On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 14:14:25 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> (sorry, out of thread; copying from the marc.info post so
> References/In-Reply-To aren't set)
>
> > I am looking to understand / enhance the OpenBSD experience for
> > blind users.
>
> While not blind, I occasionally attempt to do some sc
Hi Lion Ritchie checkout
https://www.openbsd.org/want.html
Thit might put you in the right direction also
Fair ball for donating...
On Friday, 17 May 2019, Lion Ritchie wrote:
> Hi Theo & friends,
>
> I've been running a couple EdgeRouter 4s for ~6 months now and was thinking
> of setting u
Hi Theo & friends,
I've been running a couple EdgeRouter 4s for ~6 months now and was thinking
of setting up a private syspatch box. A friend recommended I contact
you and offer to send 2-3 Edge Routers (4 or 6Ps maybe?) so you can
implement syspatch for everyone instead?
If this is something you
On May 17, 2019 3:14 PM, gwes wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
> > an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
> >
> > Maybe t
(sorry, out of thread; copying from the marc.info post so
References/In-Reply-To aren't set)
> I am looking to understand / enhance the OpenBSD experience for
> blind users.
While not blind, I occasionally attempt to do some screenless testing
with accessibility-tech on OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Linu
On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
Maybe that could work for "normal delete" while making available a separate
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
>
> In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
> an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
> (I understand that for technical reasons, this could require running a
> daemon that remembers just enough metadata
On 17/05/2019, Roderick wrote:
> As far as I know, DOS was not multitasking.
You're mostly correct, except there were task-switchers and there were
some multitasking-capable versions of DOS, notably Novell (ex-DR-) DOS
7. This was not very successful in the marketplace, in part because it
was lat
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2019/05/16 23:37, Rachel Roch wrote:
> > > RFC3513 says this:
> > >
> > > o An anycast address must not be used as the source address of
> > > an IPv6 packet.
> > >
> > > o An anycast address must not be assigned to an IPv6 host, that
To chime in here, how I have always implemented Anycast DNS
is by creating additional Loopback adapters in the OS, and then
using BGP or OSPF to distribute said Loopback IPs into a routing
table.
Each DNS server participating in Anycast would have the same
IPv4 and IPv6 address configured on that
On 2019/05/16 23:37, Rachel Roch wrote:
>
>
> > RFC3513 says this:
> >
> > o An anycast address must not be used as the source address of
> > an IPv6 packet.
> >
> > o An anycast address must not be assigned to an IPv6 host, that
> > is, it may be assigned to an IPv6 router only.
> >
> > And
On Thu, 16 May 2019, Joel Carnat wrote:
> On Thu 16/05 08:55, Paco Esteban wrote:
> > Can't say about your VM. On my desktop:
> >
> > $ time (khard list | wc -l)
> >104
> > ( khard list | wc -l; ) 0.51s user 0.25s system 97% cpu 0.779 total
> >
>
> Is this on OpenBSD ? The time out
On Fri, 17 May 2019, gwes wrote:
You are correct on the surface and very misled as to the underlying concept.
You gave him an excellent answer. I hope many people read it.
He should just read the Unix paper I mentioned in other post. Not
the multiusersystem is a burden, bloat in modern unix
13 matches
Mail list logo
