Nexenta Core Platform (NexentaCP) RC2 is available at:
http://www.nexenta.org
Release highlights:
* OpenSolaris build 80+ (non-debug)
* Project integration: NWS, AVS, COMSTAR, in-kernel CIFS client
* apt-clone: ZFS-integrated safe upgrade via remote APT repository.
Support for in-plac
PyLucene can now be built on Solaris.
http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/pylucene-dev/2008-January/002204.html
Andi..
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I just got installed FreeBSD 6.2 last night and it does work with the latest
SXDE (build 70) grub.
This is the first time I've installed FreeBSD. I believe there was an option
of where to install the loader, and I put it only in the FreeBSD partition.
There was an option to not install the l
> Yup. This is 6174625 ::memstat should not show ridiculous amounts of free
> memory
>
ah ha
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6174625
funny there is no fix listed yet even though a code sample seems to be in
the bug report. I can only assume hat the issue is non-trivia
Yup. This is 6174625 ::memstat should not show ridiculous amounts of free memory
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Not too sure what is going on here. Thought I'd ask to see if anyone else
has seen this sort of thing :
aequitas console login: root
Password:
Last login: Sun Jan 13 23:57:53 on console
Jan 14 12:49:11 aequitas login: ROOT LOGIN /dev/console
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.11 gazelle Dec. 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > No, it cannot; it is even *theoretically* impossible to brute force a
> > password of that length. The universe is just not big enough.
> >
> > When 56 bits keys were introduced they were, perhaps, merely infeasible to
> > crack; but it was known that it was theoretic
[removed arc-discuss]
On Jan 12, 2008 6:05 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I understand your feelings, but, in your case, they seem to be without
> > justification. According to poll.os.o, you are a core contributer only
> > in the OG
>
>
>>> Right, but I'm not sure it was possible then, though such systems were
>>> clearly build later on.
>>
>>Now it is possible at home with a 400MHz pentium_pro.
>
> If you wait a long time (but the point is quickly and a 400Mhz Pentium Pro
> doesn't quite fit that bill).
>
>
>>> It seems that
>> Right, but I'm not sure it was possible then, though such systems were
>> clearly build later on.
>
>Now it is possible at home with a 400MHz pentium_pro.
If you wait a long time (but the point is quickly and a 400Mhz Pentium Pro
doesn't quite fit that bill).
>> It seems that the NSA has g
>>Exactly. Just like breaking the sound barrier or landing on the moon right?
>>If we use current numerical methods and theories then we can not brute
>> force
>>factor a number that large. It just can't be done. Period. At all. Ever.
>
> No, neither of the first two were ever theoretically imposs
>Exactly. Just like breaking the sound barrier or landing on the moon right?
>If we use current numerical methods and theories then we can not brute force
>factor a number that large. It just can't be done. Period. At all. Ever.
No, neither of the first two were ever theoretically impossible, eve
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> It is not impossible at all. Merely improbable. Even with current
>> techniques. So improbable because ( 2^128 - 1 ) =
>> 340282366920938463463374607431768211455 is a staggeringly large number. Even
>> Mathematica takes a pause to factor a numbe
>
>
>>It is not impossible at all. Merely improbable. Even with current
>>techniques. So improbable because ( 2^128 - 1 ) =
>>340282366920938463463374607431768211455 is a staggeringly large number.
>> Even
>>Mathematica takes a pause to factor a number that has prime factors in that
>>scale. But i
>It is not impossible at all. Merely improbable. Even with current
>techniques. So improbable because ( 2^128 - 1 ) =
>340282366920938463463374607431768211455 is a staggeringly large number. Even
>Mathematica takes a pause to factor a number that has prime factors in that
>scale. But it can be do
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> hi Dennis,
>
>>I use SSH daily and on just about everything I own. I do not wear a
>> tin-foil
>>hat but I do use aes256-cbc ( or similar ) as my Cipher of choice and I
>>generally configure servers to *only* accept aes256-cbc ( or similar ). I
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:22:35 +0100 (CET)
Jan Pechanec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ken Gunderson wrote:
>
> hi Ken,
>
> >$ ssh -V
> >OpenSSH_4.3, OpenSSL 0.9.7g 11 Apr 2005
> >$ uname -rs
> >OpenBSD 3.9
> >
> >and aes256 is still supported. So Sun has apparently w/hel
How are you logging on to the system? We're assuming that you logon as some
user other than root on the console, which starts either CDE or Gnome -
depending how you have it setup - then su to root in a terminal. If you are
logging in remotely then it's a completely different problem but that
doesn
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ken Gunderson wrote:
hi Ken,
>$ ssh -V
>OpenSSH_4.3, OpenSSL 0.9.7g 11 Apr 2005
>$ uname -rs
>OpenBSD 3.9
>
>and aes256 is still supported. So Sun has apparently w/held some of the
>strong crypto stuff. I'll leave the rest up to the conspiracy
>theorists...
OK. I installed it by normal user in folder /home/normaluser.
Does in Solaris, in root environment cannot display graphical interface?
I found that if I start gedit as root, same prob occurred.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>$ ssh -V
>>OpenSSH_4.3, OpenSSL 0.9.7g 11 Apr 2005
>>$ uname -rs
>>OpenBSD 3.9
>>
>>and aes256 is still supported. So Sun has apparently w/held some of the
>>strong crypto stuff. I'll leave the rest up to the conspiracy
>>theorists...
>
>That has s
>$ ssh -V
>OpenSSH_4.3, OpenSSL 0.9.7g 11 Apr 2005
>$ uname -rs
>OpenBSD 3.9
>
>and aes256 is still supported. So Sun has apparently w/held some of the
>strong crypto stuff. I'll leave the rest up to the conspiracy
>theorists...
That has something to do with export control and the way the ope
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck.
>Then that Sir is what I call a duck.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
>but it is different .. isn't it.
yes, that's the point. Changes specific for Solaris were ne
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:14:52 -0500 (EST)
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:36:13 -0500 (EST)
> > "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry for the confusing subject line but this is really just about OpenSSH
> >> as implemented in Solaris
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Dennis Clarke wrote:
hi Dennis,
>I use SSH daily and on just about everything I own. I do not wear a tin-foil
>hat but I do use aes256-cbc ( or similar ) as my Cipher of choice and I
>generally configure servers to *only* accept aes256-cbc ( or similar ). I
>also tend
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:36:13 -0500 (EST)
> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for the confusing subject line but this is really just about OpenSSH
>> as implemented in Solaris ( and various derivitives ) and any issues that
>> may exist between the OpenSSH team and the Sola
On Jan 14, 2008 10:47 AM, vuthecuong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >xhost + localhost
> >bash-3.2# DISPLAY=:0.0 /usr/openwin/bin/xclock
> Here is my result, still no luck:
> bash-3.2$ xhost + localhost
> localhost being added to access control list
> bash-3.2$ su -
> Password:
> Sun Microsystems In
I found that as normal user, if I ran xclock without adding DISPLAY=:0.0, it
apreared normally.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>xhost + localhost
>bash-3.2# DISPLAY=:0.0 /usr/openwin/bin/xclock
Here is my result, still no luck:
bash-3.2$ xhost + localhost
localhost being added to access control list
bash-3.2$ su -
Password:
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.11 snv_78 October 2007
You have new mail.
# bash
bash-3.2# DI
>So the short answer here is that I don't know what the Sun implementation of
>SSH is really but it seems to be NOT what we see at the source site. So that
>really is the only reason why I tend to run the packages built on reference
>servers that I trust and with source code drawn directly from t
>Wohaa! What is this??? Do you guys claim that Solaris x86 32bit recognizes and
>can use more memory
than 4GB (depending on the BIOS)? But... I have been told that no 32bit OS
can use more than 4
GB (windows XP users have told me that)!
Solaris will automatically enable PAE if you have mo
31 matches
Mail list logo
