On Mar 2, 9:45pm, pr...@cam.ac.uk (Patrick Welche) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Last version of of citrix Client core dumps (Was Re: How to r
| On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:11:53PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > In article <20160226154046.ga1...@quark.internal.precedence.co.uk>,
| > Patrick Welche w
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:11:53PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20160226154046.ga1...@quark.internal.precedence.co.uk>,
> Patrick Welche wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 02:30:21PM +0100, Stephan wrote:
> >> The assembly looks like junk and considering the adresses, you have
> >>
In article <20160226154046.ga1...@quark.internal.precedence.co.uk>,
Patrick Welche wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 02:30:21PM +0100, Stephan wrote:
>> The assembly looks like junk and considering the adresses, you have
>> tried to disassemble some memory on the stack. Is this a 64-bit wfica
>> bi
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 02:30:21PM +0100, Stephan wrote:
> The assembly looks like junk and considering the adresses, you have
> tried to disassemble some memory on the stack. Is this a 64-bit wfica
> binary?
This is from:
/usr/pkgsrc/distfiles/linuxx64-13.3.0.344519.tar.gz
> Either way, this se
The assembly looks like junk and considering the adresses, you have
tried to disassemble some memory on the stack. Is this a 64-bit wfica
binary?
Either way, this seems to be a completely different case. How does the
backtrace look like?
2016-02-26 13:01 GMT+01:00 Patrick Welche :
> On Fri, Feb 2
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:22:38AM +0100, Stephan wrote:
> I still recommend Receiver for HTML5 in this case.
>
> The dump looks like a mess and eventually gdb is unable to process
> this dump of a Linux binary on NetBSD correctly. It would be
> interesting to know what is mapped at 0xba90004d. Yo
I still recommend Receiver for HTML5 in this case.
The dump looks like a mess and eventually gdb is unable to process
this dump of a Linux binary on NetBSD correctly. It would be
interesting to know what is mapped at 0xba90004d. You could break at
that adress (b *0xba90004d) and check with pmap. A
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:44:32PM +0100, Stephan wrote:
> Why don´t you just use the Receiver for HTML5? With regard to your
> crash, do you have a backtrace handy?
Have a look at Jose's from earlier in this thread:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2016/02/03/msg017788.html
P
Why don´t you just use the Receiver for HTML5? With regard to your
crash, do you have a backtrace handy?
2016-02-25 14:03 GMT+01:00 Patrick Welche :
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:31:35PM +0100, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
>> > On 2
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:31:35PM +0100, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> > On 2/1/2016 3:51 PM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
>
>
> > Have you tried downloading a newer version of the client from Citrix's site?
>
> I have just
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 3:51 PM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> Have you tried downloading a newer version of the client from Citrix's site?
I have just tried the last version of citrix as you told me.
It solves the problem of the certificat
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Hal Murray wrote:
>
>> Without something like a chain-of-trust you don't know that your encrypted
>> connection is going to the right site.
>>
>
> I understand it's design purpose, but I disagree with where the design
> pu
On 2/1/2016 3:51 PM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
It is still in pkgsrc : net/citrix_ica version 10.6.115659. It worked
until my company changed the certificates to godaddy. I have been
unable to configure the SSL certificates. I am thinking that it can be
the SSL client doesn't understand
swiftgri...@gmail.com said:
> Well, the way I understand it, (and I'm probably wrong) but a
> man-in-the-middle would have to be able to break Diffie Hellman
How did you get your banks public key? Without a chain-of-trust you have to
get it on your own and the man in the middle has a good chanc
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Hal Murray wrote:
Without something like a chain-of-trust you don't know that your encrypted
connection is going to the right site.
I understand it's design purpose, but I disagree with where the design
puts that trust. When it comes down to brass-tacks, do you trust Verisi
swiftgri...@gmail.com said:
> hat 99% of folks who use SSL care about is _transport_ encryption, NOT the
> chain-of-trust, which I consider to be fundamentally flawed and broken at
> it's very core.
Without something like a chain-of-trust you don't know that your encrypted
connection is going
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
It is still in pkgsrc : net/citrix_ica version 10.6.115659.
Ugh. I forgot about that. I need to go back to i386. It fails for AMD64,
but yeah, it's still a certificate trust-nightmare.
I used to mildly dislike SSL before it was completel
> If you're content with VirtualBox, Microsoft themselves provide images
> of various versions of Windows with various versions of IE already
> installed.
>
> https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
> They have a portal
>The so-called "Citrix Receiver" ? I've tried it using both Wine and Linux
>emulation. The Linux version was a huge pain. It segfaulted, whined about SSL
>/ x509 certificates (so tired of seeing this lately in apps), and had the
>usual way-too-many-dependencies on a zillion worthless GUI librari
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
Does anyone tried a new version of citrix (not the one from pkgsrc)
client in NetBSD?
The so-called "Citrix Receiver" ? I've tried it using both Wine and Linux
emulation. The Linux version was a huge pain. It segfaulted, whined about
SSL
On 30 January 2016 at 20:26, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia
wrote:
> I have tried this other time. (I tried it in the past also without success).
>
> The package is broken, and one file that tries to download from
> Microsoft is not longer available. (mfc42.cab)
>
> After of downloading manually the m
I have tried this other time. (I tried it in the past also without success).
The package is broken, and one file that tries to download from
Microsoft is not longer available. (mfc42.cab)
After of downloading manually the missing package from web archiv,
fixing the scripts of ies4linux, it instal
Thank you. If I have the energy, I will ask in some Citrix forum, if
they can resolve the problem with certificates.
Does anyone tried a new version of citrix (not the one from pkgsrc)
client in NetBSD?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> On January 29, 2016 5:31:17 AM E
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:58:52AM -0700, Swift Griggs wrote:
> * I get slightly better performance on system benchmarks (again mostly the
> memory benchmarks) with AMD64. Interestingly, lately with NetBSD 7.0
> some benchmarks are beating Linux across the board on the same hardware
> (I use
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Hal Murray wrote:
The thing you get with 64 bits is pointers that work in more than 4
gigabytes of memory.
Yes, of course, but with PAE that shouldn't be a problem. Of course, it
appears that PAE is still considered experimental in NetBSD, since it's
not enabled by defaul
swiftgri...@gmail.com said:
> All in all, Mayuresh, while I can see some reasons to run AMD64, I'm really
> on the same wavelength as you are - what's the point of hassling with AMD64
> anyway ? Perhaps someone will point out the "killer feature" that we
> missed. :-)
The thing you get with 6
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Mayuresh wrote:
This may be an OT.
Nah, it's "user" related. Spot on the topic. :-)
I don't think using i386 is a bad idea either, unless one has some
specific reason to use amd64.
I mostly agree with this sentiment.
I recently switched to amd64. I gained nothing, at l
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:13:29AM -0700, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Mayuresh wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:31:17AM +0100, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> >>I need to use Internet Explorer for access a web from my company:
> >www/ies4linux? [ I haven't used of late. ]
>
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Mayuresh wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:31:17AM +0100, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
I need to use Internet Explorer for access a web from my company:
www/ies4linux? [ I haven't used of late. ]
That is a useful package, but it won't work if you are on NetBSD 7.0 AM
On January 29, 2016 5:31:17 AM EST, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia
wrote:
>I need to use Internet Explorer for access a web from my company:
>Siebel software.
>
>It uses Active X and it only works with Internet Explorer. (They
>haven't activated the mode of Siebel Software for non Microsoft
>browsers
If you're content with VirtualBox, Microsoft themselves provide images
of various versions of Windows with various versions of IE already
installed.
https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/
On 01/29/2016 05:31 AM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> I need to use Internet Explorer for access a web from my company:
> Siebel software.
>
> It uses Active X and it only works with Internet Explorer. (They
> haven't activated the mode of Siebel Software for non Microsoft
> browsers).
>
>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:31:17AM +0100, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> I need to use Internet Explorer for access a web from my company:
www/ies4linux? [ I haven't used of late. ]
Mayuresh.
33 matches
Mail list logo