OKso I'm using some strong language. Sorry. :(
This friggin' thing *stil* isn't workin'...
(1) I have utilized a server that is a 1 GHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and a 20
GB hard drive. This is a COMPAQ desktop, and supports multi-thread.
(2) I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 loaded on
Bob, since we were able to help you through your previous three
(fairly simple) build problems back in November, perhaps you should
share whatever error(s) you're seeing. WRT whether cosign "works",
I'd guess the hundreds of thousands of people who use cosign daily at
numerous unrelated si
To be fair to Bob, the documentation for the cosign compile, install,
and configure process is a bit lacking compared to what people might
expect from other open source projects.
We were able to get cosign installed for a non-profit that needed
single sign on, but only by cobbling together d
Trek Glowacki wrote:
> To be fair to Bob, the documentation for the cosign compile, install,
> and configure process is a bit lacking compared to what people might
> expect from other open source projects.
>
> We were able to get cosign installed for a non-profit that needed
> single sign on
I won't repeat anything Wes has said. Please read his message. Also,
note that I just run the production cosign servers for the University of
Michigan, I'm not one of the cosign developers/maintainers.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:37 PM, Bob Radvanovsky
wrote:
> (2) I have Red Hat Enterprise Lin
Hey guys, I've been gone the last few days so I'm sure I'm going to
rehash lots of comments/questions. If nothing else, I hope it can
serve as a reminder to anyone scanning the archives that
well-informed, detailed questions are a Good Thing.
Bob, I'm not attacking you but I'd like to repeat a few
h.edu/slc/
-Original Message-
From: Mark Montague [mailto:markm...@umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:35 AM
To: Bob Radvanovsky
Cc: cosign-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Cosign-discuss] This friggin' sucks
I won't repeat anything Wes has said.
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:16, Richard Blocker wrote:
> I heartily agree with this. I put considerable time into getting
> cosign to work on several Linux systems a little over a year ago
> and it was extremely difficult to get to a point where things came
> together. Such useful and carefully con
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:05, Trek Glowacki wrote:
> If anyone (preferably someone near umich) is interested in donating
> their superior technical expertise with cosign, I'd love to spend
> time writing a tiny book explaining how to set up a cosign server
> at a new institution and how to integr
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Wesley Craig wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:05, Trek Glowacki wrote:
>> If anyone (preferably someone near umich) is interested in donating
>> their superior technical expertise with cosign, I'd love to spend
>> time writing a tiny book explaining how to set up a c
On 03 Mar 2009, at 14:24, Trek Glowacki wrote:
> Ugh, I never though I'd say "as a certified librarian" but : as a
> certified librarian I couldn't disagree more.
I was going with the principle that "something is better than
nothing". And "perfect is the enemy of good". But what do I know?
On Mar 3, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Wesley Craig wrote:
> On 03 Mar 2009, at 14:24, Trek Glowacki wrote:
>> Ugh, I never though I'd say "as a certified librarian" but : as a
>> certified librarian I couldn't disagree more.
>
> I was going with the principle that "something is better than
> nothing".
* Trek Glowacki [2009-03-03 21:24]:
> So, to a third party observer both versions of the Cosign Equation
> evaluate to "no value".Not knowing the exact parameters of the
> Equation he can only assume one of the two:
>
> Nothing, Nowhere ("cosign technical expertise is in fact a myth. Th
On Mar 4, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Peter Schober wrote:
> * Trek Glowacki [2009-03-03 21:24]:
>> So, to a third party observer both versions of the Cosign Equation
>> evaluate to "no value".Not knowing the exact parameters of the
>> Equation he can only assume one of the two:
>>
>> Nothing, Nowher
This thread wandered into the weeds a while ago. It's now closed.
On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Trek Glowacki wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Peter Schober wrote:
>
>> * Trek Glowacki [2009-03-03 21:24]:
>>> So, to a third party observer both versions of the Cosign Equation
>>> evaluate to
15 matches
Mail list logo
