On 08 Jul 2014, at 09:58, Henning Brauer wrote:
> this has NOTHING to do with the problem or the question at hand.
So then what has it to do with? You tell me I missed the obvious
but don't provide your arguments.
Lucky, I've been asked to leave this mailing list so you don't have
to bother.
On 06 Jul 2014, at 01:01, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
> The rumors are that npf is a vaporware.
npf(4) is a chain of clever data structures. How well that translates
to the actual requirements of the networking domain I can't see.
> DragonFly community is tiny.
You mean alive and well. That's a
On 08 Jul 2014, at 04:55, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Franco Fichtner [2014-07-06 00:29]:
>> Missing SMP support is the fork in the road. The window of opportunity
>> seems to be closing. A penny for Henning's thoughts on this...
>
> my thoughts are only worth pennies
On 05 Jul 2014, at 23:42, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
> I have immense respect for Matt as a user of his code since Amiga C
> compiler. I probably speak for lots of people both in OpenBSD and
> DragonFly camp if I say that I would prefer him to finish HAMMER2 and
> leave concurrent threading in PF t
On 29 Jun 2014, at 13:43, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Why are people poluting our lists with systemd rants??? There is nothing to
> discuss since we do not want and will never have systemd. If you don't
> understand what the systemd-utl GSoC is about then move along.
First of all, this is misc@.
On 28 Jun 2014, at 19:55, frank ernest wrote:
> wanted to know, before assuming that it is the case everywhere, do people
> really not like systemd and is it really hurting bsd? If so, I'd be
> interested in doing something about it. Thanks, David
A fact is that systemd slowly tears the open sou
On 07 Jun 2014, at 08:38, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Contributing code upstream would have been a way more productive
> approach;
It's already been stated that working with upstream is out of
the question for at least the following reasons:
* Bugs linger unattended for years.
* The code style is
On 06 May 2014, at 19:32, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:50, Dustin Lundquist wrote:
>> Does anyone have any information that can share?
>>
>>http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gjkivAf3
>
> OpenBSD isn't affected, so no need to worry.
Thanks, now I do worry.
Hi Richard,
On 05 May 2014, at 14:21, Richard Thornton wrote:
> Does anybody know of any integration between PF and ndpi?
the previous consensus[1] was that pf(4) and DPI do not mix very well, but
you can probably use relayd(8) and run e.g. NDPI on top[2]. Grabbing all
traffic is not really fa
Shut up and take my money. And keep up the great work.
On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> perhaps. either Mt is fairly new, or i never noticed it before. we could
> wholesale change stuff, but haven;t yet. it probably does make sense for
> folks who want stuff like html pages.
>
> i did add an Mt fairly recently, but there can;t be
On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:
>
>> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
>> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
>
> You might find the cvsps package
On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-01-13, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> There should be a let-me-find-that-man-page-for-you for that sort of thing.
>
> There is - post the question to misc@!
>
>> Or if there only was a way to search in man pages
On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:47 PM, MichaĆ Markowski wrote:
> 2013/1/13 Random, Eyes :
>> I have an OpenBSD 5.1 installed + a cable from my ISP. I have the
>> username/password for the PPPoE connection, but how can I configure
>> the connection to be permanent? (I have 1 interface on the machine.)
>
> h
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Because they can just hack it on top of their crusty old ftp server
>> software, whereas using sftp would need much bigger changes?
>
> SSL/TLS makes everything more secure
And DPI-based products are slow to fix their issues caused by th
On Nov 17, 2012, at 3:49 AM, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/524606/
>
> don't have a subscription but for those who do, enjoy.
I like Jonathan's work, but this article is ill-conceived. He picks
up on Marc's upstream vendor remarks, then turns this into an issue
of BSD does not
On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer:
Thanks, Marc. Good listing! I wonder what CVS brings to the table on the
bright side?
I understand everything that's been said. I've even come to hate GPL'ed
software just because of u
On Jul 17, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2012, at 13:50, Gerald Thornberry wrote:
>
>> For those of us who don't have the hardware, is there a "shipping
>> fund" we could donate to? I wouldn't mind chipping in to help get the
>> hardware where it's needed.
>
> I need t
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Franco Fichtner [2012-07-04 11:43]:
>> No, the great catch here is that VSX offers you tools to manage up
>> to 250 of these virtual monsters in a centralized fashion. You can
>> also give control of these firewalls t
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:13 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jiri B wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:29:04AM +0200, C. L. Martinez wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I wonder if with OpenBSD is possible to create virtualized firewalled
>>> implementations of conventional phys
On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>>> A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
>>> between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
>>> have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
>>>
>>> Among other things.
>>>
On Jun 20, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Peter Laufenberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Jay Patel wrote:
>>> Hi all users,
>>>
>>> I am users too. Thanks cody. I am learning C too. from "C primus
>>> plus" any thoughts from devs. which we should read?
>>
>> Udacity.com had a good python clas
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Ryan McBride wrote:
> No, there is no single mutex around PF specifically in OpenBSD, the
> whole kernel is wrapped in a biglock.
>
> I think if they work out all the nits and dead-ends we may have
> something to learn from this effort, but I don't see this code comi
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:43, Holger Glaess wrote:
>
>> i dident wont start about smp on openbsd but
>>
>> what about this porject ?
>
> Did you read the part below? I think it's pretty clear this project
> isn't going to have much relevance f
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 02:14:08PM -0400, Chris Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>>> The original post had nothing to do with OpenBSD, some nitwit hijacked
>>> the comment thread. I don't think the author has any
Hi Stefan,
On May 24, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Stefan Wollny wrote:
> Question:
> "3. Is the technique used also able to at least in part decode and/or
> analyze encrypted communication (e.g. by SSH of PGP)?"
>
> Answer:
> "Yes, the technique used is in principle able to do this, depending on
> the way
26 matches
Mail list logo