Gnome Planner and Database support

I am running Fedora 14. I want to use the planner for small personal projects and I want to be able to view my plan from different hosts around the house. In the docs for Gnome Planner it says you can save to a PostgreSQL database. So, I set u pa PostgresSQL database per the instructions in the

Re: [OT] was, Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 10:13 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 09:40 PM, JD wrote: >> Actually, no. >> I mean drugs that will kill you even when you take them >> as Rx'ed! >> I am sure you have heard the TV/Radio ads for some drugs?? >> Many state that death is a possible side effect > Not to pick a nit,

Re: rc.local question/problem

On 7/2/2011 10:06 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 09:45 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote: >> That should be the case. (Of course, SELinux can break anything - if you >> run out of ideas you could turn it off to see if the behaviour changes.) > I've had experience with SELinux issues. There's somethin

Re: rc.local question/problem

inline and at tail ... On 7/2/2011 9:45 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 02Jul2011 20:40, Paul Allen Newell wrote: [...] Am I mistaken in thinking that I | can run any *.sh file in ~root in rc.local and it will be run as root | (meaning no permission problems). That should be the case. (Of course

[OT] was, Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 09:40 PM, JD wrote: > Actually, no. > I mean drugs that will kill you even when you take them > as Rx'ed! > I am sure you have heard the TV/Radio ads for some drugs?? > Many state that death is a possible side effect Not to pick a nit, but if you take a drug, such as penicillin, and

problem with cron.d/0hourly

In a fresh install of f14 x86_64, I am getting a failure when /etc/cron.d/0hourly is run. As it is a fresh install, I am pretty certain it is a potential bug. I searched the bug base under "cron", "cron.d", "crontab", and "run-parts" (the call that is in 0hourly), but didn't see anything. I su

Re: rc.local question/problem

On 07/02/2011 09:45 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > That should be the case. (Of course, SELinux can break anything - if you > run out of ideas you could turn it off to see if the behaviour changes.) I've had experience with SELinux issues. There's something about the Einstein@home work units that

Re: rc.local question/problem

On 02Jul2011 20:40, Paul Allen Newell wrote: | I am trying to run clamav from rc.local so it happens whenever I power | on and/or reboot. Script fails as though it can't open anything. Running | the script as root works like a champ. Am I mistaken in thinking that I | can run any *.sh file in ~

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 09:21 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 07/03/2011 11:59 AM, JD wrote: >> Taking this offline - >> with noscript, all are blocked by default - no whitelist. >> I temporarily unblock specific sites that I do business with. > OK. > > But just a request, from me at least. Could you make a note

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 09:12 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 08:32 PM, JD wrote: >> It is all based on vested interests who stand to profit from something >> that is pushed and marketed as safe. Like so many drug companies >> that pushed and still push drugs with deadly side effects. > You mean like ins

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/03/2011 11:59 AM, JD wrote: > Taking this offline - > with noscript, all are blocked by default - no whitelist. > I temporarily unblock specific sites that I do business with. OK. But just a request, from me at least. Could you make a note somewhere for yourself that you've disabled javasc

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 08:32 PM, JD wrote: > It is all based on vested interests who stand to profit from something > that is pushed and marketed as safe. Like so many drug companies > that pushed and still push drugs with deadly side effects. You mean like insulin? It can be deadly, you know, if you take

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Sunday 03 July 2011 00:39:28 JD wrote: > On 07/02/2011 10:39 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > On Saturday 02 July 2011 15:50:18 JD wrote: > >> If a javascript can browse all accessible files, what's there > >> to prevent someone from writing a javascript to spawn > >> a process to upload your file

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 08:51 PM, Dave Stevens wrote: > so.have you blocked it? > > d > Taking this offline - with noscript, all are blocked by default - no whitelist. I temporarily unblock specific sites that I do business with. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or c

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/03/2011 11:32 AM, JD wrote: > At the very least, javascript should be blocked just because > it is invasive! That is the conclusion you've reached for yourself based on your knowledge of the subject matter. So, by all means, disable javascript in your browser. Also, you'll need to do it in

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Quoting JD : > On 07/02/2011 06:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On 07/02/2011 05:48 PM, JD wrote: >>> I do understand why you are so shrill in defending >>> javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling. >>> Apparently it is your bread and butter :) >> JD, if one or two people here were insistin

rc.local question/problem

I am trying to run clamav from rc.local so it happens whenever I power on and/or reboot. Script fails as though it can't open anything. Running the script as root works like a champ. Am I mistaken in thinking that I can run any *.sh file in ~root in rc.local and it will be run as root (meaning

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 06:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 05:48 PM, JD wrote: >> I do understand why you are so shrill in defending >> javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling. >> Apparently it is your bread and butter :) > JD, if one or two people here were insisting that you're wrong,

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 08:07 PM, JD wrote: > Just as the article mentions. > That "troubling history" of security holes in javascript > is in and of itself a much stronger conviction of wrongdoing > than I have provided. Calling it "bugs" is laughable at best. The page itself says that it was created on 20

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 06:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 03:31, schrieb JD: > >>> so what will you tell us? >>> that you are a noob and picking some documents you do not understand? >>> everybody here has realized this long ago! >>> >> And you ignore: >> "...JavaScript has a more troubling hi

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/03/2011 09:48 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > JD writes: > >> I sent a reply to Ed. Read that one. > > I've read what you wrote. Now, why don't you just solve your problem > turn off Javascript in Firefox, and move on with your life. > > I still wonder how he has convinced himself that somehow

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 7/2/2011 7:28 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Mark C. Allman wrote: >> I read a few of the e-mails in this thread and that's all I needed to >> see. I think it's time for the list moderator to step in and call it a >> draw. > A draw?! > > If you ignore the harsh language, t

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Mark C. Allman wrote: > > I read a few of the e-mails in this thread and that's all I needed to > see.  I think it's time for the list moderator to step in and call it a > draw. A draw?! If you ignore the harsh language, the OP's saying "the earth is flat" no mat

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 06:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > sorry, but i can not resist answer this way to people > who are showing over hours that they are dumb noobs and > believing they have understand the whole world and > all others out there are failing Can you at least resist the temptation to do it in

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

I read a few of the e-mails in this thread and that's all I needed to see. I think it's time for the list moderator to step in and call it a draw. -- Mark C. Allman, PMP, CSM Allman Professional Consulting, Inc. First Vice-President, Ocean State PMI www.allmanpc.com, 617-947-4263 Follow allman

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/03/2011 09:35 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 03:31, schrieb JD: > >>> so what will you tell us? >>> that you are a noob and picking some documents you do not understand? >>> everybody here has realized this long ago! >>> >> And you ignore: >> "...JavaScript has a more troubling hi

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 7/2/2011 6:44 PM, Chris wrote: > Keep the language clean. I hope the moderator is watching It is time to ask, not hope, that moderator is watching ... this is one of the uglier dialogues I've seen -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 03:51, schrieb JD: > On 07/02/2011 06:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 03.07.2011 03:23, schrieb JD: >> >>> You missed the import of what I was saying... >>> that a javascript pushed by a website, >>> forced on my browser to execute on my machine >>> is in and of itself a violat

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 06:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 03:23, schrieb JD: > >> You missed the import of what I was saying... >> that a javascript pushed by a website, >> forced on my browser to execute on my machine >> is in and of itself a violation of privacy and security. >> Furthermore,

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

JD writes: You missed the import of what I was saying... that a javascript pushed by a website, forced on my browser to execute on my machine is in and of itself a violation of privacy and security. Ok, understood. In Firefox, there's a setting to disable Javascript. Switch it off. Problem so

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

i hope too and that he kicks off this stupid troll! Am 03.07.2011 03:44, schrieb Chris: > Keep the language clean. I hope the moderator is watching > - Original Message - > From: "Reindl Harald" > To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 9:26:56 PM > Subject: Re: F

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Keep the language clean. I hope the moderator is watching - Original Message - From: "Reindl Harald" To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 9:26:56 PM Subject: Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router Am 03.07.2011 03:23, schrieb JD: > You missed the

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 05:48 PM, JD wrote: > I do understand why you are so shrill in defending > javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling. > Apparently it is your bread and butter :) JD, if one or two people here were insisting that you're wrong, and that javascript can't do what you say it'

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 03:31, schrieb JD: >> so what will you tell us? >> that you are a noob and picking some documents you do not understand? >> everybody here has realized this long ago! >> > And you ignore: > "...JavaScript has a more troubling history of security holes" > http://www.w3.org/Secur

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 06:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 03:18, schrieb JD: > >> Quote: >> /" ...Javascript/ is a client language, but you /can/ combine it whit a >> server language to /delete files/. in PHP you /can/ use unlink() >> function to /delete file/. *...*" >> http://digitarald.de/f

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 03:23, schrieb JD: > You missed the import of what I was saying... > that a javascript pushed by a website, > forced on my browser to execute on my machine > is in and of itself a violation of privacy and security. > Furthermore, it would be incredibly shortsighted > (stating it mi

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 03:18, schrieb JD: > Quote: > /" ...Javascript/ is a client language, but you /can/ combine it whit a > server language to /delete files/. in PHP you /can/ use unlink() > function to /delete file/. *...*" > http://digitarald.de/forums/topic.php?id=110 and this is the best exampl

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 05:42 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > JD writes: > >> On 07/02/2011 02:42 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote: >> > On 2 July 2011 22:20, JD wrote: >> >> On my machine, when I disable javascript, it is unable to display >> my files. >> >> I understand that the browser is supposed to be able to display

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 05:34 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 07/03/2011 07:45 AM, JD wrote: >> Why do you resort to name calling? >> It is not hysterics. >> A javascript sent by we site can, if written >> to do so, open your files and upload them to >> some remote site; and you call this hysterics? >> Something

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 02:48, schrieb JD: > I do understand why you are so shrill in defending > javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling. > Apparently it is your bread and butter :) no because the world where i develop is living on the serverside there is nothing to defend agianst learnin

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 05:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 02:17, schrieb JD: >> When I knowingly and deliberately browse my files, >> cannot be deemed to be the same as a javascript >> that some web site sends to my computer to be executed >> by the browser to snoop on my files. > why do you n

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 02:42, schrieb Sam Varshavchik: > What you're missing is that a remote server's ability to instruct your web > browser to open the contents of file:/// > URL is limited to precisely that: your web browser opening and displaying the > contents of file:///. The remote > server's ja

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 02:36, schrieb JD: > On 07/02/2011 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 03.07.2011 01:39, schrieb JD: >>> As far as writing, the script is running with the user >>> credentials. Why would it not be able to write to or >>> delete the user's own files or other users' files which >>> ha

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

JD writes: On 07/02/2011 02:42 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote: > On 2 July 2011 22:20, JD wrote: >> On my machine, when I disable javascript, it is unable to display my files. >> I understand that the browser is supposed to be able to display your files >> with the file:/// URL. >> I just was not expe

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:45 PM, JD wrote: > > A javascript sent by we site can, if written > to do so, open your files and upload them to > some remote site; and you call this hysterics? > Something is wrong with your thinking to resort > to name calling. > I think user's awareness, that javascrip

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 01:45, schrieb JD: > >> A javascript sent by we site can, if written >> to do so, open your files and upload them to >> some remote site; and you call this hysterics? > yes because you have no plan about what you are speaking > and waht

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 03.07.2011 01:39, schrieb JD: >> As far as writing, the script is running with the user >> credentials. Why would it not be able to write to or >> delete the user's own files or other users' files which >> have permissive perms settings? > BECAUSE J

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/03/2011 07:45 AM, JD wrote: > Why do you resort to name calling? > It is not hysterics. > A javascript sent by we site can, if written > to do so, open your files and upload them to > some remote site; and you call this hysterics? > Something is wrong with your thinking to resort > to name ca

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 02:23, schrieb JD: > When I disabled javascript, the the link in the > router's page could no longer open > file:/// oh what a wonder > I am not saying that THAT script in itself is a terrible > threat. There are far more sophisticated javascripts > than just displaying your file

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 02:17, schrieb JD: > When I knowingly and deliberately browse my files, > cannot be deemed to be the same as a javascript > that some web site sends to my computer to be executed > by the browser to snoop on my files. why do you not stop talking about things you do not understand s

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 02:42 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote: > On 2 July 2011 22:20, JD wrote: >> On my machine, when I disable javascript, it is unable to display my files. >> I understand that the browser is supposed to be able to display your files >> with the file:/// URL. >> I just was not expecting my router t

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 01:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 02.07.2011 16:50, schrieb JD: >> On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: >>> When will the linux community wake up and shout out loud: Kill JavaScript from all browsers and all network servers >>

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

dear JD - please stop this idiotic thread javascript has no capability to write or delete local files javascript has no capability to upload files without user-interaction javascript has no capability to read local files directly so what is your problem? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digi

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 01:45, schrieb JD: > A javascript sent by we site can, if written > to do so, open your files and upload them to > some remote site; and you call this hysterics? yes because you have no plan about what you are speaking and waht javascriot is allowe and not learn basics and do not

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 03.07.2011 01:39, schrieb JD: > As far as writing, the script is running with the user > credentials. Why would it not be able to write to or > delete the user's own files or other users' files which > have permissive perms settings? BECAUSE JAVASCRIPT CAN NOT DO THIS > It is the fact that as

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 01:07 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 21:14 -0700, JD wrote: > >> You are right. >> It turns out it does it via the intruder which the whole >> world was deceived by Sun that it only plays in a sandbox >> and has no access to anything outside that sandbox: Javascript. >

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 10:39 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Saturday 02 July 2011 15:50:18 JD wrote: >> On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: It is THE trojan horse hiding in plain site and can access EVERYTHING on your system that YOU have access to an

Re: My eyes! My eyes!

On 07/03/2011 12:34 AM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > On 07/01/2011 07:19 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote: >> Christopher Svanefalk wrote: >> >>> I just wanted to ask if someone has any advice to themes for Gnome2 (I >>> am running F14) that are reputed to be gentle on the eyes? >> I know you are

Re: My eyes! My eyes!

On 07/01/2011 07:19 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote: > Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > >> I just wanted to ask if someone has any advice to themes for Gnome2 (I >> am running F14) that are reputed to be gentle on the eyes? > I know you are looking for a full easy-eye theme, but... > > What I have do

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 14:31 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > On 07/02/2011 02:15 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: > > On 07/02/2011 02:11 PM, inode0 wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > >>> I used: (((foo==0)?foo=1:0)) and it works in a bash script! > >> I don't think

Re: My eyes! My eyes!

On 07/01/2011 01:56 PM, Constantine wrote: > Hi! > > I had the same problem for a while. Try to follow instructions from > here http://www.infinality.net/blog/. > It really works for me. > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Christopher Svanefalk > > wrote:

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 2 July 2011 22:20, JD wrote: > On my machine, when I disable javascript, it is unable to display my files. > I understand that the browser is supposed to be able to display your files > with the file:/// URL. > I just was not expecting my router to issue a javascript to > to access my files. An

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 11:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 02.07.2011 23:16, schrieb Christopher Svanefalk: > >> Reindl - just a friendly tip: going civil goes a long way. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris > sorry, but reading so much bulls**it from OP hurts me > Yea man I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, I'm just

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 02:15 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 07/02/2011 02:11 PM, inode0 wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >>> I used: (((foo==0)?foo=1:0)) and it works in a bash script! >> I don't think that is quite the same as what I'm guessing your >> original attempt i

Acrobat reader doesn't work under Konqueror

Hello, I Installed f15 -gnome, but I didn't like, I couldn't find any thing and after a couple of days of struggling I decided that I had need to do some work and relearn a completely a new way to find my way around I decided to install f15-KDE here all thaw I never used before I was able to do

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 02.07.2011 23:16, schrieb Christopher Svanefalk: > Reindl - just a friendly tip: going civil goes a long way. > > Cheers, > > Chris sorry, but reading so much bulls**it from OP hurts me signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 10:21 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Saturday 02 July 2011 17:10:33 JD wrote: >> On 07/02/2011 08:12 AM, Brendan Jones wrote: >>> On 07/02/2011 01:45 PM, JD wrote: So how is the router doing it? This is a very disconcerting security hole and I have not been able to nai

Re: DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 10:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 02.07.2011 16:50, schrieb JD: >> On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: >>> When will the linux community wake up and shout out loud: Kill JavaScript from all browsers and all network servers >>

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 02:11 PM, inode0 wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >> I used: (((foo==0)?foo=1:0)) and it works in a bash script! > > I don't think that is quite the same as what I'm guessing your > original attempt intended. In this case if foo does not equal 0 to >

DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 02.07.2011 16:50, schrieb JD: > On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: >> >>> When will the linux community wake up and shout out loud: >>> Kill JavaScript from all browsers and all network servers >>> and network clients >> never because the community

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 21:14 -0700, JD wrote: > You are right. > It turns out it does it via the intruder which the whole > world was deceived by Sun that it only plays in a sandbox > and has no access to anything outside that sandbox: Javascript. what does javascript have to do with Sun? It i

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On Saturday, July 02, 2011 02:11:52 PM inode0 wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > I used: (((foo==0)?foo=1:0)) and it works in a bash script! > > I don't think that is quite the same as what I'm guessing your > original attempt intended. In this case if foo does

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > I used:  (((foo==0)?foo=1:0)) and it works in a bash script! I don't think that is quite the same as what I'm guessing your original attempt intended. In this case if foo does not equal 0 to begin with it won't be set to 0. Perhaps that d

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 11:30 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 07/02/2011 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >> I seem to forget my shell programming >> but is the following statement valid? >> >> ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 >> >> I thought it was called the tristate conditional >> operator but in any case I could n

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > I seem to forget my shell programming > but is the following statement valid? > > ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 > > I thought it was called the tristate conditional > operator but in any case I could not find it in > google. You need to enclose the enti

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > I seem to forget my shell programming > but is the following statement valid? > > ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 > > I thought it was called the tristate conditional > operator but in any case I could not find it in > google. I think you might

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 11:01 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > With a small detail that the "$" in "$foo" is not actually a valid C construct > itself, right? > > Or were you looking at the subject line, where the code doesn't have the "$"? The trinary operator itself is a valid C construct, even though the ex

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On Saturday 02 July 2011 18:50:46 Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 10:45 AM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > I seem to forget my shell programming > > but is the following statement valid? > > > > ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 > > > > I thought it was called the tristate conditional > > operator but in any c

Re: Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

On 07/02/2011 10:45 AM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > I seem to forget my shell programming > but is the following statement valid? > > ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 > > I thought it was called the tristate conditional > operator but in any case I could not find it in > google. > > I don't know if it's all

Bash: (foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 valid?

I seem to forget my shell programming but is the following statement valid? ($foo==0)?foo=1:foo=0 I thought it was called the tristate conditional operator but in any case I could not find it in google. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Saturday 02 July 2011 15:50:18 JD wrote: > On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: > >> It is THE trojan horse hiding in plain site and can access > >> EVERYTHING on your system that YOU have access to and > >> send it back to whatever destination the ja

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On Saturday 02 July 2011 17:10:33 JD wrote: > On 07/02/2011 08:12 AM, Brendan Jones wrote: > > On 07/02/2011 01:45 PM, JD wrote: > >> So how is the router doing it? > >> This is a very disconcerting security hole and I have not been > >> able to nail it down to any daemon running on my Fedora. > >

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 08:12 AM, Brendan Jones wrote: > On 07/02/2011 01:45 PM, JD wrote: >> So how is the router doing it? >> This is a very disconcerting security hole and I have not been >> able to nail it down to any daemon running on my Fedora. >> > Isn't the page just redirecting to file:/// ? > > You

Re: Comaintaining and/or help for qucs and freehdl

On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:22:25 +0200, Eric Tanguy wrote: > I can't continue to maintain qucs because it FTBS and i'm not able to > solve the problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631404 > i need help or the package will be retired. I'm taking a look at qucs now. I might be able

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 01:45 PM, JD wrote: > So how is the router doing it? > This is a very disconcerting security hole and I have not been > able to nail it down to any daemon running on my Fedora. > Isn't the page just redirecting to file:/// ? You can do the same by typing that into the address bar yo

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 05:16 AM, James McKenzie wrote: > On 7/1/11 9:14 PM, JD wrote: >> Common people! JAVASCRIPT being executed by your >> browser on your system is a HUGE WIDE OPEN SECURITY HOLE!!! >> > You do have the option of turning it off, you know. That is one thing > every security expert knows

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 07/02/2011 01:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: > >> When will the linux community wake up and shout out loud: >> Kill JavaScript from all browsers and all network servers >> and network clients > never because the community is not dumb > why do we not forbid knifes

Re: installing F-15 on Mac

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 15:15 +0200, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > On 07/01/2011 02:48 PM, Gary Waters wrote: > > On 07/01/2011 08:37 AM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > >> On 07/01/2011 01:55 PM, Gary Waters wrote: > >>> I have a friend with an intel-based i-mac. He seems interested in trying > >>>

Re: Request

On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 17:21 +0530, piyush saini wrote: > Request to post to list > thanks You just did. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

On 7/1/11 9:14 PM, JD wrote: > > Common people! JAVASCRIPT being executed by your > browser on your system is a HUGE WIDE OPEN SECURITY HOLE!!! > You do have the option of turning it off, you know. That is one thing every security expert knows about and disables in a major way. James -- user

Re: f15 sync slow after couple of days

On 7/1/11 4:06 PM, Rich Emberson wrote: > When I first start my machine, a sync takes less than a second > and compiling a small Java project takse 34 seconds. > > After running for two days, a sync takes 25 to 30 seconds (and running > sync just after a sync still takes that long) > and compilin

Re: Request

On 07/02/2011 07:51 PM, piyush saini wrote: > Request to post to list > No permission is necessary. Anyone subscribed can do it. So, go for it... -- Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to? -- Clarence Darrow -- users mailing list users@lists.fedorapr

Request

Request to post to list thanks -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

Comaintaining and/or help for qucs and freehdl

I can't continue to maintain qucs because it FTBS and i'm not able to solve the problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631404 i need help or the package will be retired. Thanks Eric -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: ht

Re: Running httpd as a user

Around 07:49am on Saturday, July 02, 2011 (UK time), Jonathan Gardner scrawled: > I build websites for a living. I'd like to get /usr/sbin/httpd running > as a regular user. I've setup a directory with a simple httpd.conf on > my F15 install. When it starts up, I get a single message in the error

Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

Am 02.07.2011 06:14, schrieb JD: > When will the linux community wake up and shout out loud: > Kill JavaScript from all browsers and all network servers > and network clients never because the community is not dumb why do we not forbid knifes since people are killed with them? > It is THE troja