> And there is only short list of advantages.
> The main disadvantage for me was very rare kernel with ugly support for
> new hardware - so, when I take new LAN card (i82576) and discover that
> drivers for 2.4 are quite buggy, I decided to try to migrate on 2.6
> kernel, and it was easier that
> You could also have switched to alpine linux, which satisfies 1-4
> above and also provides you with a recent 2.6 grsecured kernel by
> default.
>
I already have experience with porting & building packages for LEAF;
also I have some maintenance/administrative/task-specific scripts, that
mu
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a
>> standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs
>> the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-)
>>
> I use LEAF for more powerful tasks t
I agree with Andrew's reasons for using LEAF. It has been my perimeter
firewall for many years. However, by far, my preferred network
architecture involves a perimeter firewall as a "standalone" box that
does only that "first line of defense" job. I put some value on being
able to Power-Cycle my
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 16:28 +0200, Erich Titl wrote:
> Mike Noyes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> >>> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy
> >>> version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions
> >> I'm not sure I
Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
>>> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy
>>> version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions
>> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a
>> standalon
> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a
> standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs
> the hardware support for a box that's entirely too powerful? ;-)
>
I use LEAF for more powerful tasks that home router/storage, and we have
more than 400M
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 09:13 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy
> > version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions
>
> I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a
> standalone LEAF/Bering firew
> The 2.6 kernel is that large, that a runnable _and_ useful floppy
> version in the way we provided it with the kernel 2.4- based versions
I'm not sure I understand why someone wants a 2.6 kernel to run a
standalone LEAF/Bering firewall. Can't find an old box and needs
the hardware support for a
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 18:17 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
-snip-
> > Maybe we create a basic bootable floppy version, where packages can be
> > added...
>
> But you've already got that in the existing/previous versions. Just
> leave them available is all I'm suggesting.
Paul,
The old versions will b
On 04/28/10 17:57, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
>
>>> That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project,
>>> which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a
>>> 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable
> > I'm still running Bering-1.2.
>
> Wow, that's a pretty old version. I suggest you better update due to
> security reasons.
I may give it some consideration after I get a chance to see 3.01 in
action. I'm running a fairly restrictive internal firewall also.
> The 2.6 kernel is that large, tha
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project,
> > which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a
> > 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall
>
> I'm still running Ber
Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 00:01:14 schrieb Paul Rogers:
> > That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project,
> > which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a
> > 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall
>
> I'm still running
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:50 +0200, Martin Hejl wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> > KP,
> > See:
> > http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/
>
> Something doesn't seem to be quite right either with the cvs-commits
> list, or with Andrew's permissions to post to that list - at least,
> th
> That said I hope that both efforts will end up in a joint project,
> which may (or should?) get a new name. Not only that it is based on a
> 2.6 kernel and it marks the end of floppy-runnable versions, it shall
I'm still running Bering-1.2. I would only wish that the floppy
versions should be g
Hi Mike,
> KP,
> See:
>
> http://leaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/leaf/src/bering-uclibc4/
Something doesn't seem to be quite right either with the cvs-commits
list, or with Andrew's permissions to post to that list - at least,
that's how I read the total lack of messages on that list for the com
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:06 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
-snip-
> I think, once Andrew commits his work into src, we can try to build a new
> beta
> version and to go on from there with a new name, with a new repository - and
> if necessary with a new version control system. But lets have the c
Am Dienstag, 27. April 2010 23:26:20 schrieb Martin Hejl:
> Hi everybody,
>
> > the UnNamedOne was a "design study" two years ago by Martin Hejl, which
> > is different from Andrews work.
>
> the first part is not quite true - it was a joint effort by Dirk Gförer,
> Eric Spakman and myself (and tru
Hi everybody,
> the UnNamedOne was a "design study" two years ago by Martin Hejl, which is
> different from Andrews work.
the first part is not quite true - it was a joint effort by Dirk Gförer,
Eric Spakman and myself (and truth to be told, my part in it probably
was the smallest one). I just w
Am Dienstag, 27. April 2010 02:42:35 schrieb Paul Rogers:
> > How about one of these straits:
>
> Darwin Straits in Tierra del Fuego?
>
> I've always thought the Skagerrak & Kattegat were neat names.
> Maybe a bit wide, depending on how narrow one thinks a "strait"
> should be.
Paul;
the UnNamedO
> How about one of these straits:
>
Darwin Straits in Tierra del Fuego?
I've always thought the Skagerrak & Kattegat were neat names.
Maybe a bit wide, depending on how narrow one thinks a "strait"
should be.
--
Paul Rogers
paulgrog...@fastmail.fm
http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/
Rogers' Second L
22 matches
Mail list logo
