound cards. i've had many of them in my life, and i honestly can't tell that much of a difference between any of them. speakers seem to go a longer way than sound cards... pete -- The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
Take a look at tghis article and see if that fits your bill; http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4772 -sp On Wed, 16 January 2002, Ryan wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'd like to setup a VPN to let me access my home network whilst away from > home. > > What I need > 1. Encryption > 2. Tunneling over telnet or http (http prefered) > 3. Athuentication > 4. Ability to route any connection to the internet or remote network over the > VPN. (This is the point of a VPN isn't it?) > > I'd also like simple setup, but will deal with anything that takes less then > 2 hours or so to get working. > > I've poked about on google and freshmeat, but the stuff i found didn't really > have very good documentation. > - -- > No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this message. > If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm not > responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result. > - -- > PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc > It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE8RiL7Ed9E83IXe8cRAnafAKCpC2smqydzQbFLl5CUqGLVQrE1PwCglPo6 > iOOQI0lsSjyxlHknGzXKyM8= > =lFSG > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box -relevant
Ok, Here's the base generalization. You want the most bang for your buck, figure a minimum of 3 years before you can afford to upgrade again. Do not skimp on the motherboard, that often determines the feasibility of later CPU only upgrades. ASUS makes good boards that have long life due to BIOS updates, but there are several others. I have had good luck with AOpen, ABit, ASUS and Shuttle. AMD seems to have the best price/performance deals right now. If you are going to build it yourself, assess your skillset and available help, and go for it. It is the only way you will learn how to do this. If Linux will be on it, 'MOST' new stuff will actually work with it, those on this list can steer you around most known issues. I buy my stuff from Fry's or online, depending on whim and where I am when I decide to buy. www.pricewatch.com for online stuff. In general, costs of shipping kill any savings gained from buying online, though deals are still to be had. Buying local has the advantage of faster return. Oh yea, don't believe anything the Fry's guys say, they range from correct to wildly wrong. Last, it is generally more expensive to build your own. BUT, you are generally building performance systems when you do that. Pre-built systems make the compromises for you, but by examining their secs, you can determine if they are compromises you can live with. Have fun, -sp ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] phone supplies
I have found that some of the Home Depot have a decent section of connectors/mounting plates for a wider variety of A/V hardware then I had previously believed. The one in Elk Grove has most of an aisle with everything from Ethernet hookups, sterio wallplates and phone testing equipment. If you are going to put a box in, you want to go for a 'remodel' type box. You would generally cut a hole 'just' big enough to slide the box in. It then has 'ears' that swing out to anchor it to the drywall. Have fun. -sp On Wed, 16 January 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > hi all, > > can someone recommend a store that sells a wide variety of phone > jack mounting kits? i've seen some really nice ones in the past that > have alligator type connectors rather than wrap-around-the-screw based. > > the line that i want to mount is quite a challange. it's a semi big > gaping hole; perhaps 3 cm radius, so a standard wall mount unit isn't > going to mountable without a backboard i can drill into. > > and i COULD do that. i'd rather find something that would look a little > nicer. i know these things come in all different shapes and sizes. > > if no recommendations, i go to the standard radio shack and frys. > > pete > > -- > The mathematics [of physics] has become ever more abstract, rather than more > complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. > He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's `Fearful Symmetry' > > PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D > ___ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'd use ssh, but for some reason my school ( davis high ) has it blocked ( couldn't even get it to work on weird ports ) On Thursday, January 17 2002 01:10 am, Gabriel Rosa wrote: > > 2. Tunneling over telnet or http (http prefered) > > I'm not sure what you mean. How do you want to access your data? Because I sometimes need to get at stuff at school ( but can't because I dont's use anything with cleartext passwords ), I need to encapsulate an ssh connection over either telnet or http. > > 3. Athuentication > > You might even want to look into authentication key pairs, if you're using > a laptop or some private system. This will make using scp more convenient, > as you won't have to type out your password all the time. It's kind of > annoying when using CVS over ssh to have to type your password at every > commit/update. Use keypairs already, I like them. - -- No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result. - -- PGP Public key at http://mother.com/~ryan/ryan_at_mother_dot_com.asc It is also on the servers: Key ID 0x72177BC7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RuxuEd9E83IXe8cRAiEOAJ486vTBTFGoJwuKRcsabaSSmnKFYACgu2xZ imtDJXbQD2F9JO0OslrEptY= =Fvyh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] phone supplies
Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > hi all, > > can someone recommend a store that sells a wide variety of phone > jack mounting kits?[snip] Graybar (www.graybar.com), but you need to know someone with a wholesalers licence. They have a comprehensive selection. There is one in Sacramento off of 80, Arden exit, I think. -- Eric Engelhard ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Network Configuration
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Eric C. Moloy wrote: > # ifconifg > # ifconfig eth0 Yes, this is what I wanted. :-) (See below) > THE FOLLOWING IS OUTPUT FROM THE COMMAND SHELL IN ROOT: > > [root@penguin /root]# ifconfig > loLink encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 > RX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 (Please dont think I am being condescending here. I try to target information for not the the informed but the uninformed who might also be reading along with you.) Note the above is missing the "eth0" interface? In many x86 Linux systems, ifconfig will report all activated (up) interfaces when you run it without arguements. The above suggests that "eth0" is not really activated at all. (One of the reasons I suggest these commands be run.) (lo is a loopback interface, or a pseudo interface to allow the computer to "talk to itself" over a network without sending any network traffic to a wire. As a side note, you can ping 127.0.0.1 and see responses even though those pings are not going to a real netowr wire.) > [root@penguin /root]# ifconfig eth0 > eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found Ah. An explicit call to ifconfig this interface produces these results. This strongly suggests that the ethernet card has not been recognized at all by Linux. Either the driver has not been loaded, the driver loaded for the card has problems or, the card does not work with Linux with your currect configuration of kernel and drivers. (I am sure there are other possible reasons, but these include about 96% by experience.) Now it appears to be a driver problem. (Good start to identification) Who makes your ethernet card? What is the model? What IRQ and IO ports does it use? Is it PCI, EISA, ISA, or? (If you need help with the above, we can prompt you with more specific information on the questions. Acronyms and abbrevions used can sometimes be foreign when you are unfamiliar with them.) If you have Windows running on this box, you can try booting into windows and seeing what the name and model of the ethernet card windows says you have as well as IRQ and IO ports. Look at the originbal computer information to see what model ethernet card you have. If it is a PCI based Ethernet card, you can copy and past the results of # lspci and we might be able to find out answers to the above. Knowing the model, vendor, IO ports and IRQ are some key things that many of us can likely use to help you get the card recognized. (Sometimes they are needed to tell Linux where to find the device for which the driver is being loaded.) Once eth0 is recognized, we can proceed with the rest of the items (that will likely just "work" with very little more work.) Another thing you can try (if you want) is this: # dmesg | grep eth If you just see another: # Then that suggests no eth interfaces were found by the starting kernel. (What I expect you would see.) If you see a result that includes the word "eth" followed by a number grater than or equal to zero (e.g. eth0, eth1, eth2) then we have a very interresting problem indeed. If after getting your hardware to be recognized there are stil problems, we can look to ipchains or network filters or physical wiring errors. -ME -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/CM$/IT$/LS$/S/O$ !d--(++) !s !a+++(-) C++$() U$(+$) P+$>+++ L+++$(++) E W+++$(+) N+ o K w+$>++>+++ O-@ M+$ V-$>- !PS !PE Y+ !PGP t@-(++) 5+@ X@ R- tv- b++ DI+++ D+ G--@ e+>++> h(++)>+ r*>? z? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- decode: http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/ about: http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [p@dirac.org: Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my ownbox]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Ajay wrote:
> * Richard Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020116 21:13], about
>
> :mentioned sending to him. This is, in my opinion, a very serious breach
> :of standard internet protocol.
>
> Please go ahead and read laws on email privacy. They all basically say
> 'you have none,' and basically all fall on common sense. (Which is what a
> lot of our laws are based on (I think the DMV manual explicitly states this
> too ("use common sense"))). We all know email is as secure as a postcard,
> and that's one reason. The more important, and common sense reason, is that
> you don't want to say anything to anyone (over email) that you wouldn't want
> public, you can by no means guarantee, or even expect, the privacy. I say
> this is common sense because this is true in the "real" world. The only
> thing is the online world occassionally allows for people to be left more
> accountable.
here's my analogy... :)
If Johny turns to you in a class you particularly enjoy and says
"This lecture is boring, the professor doesn't know how to captivate the
class." you wouldn't stand up and yell out "Excuse me everyone, Johny thinks
the professor is boring. What do you all think about this?"
The situation may be different, but the same principle applies. Conversations
that are taken out of list scope are taken out for a good reason,
they shouldn't make their way back to the public because someone wants to
bitch about getting their wrist slapped.
>
> I don't think I wish for this list to be a meritocracy (a la svlug), but as
All mailing lists are meritocracies. They all have their Alan Coxs and their
Jeff Newmillers :) When I read vox, the first threads I read are the ones
that have posts from people I know have something to contribute, or are
on a subject that I feel that I can make a contribution to.
> If one wanted to ask for good sites to do hw research (anandtech, tom's, etc
> etc there are so many nowadays), that should be a reasonable query, because
> again, there are so many. (and some are supposedly biased in a myriad of
> ways.) (The reason for this of course is none of us can be acclaimed to be
> hw experts, so soliciting our opinion on lesser known/used products..)
> (If it means anything, Takashi's was the most specific of all the responses
> I saw.(in terms of content))
It comes down to a simple point, IMHO vox-tech is a place to come to for
when you know something, yet you need a steering, a recommendation, a sagely
ear. It is _assumed_ that you have already done your research before posting
here.
I consider vox-tech to be... of a higher level than vox. The traffic tends
to be more informative, the posters are generally more educated.
It is no place for elite sarcastic remarks, no matter how much more
informative the post may be.
> :On a separate note, I would say that whoever created and maintains a
> :mailing list has the right to say what goes on on that list.
(Sorry about commenting on someone else's idea)
Absolutely. He's there to make our reading more enjoyable as a whole.
>
> This goes into the realms of censorship, trademark of a dictatorship.
I disagree, I think it goes into the realms of respectfulness. The list
maintainer is there to make sure we don't abuse the list, or each other.
>
> I believe that lugod (like linux) is a community onto itself, and as such
> would be subject to community standards/rules/regulations, not Ex Post Law.
> (created by a single supreme arbiter with punishments created at the same
> time as the laws.)
> (or anarchy in the internet sense of the word.)
I agree. I think this is were "common sense" kicks in. But I also think that
as the elected (or, unchallenged perhaps) list maintainer, Pete has the right
to pick out what is obviously inappropriate and warn the poster.
I really like the way vox/vox-tech have been for the last little while.
It's not often I think about it, but it's much more enjoyable to post to
readers who'll read my remarks and argue for/against them for what they are,
not using personal remarks to win their points. Whenever a flame war breaks
out, we all end up being neurotic and over analysing every period, terminating
preposition and split infinitive in each other's posts ;)
-Gabe
___
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Virtual Private Networking Suguestions.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Ryan wrote: > I'd like to setup a VPN to let me access my home network whilst away from > home. an excellent move. I can't stress the convenience factor of being able to fetch files from home enough. Sounds like you might be looking at one of the many uses of ssh :) > > What I need > 1. Encryption Blowfish is a fairly secure, fast algorithm, from what i understand. > 2. Tunneling over telnet or http (http prefered) I'm not sure what you mean. How do you want to access your data? > 3. Athuentication You might even want to look into authentication key pairs, if you're using a laptop or some private system. This will make using scp more convenient, as you won't have to type out your password all the time. It's kind of annoying when using CVS over ssh to have to type your password at every commit/update. > 4. Ability to route any connection to the internet or remote network over the > VPN. (This is the point of a VPN isn't it?) Ssh can do encrypted port forwarding. I've used it as a proxy from isun to home so that i could check out my webserver from the outside. You should be able to forward just about anything over ssh though. > > I'd also like simple setup, but will deal with anything that takes less then > 2 hours or so to get working. The man page goes into some detail on port forwarding and key authentication. That is always a good read. > > I've poked about on google and freshmeat, but the stuff i found didn't really > have very good documentation. Have you tried serching freshmeat for a VPN package? I see several hits, including one that encapsulates tcp/ip. -Gabe ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Questions about building my own box
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Jay Strauss wrote: > I don't love M$, but I like their above products. I tried to make the > switch to a linux desktop but didn't like the apps. I promise you guys, if > M$ ported Office, IE, and Outlook to *nix, you'd all be using them. You might be interested in running Evolution (it just hit 1.0 a couple of weeks back). It is supposedly very Outlook like, with that being it borrowed the features, not the bugs :) -Gabe ___ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
